6 Replies Latest reply: Mar 29, 2013 6:23 PM by PIRose RSS

    photo size for webpage

    Polly Thronsen

      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

        • 1. Re: photo size for webpage
          RikkFlohr Community Member

          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

          • 2. Re: photo size for webpage
            Polly Thronsen Community Member

            Thanks. I know its all personal, but I'm just trying to get the best quality for my web page but not good enough to copy and print. Thanks for your hep

            • 3. Re: photo size for webpage
              elie-d Community Member

              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.

              • 4. Re: photo size for webpage
                gvb279 Community Member

                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.

                • 5. Re: photo size for webpage
                  Oliver P.Smile Community Member

                  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

                  • 6. Re: photo size for webpage
                    PIRose Community Member

                    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