How I see photos at the Scramble Photo Forum

Iwan Bogels · Post by **Iwan Bogels** » 31 Oct 2008, 10:39

As a big fan of the Scramble Photo Forum I try to keep up with new items whenever I get a decent chance. Practically this means that I log in from home, work, girlfriend's house and on trip from my laptop. The monitors used all have their own screen resolution, and every time the experience with the forum feels different.

Apparently about half of all viewers still use a 1024x764 screen resolution (see HERE). Effectively this results in a maximum photo display area of 1010x717 pixels, after deduction of the task and scroll bars.

I noticed that quite a number of people upload photos which are larger than the average monitor will display. This results in the fact that people won't ever see the whole photo on their screen. Most often the nose or tail is cut off, making the photos look deformed and ugly.

Understanding the problem, I upload my own photos in a standard 900x600 resolution (or 990x690 when I use a border). This way everybody should be able to see the whole picture without scrolling. What is your opinion about photo resolution here at this forum ?

Curious regards,
Iwan

Redskin · Post by **Redskin** » 31 Oct 2008, 11:41

I use 1000*666 for all photo's I upload.

evhest · Post by **evhest** » 31 Oct 2008, 11:51

I hate looking at pics that are bigger than my screen and therefore usually skip them. I use 800x533 - if I remember correctly, UKAR uses that size as well.

One more point; I often feel that images posted from photobucket and such loose contrast and vividness when compared to how they look when I open the originals in photoshop or lightroom. Does anyone know if there's some kind of compression going on?

Iwan Bogels · Post by **Iwan Bogels** » 31 Oct 2008, 12:10

evhest wrote:One more point; I often feel that images posted from photobucket and such loose contrast and vividness when compared to how they look when I open the originals in photoshop or lightroom. Does anyone know if there's some kind of compression going on?

Hi Elmer,

Are you saving your photos in sRGB ? I expect you do, but this is the common reason that photos on internet look different from the photos in Photoshop or Lightroom.

At internet ALL photos are displayed in sRGB, even if they are saved as in Adobe RGB 1998 or any other color profile.

But, as said, I expect you already knew this.

Cheers,
Iwan

[/u]

SpotterNL · Post by **SpotterNL** » 31 Oct 2008, 12:17

Iwan Bogels wrote:
At internet ALL photos are displayed in sRGB, even if they are saved as in Adobe RGB 1998 or any other color profile.

[/u]

Nope.... Safari is colour managed and I believe the option is there in FireFox 3

Ghanz · Post by **Ghanz** » 31 Oct 2008, 12:24

I use a 1024 x 768 @ 60 Hz at home and at work, on my Mac, I use 1280 x 1024 @ 100Hz.

To keep my processing as standard as possible (and because I like a good fitting image on my desktop at work) I give my processed shots a width of 1280 pixels.

But, I do like to have images that fit on my screen, so I selected 1024 x 768 and wanting my photos to fit. Therefore, I'm still looking for a good screen to use at home at 1280 width

.

[offtopic]Even more so since my CRT-screen passed out this week and I don't like the current TFT-substitute. Anyone any suggestions?[/offtopic]

Greetz,

Hans

Iwan Bogels · Post by **Iwan Bogels** » 31 Oct 2008, 12:26

SpotterNL wrote: Nope.... Safari is colour managed and I believe the option is there in FireFox 3

Wow, I use FireFox 3.0 and didn't know about this. Just checked via Google and came up with http://lifehacker.com/396742/tweak-fire ... her-colors. Turning on color management is really simple...

By the way, FireFox 3.1 will have color management by default !

Too bad about 90% of all people is still only viewing in sRGB via Internet Explorer.

Thanks for the update.

Iwan Bogels · Post by **Iwan Bogels** » 31 Oct 2008, 12:29

Ghanz wrote: [offtopic]Even more so since my CRT-screen passed out this week and I don't like the current TFT-substitute. Anyone any suggestions?[/offtopic]

Just over a year ago I bought a brand new 22" CRT monitor via internet for the same reason as you mentioned, and I'm now viewing 1600x1200 at home.

Cheers,
Iwan

Redskin301 · Post by **Redskin301** » 31 Oct 2008, 13:01

I still have a 1024x768 tft and a 1024x768 crt next to each other. I allways upload my pics 800x533 (UKAR standard because i also post overthere)

evhest · Post by **evhest** » 31 Oct 2008, 13:04

Iwan Bogels wrote:
SpotterNL wrote: Nope.... Safari is colour managed and I believe the option is there in FireFox 3
Wow, I use FireFox 3.0 and didn't know about this. Just checked via Google and came up with http://lifehacker.com/396742/tweak-fire ... her-colors. Turning on color management is really simple...

By the way, FireFox 3.1 will have color management by default !

Too bad about 90% of all people is still only viewing in sRGB via Internet Explorer.

Thanks for the update.

Woehoe, thanks both of you! Looks much better instantly!

The screenresolution on my iMac is 1680x1050 so I can see mos pics without any problem

@Iwan: I checked my colour settings. In Lightroom I was using AdobeRGB while exporting to Photoshop. Saving in Photoshop however used sRGB and I now corrected that.

ILSlover · Post by **ILSlover** » 31 Oct 2008, 15:16

I'm using a 1920x1200 screen so most of the picture are full frame on my screen.

sfeyenoord1 · Post by **sfeyenoord1** » 31 Oct 2008, 16:27

Using a 1024 x 768 resolution here, and reaaly anoys me when i have to scroll a big end to the left and the right.
Personally i upload my pictures just like evhest in a 800 x 533 resolution.

Nice topic btw

Harry Spotter · Post by **Harry Spotter** » 31 Oct 2008, 18:01

I have 2560x1600, but my explorer window is never full sized. So I think 1000x666 if good enough to show photos in a forum. Especially when you think that some people post almost every photo they took on a certain day. You need to scroll through all the photos of KLM 737 and Easyjet A319s to find this one interesting visitor or interesting angle... In that case: the smaller, the better.

Key · Post by **Key** » 02 Nov 2008, 15:25

Hi,

Home monitors/displays at least 1280 x 960, work often 1024 x 768. I want to see the whole pic provided the screen and photo I am looking at make this worthwhile. Work pc's often do not match that condition (type of screen, inability to tweak) so I am hardly bothered having to scroll there. If a photo really intrigues me I copy it to the desktop to view it full-size.
I recently started to upload own photos in 1024 wide (or 800 high) because I find 800 wide (previous size I used) too small to convey enough detail in most cases. In doing so, I aim my contributions at those viewing them at higher-resolution screens than 1024 x 768.
As for colour management, I use sRGB for Internet and, apart from the odd .gif or very light .jpg, I embed the profile.

Erik

edit for typo in first line

mitchell · Post by **mitchell** » 02 Nov 2008, 16:57

I use a resolution of 1440x900, and I upload in 800x600 or 800x533

Scramble Messageboard