Skip navigation
Polly Thronsen
Currently Being Moderated

photo size for webpage

Mar 26, 2013 3:09 AM

What file settings and image sizing (eg- quality, resolution, colour space, pixels etc) should I use to upload photos to my webpage? I dont want to use the web galleries tool.

Thanks

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 26, 2013 4:29 AM   in reply to Polly Thronsen

    File Type: JPEG

    Color Space: sRGB

    Resolution is irrelevant as the file will be identicial no matter what number is used (unlike a print)

     

    The rest depends upon you.

    Size: depends upon how big you want it to look, 800px is a reasonable size that is big enough to see but small enough not to make high

    Quality: Mid-range to balance between speed and quality

    Here is an example screen showing Export settings that will work and can be tweaked to your desire. But in the end you have to decide some things on your own.

    3-26-2013 6-26-26 AM.jpg

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 26, 2013 5:42 AM   in reply to Polly Thronsen

    That is a hopeless quest. There will always be those who are willing to have low quality prints if they are free. The most you can do is to make it a bit more difficult by disabling right-click functions and watermarking the image.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 26, 2013 6:09 AM   in reply to elie-d

    Disabling right-click, is a waste of time. The image can still be retrieved from the browser cache. The only sure way of not having your pictures copied is watermarking, as you have said, or not putting them on a web page in the first place.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 26, 2013 6:32 AM   in reply to Polly Thronsen

    I use resolution 72 which is really ugly if printed... I think watermark is distracting to the viewer

    Also, the Kodak "golden standard" 778x517 is often used for this purpose. While it's pretty close to 800x600, supposedly it displays a bit faster, especially true for slower systems

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 29, 2013 6:23 PM   in reply to Oliver P.Smile

    olvierpsmile@yahoo.com wrote:

     

    I use resolution 72 which is really ugly if printed... I think watermark is distracting to the viewer

    Also, the Kodak "golden standard" 778x517 is often used for this purpose. While it's pretty close to 800x600, supposedly it displays a bit faster, especially true for slower systems

    As Rikk previously mentioned, the file export specification of "resolution" whatever the number (even 72) has no bearing on someone's ability to make a print from the file at whatever resolution they choose (within the limits of the pixel dimensions you make available); it's the pixel dimensions that will limit printed size/quality. Perhaps you meant that you use a jpeg "quality" setting of 72, which is indeed fairly low. That might even be set even lower to enable reasonably good web display yet discourage printing.

     

    As to use of watermarks, yes, I agree they can be distracting, but not necessarily. A watermark can be chosen that is a compromise--minimally distracting yet prominent enough to discourage some (maybe not many?) from making a print.

     

    As to the supposed (Kodak) "golden standard 778x517" : I wonder if you are thinking of 768 x 512? In any case, it's certainly not in any way a unique dimension that offers a special advantage in display speed. Sure it should load "a bit" faster than 800x600 since it contains a smaller number of pixels.

     

    Phil

     
    |
    Mark as:

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points