Anyone think pic sizes are now too big?

[HaPPy-STRiNG]

Now we've often got picture sets arriving at 200-500MB, of pictures bigger than 5000 pixels across. I was looking at some and saw that they didn't look good at their native resolution anyway, because the photographer was handholding the camera without flash and there was motion blur.
I don't really zoom in on pics in normal use so those enormous sizes are superfluous to me. They just take up more bandwidth, fill up my drive faster and makes the pictures render slower. So when I see one of these big pictures sets, I usually find myself searching around the internet for the same set resized. 2000 pixels across is bigger than any of my monitors and would do me.
Anyone else find themselves searching for smaller versions too?

[DoctorNo]

Yes, any picture bigger than the largest monitor available is pointless. There are sets now with individual pictures larger than my first hard drive.

[dublin666]

I have a 27" monitor now, but am planning on replacing it with my 40" TV when I buy a new TV. The prices on 50" and above are comming down nicely right now. In short, monitors are going to be larger in the future. Your 600x800 photos are going to look pretty shabby.
I ran some 5600x3744 on my 40" and sweet mother of god they looked great.
The larger photos can have great res. if they're good quality


Also, I'm saving up for a JumboTron.

[HaPPy-STRiNG]

Nice to meet you, Lizzie Ryan fan. [tips hat]
What are you going to do with your JumboTron, move back thirty feet to get it all in view and wank in the garden?

[dublin666]

Originally Posted by HaPPy-STRiNG

Nice to meet you, Lizzie Ryan fan. [tips hat]
What are you going to do with your JumboTron, move back thirty feet to get it all in view and wank in the garden?

You think I could get that close? I was thinking, maybe my neighbors lawn.

[babefan14]

I don't like pictures more than 2000 pixels in height, so any I save that are over that size, I simply scale them down in Photoshop. When you get into the 3000+ range, there's a lag for me when viewing them full size. 2000 is much more manageable, making them nice and big without being too big.

[sirhumpy]

Originally Posted by babefan14

I don't like pictures more than 2000 pixels in height, so any I save that are over that size, I simply scale them down in Photoshop. When you get into the 3000+ range, there's a lag for me when viewing them full size. 2000 is much more manageable, making them nice and big without being too big.

Yep, I do the same: alwas resize them to 1920x1200.
I hope I won't regret this when I get a bigger monitor some day

[Karmafan]

The size does not bother me so much as the fact its almost impossible to view a picture preview without dealing with all kinds of drama. Everything from livejasmine popups, to other popups, hijacks and even deadly viruses.

[rasheed]

File Size Doesn't Matter
The size difference between a small photo and a big photo is so trivial in this day and age. Harddrives are dirt cheap, so I'm never worrying about whether I can fit 5 million instead of 6 million photos on my drive by cutting down the file size. You only need to worry about movie file size because they're 500 times bigger.

Digital Art
Big photos are better for photomanipulation. Let's say you want to make a collage (like my footer for example) or slice a pornstar into any other digital art. Then a big photo is much easier to cut up in Photoshop because you can zoom in and cut with precise lines.

Zoom In
Some people have a microscopic fetish. That is, they like to zoom in on the pussy or ass to see all the membranous details. This is only possible with big photos. This fetish is why 1n-th3-cr@ck exists.

[Absent Friend]

I think I found a new high in terms of picture and photoset sizes. Ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Walle_inc

Emily - Secret Garden [ 07/04/13 ]







107 Images / 7514x10000 / 1042 MB