I'd like to get some point of views regarding image resizing ....
Handling images is always a lot of work, having to resize, give names, then alt tags then titles etc ..... Depending on the design, on one page one image has to be 200px wide , on another 150 and in the gallery 600px ..... Hw do you handl this, do you really resize all images so they fit where they need to be , and do thumbs everytime or do you use automatic resizing .... Server side, css ?
In an ideal world I would like to have just one folder with one version of all images and be able to use those ones without having to resize them manually .... What do you reckon ?
Obviously, I'm not talking about high resolution images or full screen images but images that would rnge between 400 to 600px wide for instance. Do we still have to think about server load and download speed today in 2012 ? Do you think or know it really affects ranking on search engines .... well ... debate is open , I'm really interested in getting all point of views as they surely be very different from one user to another !!
In the old days, when connection speeds were modem-sized, it was important to be conservative with regard to page weight. In this era of high-speed internet, it's not so much. My pages that use lots of full-size and thumbnail images will often just use the larger image resized for the thumbnail. Resizing down is fast and cosmetically acceptable.
Also, I'm certain that image size has no impact on search engine ranking.
Depends what you want to do. If you want to show the whole image as a thumbnail then I guess you can use the full-sized one scaled down (then of course you are restriced to keeping the thumbnail in pro) BUT many thumbnail galleries only show a section of the larger image for the thumbnail to provide greater impact when down at quite a small size, then you have no option but to make 2 images, one thumbnail and one large image. The devil is in the detail.