Comments on: The sharing size for photos on the internet http://www.terragalleria.com/blog/2012/03/09/the-sharing-size-for-photos-on-the-internet/ QT Luong's updates and thoughts on photography, travel and nature Mon, 13 May 2013 20:51:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=248 By: QT Luong http://www.terragalleria.com/blog/2012/03/09/the-sharing-size-for-photos-on-the-internet/#comment-185992 QT Luong Sat, 02 Jun 2012 23:36:22 +0000 http://terragalleria.com/blog/?p=4382#comment-185992 Stephen, maybe this has changed, but last time I checked, a few years ago, registered users got just the same size, but without watermarks. Speaking of Getty, it’s interesting that they changed their watermarking system just recently, bringing it in line with my long-time practice of providing URL, image ID, and author.

]]> By: Stephen Bay http://www.terragalleria.com/blog/2012/03/09/the-sharing-size-for-photos-on-the-internet/#comment-185988 Stephen Bay Sat, 02 Jun 2012 22:55:39 +0000 http://terragalleria.com/blog/?p=4382#comment-185988 If you go to a stock website like Getty, the images are actually similarly sized (the one I looked at was 515×333). This is also true for most other stock sites as well (at least the ones I have seen). I imagine for customers that sign in / register they will provide a higher-res version without the watermark for use in comps.

]]> By: QT Luong http://www.terragalleria.com/blog/2012/03/09/the-sharing-size-for-photos-on-the-internet/#comment-171567 QT Luong Tue, 03 Apr 2012 22:45:15 +0000 http://terragalleria.com/blog/?p=4382#comment-171567 There are a few other very popular folks who post full size as well.

Patrick, you are probably right that many professional photo buyers use larger screens. I think that’s the primary reason why “portfolio sites” are often done using Flash, because this allows for screen-filling viewing. Of course I don’t care for Flash for reasons mentioned in http://terragalleria.com/blog/2011/12/20/seo-thoughts-from-a-top-ranked-photographer/ – much the same way as a commercial photographer shouldn’t probably care about SEO. These days, business comes from a much larger base than professional photo buyers. For my new design, I am leaning towards giving everybody access to an alternative 1000px file (still thinking about the best way to do it), because I am afraid that many wouldn’t care to register.

]]> By: Patrick Endres http://www.terragalleria.com/blog/2012/03/09/the-sharing-size-for-photos-on-the-internet/#comment-171470 Patrick Endres Tue, 03 Apr 2012 17:30:24 +0000 http://terragalleria.com/blog/?p=4382#comment-171470 QT,
I’ve been around this bush a lot, both in the design side of a website and attempting to create a functional user interface that meets many different user-end demands. For me it depends on what platform, and to whom one is sharing. The image overly screenshots that represent collective % of screen size by users do not break those users down into types. So, for example, stock photo buyers, photo researchers and designers tend to have larger monitors. They are often the paying portion and not just the casual browser/viewer.

I ended up with a conservative photo size for my website previews, and then had a custom “comp” link for users to access a 1200px file if they were logged in and given privileges. As for the social network world of photo sharing, I’ve yet to see it really materialize in an economic platform, and seems heavily weighted to casual viewing and sharing. And I doubt much photo commerce happens on mobile devices, although I don’t have statistics on that. I guess it comes down to who is your primary audience and market. It is so tough to design for everyone, although it is getting a lot easier these days. Thanks for a great write up on this subject, your posts are always thoughtful and comprehensive.

]]> By: Libby http://www.terragalleria.com/blog/2012/03/09/the-sharing-size-for-photos-on-the-internet/#comment-161553 Libby Sun, 11 Mar 2012 17:46:48 +0000 http://terragalleria.com/blog/?p=4382#comment-161553 It’s sound like you’re talking about Trey Ratcliffe. Yeah he opened up quite the little firestorm with that one. But a lot of his income is derived from e-books and the magic voodoo he sells. Big images is his thing, and that’s ok if it works for him. Unfortunately some of have viewed his opinions as gospel, and that’s where the arguments start.

Some ‘togs just haven’t realized that’s it’s “ok” to do what fits your own needs or business model. For instance, there are still some wedding photographers that keep the lock down on high res digital files of the wedding gig. What the heck for? In most cases I have run into, wedding clients will not sign a release for stock, so what the heck are you going to do with the images? Hope Aunt Tillie comes along and buys a 4×6 print on Smugmug? At what point does the value of your time spent custom cropping and sizing outweigh the value of the sometimes small revenue you may gain from family prints? When I did weddings I priced large files into the package. In one case, I shot a wedding for another photog and even included the Raw files he wanted. There comes a time to realize that certain models are changing, and some wedding clients just don’t give a hoot about prints or albums. The difference for wedding photographers comes in service and the ability to capture the day.

]]>