Mike wrote:
> OK, I'll stick with 800x600 for a while longer.
>
1680x1050
I moved up to 840 long side for landscape and 760 for portrait some time
ago. Haven't heard any complaints - but then, maybe nobody is looking. ;-)
The HD proportion screens are really bad for portrait orientation
images. I often crop verticals differently for the web than for my off
web use just to shorten the vertical dimension.
I occasionally go larger for special reasons. The 1940s banquet camera
image I posted a while ago is 1500 pixels wide and a recent panorama was
1200. I can see all of 1500 by temporarily closing my bookmarks list -
getting it back is only one keystroke (or is Ctrl-B, two? 1.5?)
The reason I went large with those images is simple, the sense, point,
whatever you call it, of the image disappears at smaller sizes. So if
some people don't view it due to size, that's just the breaks, as they
wouldn't see it properly anyway, if it were smaller.
The occasional panorama images I see on the web that are something like
800x200 seem to me entirely useless.
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|