-
Notice regarding image hosts and attachments. See here.
Picture size etiquette
- Thread starter Scottland
- Start date
What type of site is it? If it's an art showcase then you can get away with bigger filesizes, if it's something like an estate agent system then not so much. Start off with medium sized thumbnails (320x240 ish) and then the option to view a larger version.
There are also solutions like Zoomify which is like google maps for images, allowing you to zoom in and pan around.
Depends on the min resolution you need your website to work in and what area the picture is to sit in. From knowing the res you can have a play with file sizes. I guess it also helps to know what amount of storage space you have and your bandwidth allowance.
It's a website for handmade furniture, the main page has a 600*300 image which fades into 4 other images. The dimensions of the image are fine, but I'm cautious of the fact that it has to load each of the 5 images.
I was thinking I could maybe drop the dimensions a little, and reduce the number of images to 3 or 4...
I was thinking I could maybe drop the dimensions a little, and reduce the number of images to 3 or 4...
I'd work slightly differently. How long are you prepared to wait for the images to load, I'd say a couple of seconds for most people who use broadband (well thats how I've worked 
).
My site images are around 800x500 pixels and under 100kb in size. On broadband they load nearly instantly and in this day and age if you're using dial up then you're generally prepared to wait a little longer.
). My site images are around 800x500 pixels and under 100kb in size. On broadband they load nearly instantly and in this day and age if you're using dial up then you're generally prepared to wait a little longer.
Personally, I always feel a bit numpty for not thumb-nailing pics bigger than 320x240 if it is a gallery, or a pic in an article. If the pic is the main content of a page, then no bigger than 800x600, and if it's just a pic then as large as it is in original source.