Monitor Resolution

[defconfunk]

How big (in terms of pixels, not inches) is the monitor you surf RFF on?

In the excellent W/NW Live music thread ( http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=138988 ) the OP specifically requests "please don't post it HUGE. I like to see the whole photo on my screen at once".

Most the photos posted are, imo, tiny, and make seeing the fine details difficult. You may be shooting the sharpest Lieca glass with the best developed negatives giving you fantastic edges, but no one will be able to tell at 640x480.

I've found 1280 pixels on the long side gives a good balance between being able to see the details of a photo, and ease of viewing online. And I've been called out on here for posting photos that are just too damn big.

My monitor is nine years old running 1680x1050. This is slightly smaller than the most common monitor size I see sold today: 1920x1080 (aka 1080p). I mean, you can get a half decent 1080p monitor for well under $200 these days, and if you are getting a colour corrected monitor, you can be sure it is at least 1080p.

Given that this is a photo community, I expected most people would have larger monitors (at least 1080p). But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe we've got lots member who are still happy with thier 1024x768 monitors. I'd like to know.

 

[Mystyler]

1680x1050. I can't stand the 16:9.

 

[Spanik]

1920x1200 on the desktop. Also prefer 16:10 over 16:9. Laptop is 1600x900, 16:10 doesn't seem to be available for notebooks. And even more important to me: both non-glare.

 

[sevo]

You are wrong. Double 1280x1024 here. I'm not going to spend another thousand or so on a new monitor with adequate colour space while these still last...

 

[Roger Hicks]

1024 x 768. Who cares? I don't use the same computer for image processing -- the image processing (and writing) computer remains off line. Also, compare with seeing real prints, looking at photos on a computer is rather like comparing real coffee and instant coffee, or prime steak and McDo burgers.

Cheers,

R.

 

[majid]

I have a 30" 2560x1600 and a 27" 2560x1440, but I dont leave my browser windows maximized, they only take about 50% width. The generally accepted standard for web development is to design layouts 960px wide, although that is being challenged by responsive design.

It is perfectly possible in HTML to have large images that adjust to the available space, using something like <IMG STYLE="width:100%" ...> but I don't know if RFF or vBulletin BBcode allows this level of control. The browser would scale it to fit, and on Retina/HiDPI screens you would see all the detail in the image.

 

[Addy101]

Which screen? My phone, iPad, my laptop or my desktop? Impossible to answer.
It is 2014, people aren't stuck at home, but use their phones, tablets, laptops everywhere. My desktop has a 24" screen, my laptop 13", my iPad 10"and my phone 5". I mostly surf with my laptop and my biggest problem is height, not width.

1280 is too big for any picture to be displayed nicely online. Just stick with 1024 maximum if you want to go big. But slightly less would be preferable. If you want to share bigger, just add a link.