> AKAG just posts large images, and lets the viewer deal with it. Or does he?
> Here's what Win7 says about one of his
> recent images on Firefox: "1,920px × 1,440px (scaled to 1,622px × 1,217px)"
> If I right click and choose "View Image" , I
> get the full resolution version. Switching between the two, it seems that it
> loses something in translation.
My site is built with a CMS using an "adaptive" template that changes
size and layout depending on the user's device. Most of my images are
sized with 1600 pixels long-side, but if the image is 16:9 ratio, I
will up that to 1920 width. As an adaptive website, the images will
scale downward as necessary for ideal presentation in your browser.
I post images on multiple platforms, including facebook, twitter,
onlyfans, etc., and have found 1600 to be a good compromise size, but
if 16:9, 1920 is definitely better. I force all the scaling downward
to be done automatically so I don't have to think about it.
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/