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.
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

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.
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


I set mine at 800 x600 pixels because I have trouble reading small print.
Bob

On Tue, 01 May 2007 22:52:53 -0700, 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.
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


1600 X 1200

"Charles" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 01 May 2007 22:52:53 -0700, 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.
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


1600 X 1200

1024 x 768

Mary

"Bob Williams" wrote in message
...
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.
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

1024 x 768 on a 17" LCD. Anything smaller makes my icons too small and the
print too small. But what I really want is a wide screen 22". No more
scrolling on web pages, and those humongous photos some people continue to
post would then fit on my screen.

On Wed, 2 May 2007 07:28:13 -0400, "3Putt from CoastalSouth Carolina"
3putt@PawleysIslandSC wrote:


"Bob Williams" wrote in message
...
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.
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

1024 x 768 on a 17" LCD. Anything smaller makes my icons too small and the
print too small. But what I really want is a wide screen 22". No more
scrolling on web pages, and those humongous photos some people continue to
post would then fit on my screen.

Oh for goofy lines. Get the free image viewer irfanview and set it to
display the pictures the size of your screen. Good grief, what is so
hard about asking for a little advice before complaining about the
wonderful posters on this great garden group.

On Tue, 01 May 2007 22:55:42 -0700, Bob Williams
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.
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


I set mine at 800 x600 pixels because I have trouble reading small print.
Bob
Same here. I don't like to have to put on big glasses.

Mine is set at the "Native Resolution" for my 19" LCD which is 1280 x1024
Cheers Wendy
"Bob Williams" wrote in message
...
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.
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

"joevan" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 2 May 2007 07:28:13 -0400, "3Putt from CoastalSouth Carolina"
3putt@PawleysIslandSC wrote:


"Bob Williams" wrote in message
...
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.
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

1024 x 768 on a 17" LCD. Anything smaller makes my icons too small and
the
print too small. But what I really want is a wide screen 22". No more
scrolling on web pages, and those humongous photos some people continue to
post would then fit on my screen.

Oh for goofy lines. Get the free image viewer irfanview and set it to
display the pictures the size of your screen. Good grief, what is so
hard about asking for a little advice before complaining about the
wonderful posters on this great garden group.

I would say "humongous" falls outside what is normally posted here. Who
wants to open a 3meg photo? Is that a complaint? Resizing is no problem.
First you would have to download it before you resize it.. How did I upset
you? If the original poster can mention optimum size, it should be fair to
mention posting size. And I believe that is an oft mentioned subject in
most photo newsgroups. Some of us actually do need some advice on dpi,
pixels and percents. Not everyone wants to use Ifanview as it doesn't
satisfy (yet) all photo editing criteria.

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.

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

--


Wolf

"Don't believe everything you think." (Maxine)

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.

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. [...]

Sorry, that should've been 1280x1024.

1Bob 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.
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

1024x768

"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.
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

1280 x 1024

--
Regards
Bob H
17mls W. of London.UK

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

Bob Williams wrote:


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.

I interpret that to mean file size. If that's what you have in mind, we
agree.

I suggest about 200KB, which is small enough for dial up users to get in
a reasonable time, and large enough to allow for large but not overly
large images, thus permitting for good to very good image quality. At
the usual dial-up rate of 56Kbits/second, a 200KB image will download in
about 30 to 45 seconds, allowing for repeated packets. **

Assuming that optimum file size is somewhere around 200KB, then JPEGs of
quite large images will easily fit into that optimum size - see the
images I posted, half of which are which are 300KB or less. ***

The fact is that image size has a rather complicated relationship to
file size. That's why I suggested that we agree on an acceptable file size.

** Since getting broadband, I've noticed that demand on the server has
more effect on the actual download time than transmission speed. I've
waited 10 seconds and longer before a download even started when the
host server is busy. Also, the download may pause for seconds at a time.
On dial up, I rarely noticed this - the slow transmission speed masked
these effects of server overload.

*** Keep in mind that the JPEG file size is determined by the amount of
detail in the image. Many of the closeup images posted here have large
areas of the same colour, so that they will compress very well indeed
without noticeable loss of quality.

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.
[...]

Yes, you're quite right. I will repost a series of the same picture at
different image sizes. Let the group decide which one(s) work best.

[...]

BTW, you can set pretty well any newsreader to automatically use an
external program to view pictures. If this is done, scrolling isn't
necessary, since the external viewer can display to fit the screen. That
external program stays open once invoked, and it takes an extra couple
of clicks to switch between reader and viewer. IMO that's a small price
to pay.

--


Wolf

"Don't believe everything you think." (Maxine)