|
|
Post by BuckSkin on Nov 10, 2017 17:36:11 GMT
BuckSkin , I usually upload my pictures with the longest side at 1200 and a resolution of 240. I am pleased with the way the picture presents at this setting. THANKS ! That is a huge help ! I understand the 1200 long side part; does the 240 resolution mean 240 ppi ? |
|
|
|
Post by hmca on Nov 10, 2017 18:04:51 GMT
yes......here's a link to my flickr account if you want to see how they look. |
|
|
|
Post by PeteB on Nov 10, 2017 18:21:34 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by BuckSkin on Nov 10, 2017 20:52:51 GMT
yes......here's a link to my flickr account if you want to see how they look. They look great ! One that took my eye is the photo titled "Chapel" of the lone big old leafless tree with the simple church-house behind it; that picture just impresses me. The only thing missing is a steeple, so the tree sort of becomes the steeple; if anything ever happens to that tree, it will make the church look rather plain. |
|
|
|
Post by Bailey on Nov 10, 2017 21:35:46 GMT
I usually upload my pictures with the longest side at 1200 and a resolution of 240. I am pleased with the way the picture presents at this setting. Hi hmca. In case you are not aware, the ppi setting on an image is totally irrelevant for computer screen display. PPI (pixels per inch) is used for resizing images for printing purposes. It is totally ignored when an image is displayed on a screen. The only thing that matters regarding image size for screen displays is the length and width dimensions in pixels. For example, an 1800px x 1200px image will be exactly the same size and look and be EXACTLY the same on a given screen whether the image is set to 72ppi, 200ppi, 300ppi, 600ppi or whatever. For those not convinced, simply reset a given image to a different PPI (WITHOUT RESAMPLING) in your favourite editor and compare the 2 images on a given screen. You will see that both images are exactly the same in size and look. |
|
|
|
Post by hmca on Nov 11, 2017 1:46:39 GMT
Thanks, Bailey. That should be helpful to the OP. I will be the first to admit that I am not up on all things "technical". |
|
|
|
Post by mjc55ny on Nov 11, 2017 2:06:39 GMT
"Flickriver"....a Flickr add-on for viewing
I use a site (app?) that is basically just an add-on to Flickr...in that it allows a more customizable layout for your "Flickr" photos, but doesn't actually host the photos. I post the shots in Flickr and when viewed through "Flickriver" they are displayed differently. It's an extra step but for my limited posting of just my best shots, I like it. www.flickriver.com/photos/mjc55ny/popular-interesting/
|
|
|
|
Post by hmca on Nov 11, 2017 3:04:28 GMT
mjc55ny......looks good. Never saw that before.
|
|
|
|
Post by PeteB on Nov 11, 2017 3:51:32 GMT
Flickriver is a group within Flickr that you can join and post your images. In addition, it is also a Flickr viewer that displays Flickr photos. If you don’t want your images to be viewable through Flickriver you can opt out and that is explained here.
|
|
|
|
Post by PeteB on Nov 11, 2017 14:39:23 GMT
yes......here's a link to my flickr account if you want to see how they look. Helen So many great photos! I enjoyed looking through your gallery  |
|
|
|
Post by Bailey on Nov 12, 2017 23:53:13 GMT
I did a bit of internet searching and found a guy who had did quite a bit of trial and error in a quest to find the best image dimension for optimum viewing on Flickr; his information was current in June of 2013. He found that an image uploaded to Flickr at 2048 x 1080 displayed exactly as submitted; anything larger was automatically resized to that dimension with a loss of quality in the process; likewise anything smaller. That is still a fairly hefty package for my poor little minimal allotment to be uploading by the dozen; I may end up making a compromise --- but compromises go hard against my grain...... Of course, this information is some four-years-plus old and things may be completely different now. I just spent the last little bit getting enlisted in Flickr, but that is as far as I have gotten; I need to figure out how to use it now. I don't post images online to share with other people, but since my screen is 1920px x 1080px a 2048 x 1080 image would be scaled down to 1920 x 1012 if I view the image in full screen mode. So maybe I am missing something, but I don't see the point in posting images whose width in pixels is greater than the width in pixels of the largest screen you expect your viewers to use. So if image quality is important I would think posting an image around 1900px wide would cater for most sized screens. Posting a small image, say 600px wide, would most probably result in significant loss of image quality if someone using a large screen viewed it in full screen mode. Conversely, posting a large image, say 5000px would be wasted on most screens as the image would be scaled down when viewed on screens < 5000px wide. So I guess the bottom line here is, think about the most popular screen width in pixels your viewers are most likely to use and post images around that width if you want to maintain image quality when your viewers view the image in full screen mode. |
|
|
|
Post by BuckSkin on Nov 13, 2017 7:32:02 GMT
Bailey, I just checked and our screens are 1920 x 1080 as well; HP2159m 21.5-inch.
|
|
