Andy:
Must admit that the fine points of size elude me but I think that monitor “resolution" is definitely a factor. If the monitor is 72 ppi then the 1000 pixel size image will appear to be about 14 inches on the screen … if the monitor is 100 ppi then the same image will only be 10 inches on the screen. The higher the resolution of the monitor the smaller any given image will appear. Is this thinking about right or are there other factors involved?
that's exactly right Andy. Mind you monitor resolution can confuse people too, thinking of the old '72 dpi' which became part of everyone's thinking as mac compuer screens were all set to 72 dpi. Other operating systems varied quite a lot from that and it depended how the user set up their monitor.
Some set their screens for 640x480 on the old 14" monitors just to make things easier to see, others would set 600x800. In the former case a 480 pixel image would fill the screen, and occupy only 8and a bit inches of the 14" (linear) width..
..although other factors can be involved when you're talking about web pages as of course in the html code you can set the image size .. such as:
( <img src="//images/whatever.jpg" border="0" width="500"> ) this makes the width 500 pixels irrespective of the actual pixel size the image is, similarly the code could express the size as a % of the page width and this all changes things.
I see bad examples of this on sites like Gizmodo where viewers will regularly see some images loading very slowly, downloading that image you might find they've got a 6000x4000 pixel image in their article due to lazy or inept web page construction - rather than resizing the image the person has just dumped the image in and used the code perameters to 'reduce' it's size - this must be really annoying for people on slow connections.
I don't get fussed when it is say a 1200 pixel image that may be sized in the code to say 300 pixels for a preview and the viewer can click the image for a larger view - it's not a massive difference in the filesize but what Giz do is silly and lazy.
What I would do if I were having issues with submitted images (or when I create my own pages of images) is use a batch resampling script to resample all the images dumped into a folder setting the images to a specific dimension limit - say set max height 500pixels, set max width 800pixels retain proportions and use adecent resampling algorithm*. Alternatively I could do the same thing in the webpage code just as I put above - this unfortunately can leave images jaggy if the web browser doesn't have the wit to smooth out and render images cleanly, the issue there tends to throw blame at the viewer when the image looks lousy.. alternatively with a clever browser it can imbue an author with credit that may not be warrnated when a lousy image is rendered well by the browsers smoothing algorthms !
and here we are all these down the track in this 'digital is easier' era <grumble> ;)
k(* I still stick to irfanview in windows for these task, it doesn't even require the program to be running as a DOS script can take a folder of images and batch resize them in milliseconds using the program code hidden from the user - large images in, resampled ones out - snap)
, photoroy6@xxxxxxx wrote: Andy,I think there might be another factor in the viewing size. I did both 1000 pix in longest dimension and 200Kb in maximum size. I'm on a computer in a library in VA and a few of my images have run off the 18" monitors here. I have put 36 images on a flash stick that I made from 4 x 6" proofing files. I left the ppi of the images at 300. When I get back to NC in a few weeks I will change them down to 150 or 100 ppi and see what happens to the size on the screen. The resolution on most monitors is around 100 ppi so this seems like a reasonable explanation.Roy Large images that run off the edges of average monitors are a pain.
