On 2011-09-01 04:11:46 -0700, Ramsman said:

On 31/08/2011 21:42, Netko wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 16:37:24 +0100, Savageduck wrote
(in article2011083108372416807-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom):

If you resize to 800 x 600, 1024 x 768, or 1280 x 1024 you shouldn't
get too many complaints from most viewers.

As a rule of thumb limiting the long dimension of any image to 1024

Using StatCounter's figures for the last three months (and making a few
somewhat heroic assumptions and simplifications), 98% of users have monitors
which are at least 1024 pixels wide and 68% have monitors at least 1280
pixels wide.

It follows that your rule of thumb will mean viewing pictures at full size
should not be a problem for two-thirds of people; nor should it involve too
much scrolling for almost everybody else.



Thanks for the information. I had to ask because obviously not
everybody has their monitor set to 1920 x 1080 as I do.

Both my iMac and my MacBook Pro 17 have 1920 x 1080 displays. The thing
to remember is if you are just viewing the images there is little need
to see them at full screen or at the aspect ratio of that display.
Therefore a file configured large enough that any aspect ratio and
reasonably sized image can be viewed on most displays is good enough.
Hence my suggestion of maintaining a horizontal long dimension of 1024
to 1280, or a vertical dimension of 600 to 900, will allow most to view
your images comfortably.

If I get a request for a full screen 1920 x 1080 at less radical jpeg
compression, I will get the file to that individual using another
method such as this.
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/P38-5400fEWc.jpg


--
Regards,

Savageduck