Wolf wrote:
Bob Williams wrote:

Most monitors can be set at any of several screen resolutions (sizes),
anywhere from 800x600 pixels to 1400x1050 pixels or even greater.
Many photo editors can resize images to any desired size.
When sending pictures to this group, the optimum size is the largest
that can be viewed by the majority of viewers without scrolling.


Not true -- see below.

By "OPTIMUM SIZE" I did not mean highest image quality.

Highest image quality is obviously the largest size and the lowest
compression that your camera offers.
However, many folks on this NG use cameras of 6-8 MP or even larger, set
for finest quality (lowest compression). If an image of this size was
posted it would contain around 3000x 2300 pixels and would typically
have a file size of around 2.0-2.5 MB.
The picture may be magnificent but very few people on this NG will dare
open it, especially folks with telephone modems. And those few who did
open it would be treated to such a huge image that they could not view
it in its entirety without scrolling widthwise and heightwise, big time!
With images of this size, the amount viewable at one time is typically
so small that it is almost impossible to discern and appreciate the
composition of the image.
Perfect examples of this are your posts of the Crocus and the Begonia.
Both are very nice pictures but you could not tell it by looking at the
large, high resolution images you posted.
It is certainly not my intention to tell you how to send your images.
That is your business. But I strongly suspect that you would get more
viewers if you would post images that were significantly smaller.
Otherwise, in the words of the famous English Poet, Thomas Gray, "Full
many a flower is born to blush unseen....."

IMHO, OPTIMUM size is the best compromise between image quality, image
size, and file size. The image should be viewable by a majority of our
members without a lot of scrolling when using conventional email and
newsgroup readers. It should also be compressed sufficiently so the file
size is reasonably available to members who have telephone modems. That
is just common courtesy.

Every once in a while when I see a "killer" picture, I will ask the
original poster to send me a full size, high resolution image so I can
print it for my personal collection. Usually they are happy to do so.
That is the only time that I send or accept a multi-MP, hi-res image.
Of course, YMMV.
Bob Williams

In order to send pictures at the optimum size for good viewing it is
necessary to know how each of us sets his/her monitor resolution.
What size (resolution) do you have your monitor set for?
Bob Williams


1280x768 an a 19" LCD monitor. This is its "native" (ie, actual,
physical) resolution. This gives the sharpest letters, the clearest
images, and the least blurring when scrolling. I don't mind scrolling
for larger images, since I keep few of them, and those I keep, I'll look
at with the image viewer anyway. I prefer larger images, but I realise
they pose a problem for people on dial-up. IMO 1200x800 is a good all
round size.

Some notes on resolution and image quality (tech talk):

Every monitor, even cathode ray ones (CRTs), has a physical resolution.
On a CRT that resolution is set by the the steel grille between the
glass screen and the electron gun at the back of the monitor. On an LCD,
it's set by the size of the LCD elements that make up the screen.
Setting the monitor to other resolutions will always produce a worse
image and fuzzier letters. I recommend that you set the monitor to its
physical ("native") resolution. Windows and MAC-OSX do this
automatically with all recent monitors, BTW, so when you plug in a new
monitor, just let it do its setup thing, and then leave it alone. With
other OSs you may have to run a separate setup utility: make sure you
set the monitor to the recommend specs.

If you need larger type, you can set the Windows scheme to a larger
typeface; and you can increase the type size displayed by Firefox,
Thunderbird, etc. (for example.) Windows also has an applet for setting
the display to show extra large type for visually impaired people.

All image viewers worth using can automatically resize the images to fit
the display area. If your doesn't do this, dump it, and get a better
one. I recommend Irfanview, which is free; or PMView, which costs about
$30. Both also do a surprising amount of basic image processing, and do
it well. Windows' built-in viewer up to at least Windows 2000 is limited
-- not recommended.

Irfanview distinguishes between oversize images, which can be reduced to
fit; and undersized images, which can be enlarged. I don't recommend
enlarging images to fit, as enlarged images often get the jaggies.

BTW, there are also colour balance ("colour temperature") settings.
That's a whole 'nother post. ;-)

HTH