Standard posting size on BPN

[arash_hazeghi]

The standard posting size on BPN is 1024 pixels max, while I understand some people might have concerns about copyright and posting larger versions, now that most screens are at least HD resolution and with all the new cameras 1024 seems a bit too small at times to show off all the feather details, especially if you want to crop wider to include more of the habitat. Is there any particular reason why BPN has not increased image size to 1280 or more?


What is the standard resolution that you save your photos after processing the RAW files?

[Harshad Barve]

I think 1024 should be fine , everyone may not be using big monitors

[arash_hazeghi]

I think 1024 should be fine , everyone may not be using big monitors

True but today even the cheapest and lowest end laptop you can buy is at least 1280 or 1440 pixels wide, let alone desktop LCDs.

[Sabyasachi Patra]

Arash,
Frequent business travellers use the smaller laptops. In our office I was asked as to why I specially choose a laptop with 1680 pix as it is heavier.

Also, some of the offices still have desktops with smaller resolutions. These days it is easy to check the traffic according to monitor size. The ownership group can easily check it.

Cheers,
Sabyasachi

[Jay Gould]

Unless I am specifically posting on a forum (in which case I size specifically for the particular forum - they are not all either 1024 or 200kb), or I am sizing for a particular print size, I do not reduce the size of my final image. I simply save it at the after crop working size as a layered .psd; if I have sized for print and applied output capture I save it as a flattened .tiff at that particular size too. I travel more than six months each year with a laptop so 1024 is just fine with me.

[Harshad Barve]

Arash,
Frequent business travellers use the smaller laptops.

While travelling I use my mini laptop which serves me to be in touch and save images
1024 looks fine on that

[arash_hazeghi]

Arash,
Frequent business travellers use the smaller laptops. In our office I was asked as to why I specially choose a laptop with 1680 pix as it is heavier.

Also, some of the offices still have desktops with smaller resolutions. These days it is easy to check the traffic according to monitor size. The ownership group can easily check it.

Cheers,
Sabyasachi

It would be interesting if the site admin can check to see what precentage each group shares.

Lol no wonder some people see color casts and blown whites, must be the crappy travel laoptop screens :D

[Axel Hildebrandt]

I use Google Analytics on my website and over 20% of people still have a monitor with 1024x768 screen resolution or lower.

[Harshad Barve]

BTW 1600 wide file less 200kb wont look better either :)

[arash_hazeghi]

I use Google Analytics on my website and over 20% of people still have a monitor with 1024x768 screen resolution or lower.

Interesting, these must the iphones and netbooks. I remember in 1997 I had a 15" CRT screen that had 1024X768 native resolution and it was considered high resolution at that time :eek: compared to 14." Today LCDs start at 1280 pixels.

[Ben Egbert]

I save everything full size and put a full size image at my MugMug gallery. SmugMug does the reduction for me including the final sharpening.

My monitor is a NEC 2690WUXi, at 1920x1200 and wide gamut, under NEC hardware level calibration. I do everything at home in Prophoto RGB 16bit and save a flattend file in PSD. My workflow changes so much I see no need to waste the space of layered PSD's.

Of course my gallery is jpg sRGB, but full size, even my 1DS-mk3 landscapes.

[Ed Cordes]

While my monitor at home - mostly my lap top is 1280 my work monitor is less. So, I am happy the way it is now.

[Jim Poor]

If you look back a few months, you'll see that this conversation happened when the limits were even smaller than they are now.