Ideal smugmug size

[rpcrowe]

What is the ideal size to post on a forum from smugmug.com? If I upload a full size JPEG image from my APSC Sony camera onto smugmug.com, I then have the following choices to post onto a forum from smugmug.com.

From Tiny 100x100


To 5K 5120 x 3413


Obviously the 100 x 100 choice is too small and the 5K choice is unwieldy because of its size.

I usually choose a size with about 1200 at the widest dimension - is that correct?
X-2 1280x853 at 300 PPI


There doesn't seem to be a great deal of on my monitor viewing difference between choosing the X-2 and the 5K size from smugmug,,,

Or, if I know that I will be posting the image to the internet, should I save it at a certain size before posting it to smugmug.com? If so, what size?

Here is an image that I saved at 1200 x 800 at 72 PPI upladed to smugmug.com and posted at the original size which turned out to be 1288 x 859


Looking at the images that I have posted above, there doesn't seem to be any big differences between the last three. I am viewing the images on a 27-inch monitor...

Also, would the correct size choice for CiC posting be correct for other internet postings?

[DanK]

Richard,

I post full-size images to Smugmug, with quality from Lightroom set to 87 or so. Higher than that increases file size a lot without increasing the quality of online images or small prints. I normally set public galleries to limit the display to XLarge to lessen the odds of people stealing the image. That size is fine for CiC. It will be downsized a modest amount automatically. If I want something to display considerably larger, I use X2Large for posting here.

I have a nonpublic galleries, including the one from which I usually post here, that are set to allow any size copy up to and including the original. That allows people to whom I give the link to print, if they want to, but it's sort of pointless, as the way those people get prints is generally to ask me to print for them.

Dan

[xpatUSA]

Richard, I know nothing about Smugmug but I do have a horror of sites re-sampling my pictures using their unknown algorithms. In your shoes and if you are happy with ~1200px, I would continue with that and do all the editing on your computer at that size before uploading to anywhere.

I am assuming that you use SmugMug for on-line display or cataloging of your image files, i.e. no need for full-size, not as your primary storage archive ...

[rpcrowe]

Richard, I know nothing about Smugmug but I do have a horror of other sites re-sampling my pictures using their unknown algorithms. In your shoes and if you are happy with ~1200px, I would continue with that and do all the editing on your computer at that size before uploading to anywhere.

I am assuming that you use SmugMug for on-line display or cataloging of your image files, i.e. no need for full-size, not as your primary storage archive ...

Very true... My primary storage is full size RAW files and a Master Image which is a full size PSD image with color and density correction but with no sharpening or cropping applied. I have these saved in several ways including external hard drives and a cloud storage system.

Smugmug,com is used for cataloging my images and for posting on the Internet...

[Manfred M]

Richard - the main issue is load time for the viewers.

Small image size loads more quickly than large and for those folks on a slower connection, that is important.

I've tended to use anywhere between 1600 and 2048 pixels on the long edge. That give people who want a detailed view with enough data to zoom in using LightBox. That seems to be a decent trade-off between the quality and load time, in my experience.

[xpatUSA]

Very true... My primary storage is full size RAW files and a Master Image which is a full size PSD image with color and density correction but with no sharpening or cropping applied. I have these saved in several ways including external hard drives and a cloud storage system.

Smugmug,com is used for cataloging my images and for posting on the Internet...

Off topic, but may I ask what is "density correction"?

It seems that everybody does it but nobody says what it is, per se:

https://www.flatworldsolutions.com/d...n-services.php

https://www.flatworldsolutions.com/d...correction.php

https://www.smartphotoeditors.com/re...ge-editing.php

Is there, like, a Photoshop 'Density' slider which - when pushed to the right - makes all the pixels scrunch up closer together?

Pardon the levity but the term is actually new to me ...

[pschlute]

I don't use Smugmug but Flickr. As anyone viewing these is going to be doing so on a monitor there is no need to upload anything larger than what the largest viewing screen is likely to be. My monitor is 1440 tall, so I process all my jpegs to this size. I post the same to Flickr.

[xpatUSA]

I don't use Smugmug but Flickr. As anyone viewing these is going to be doing so on a monitor there is no need to upload anything larger than what the largest viewing screen is likely to be. My monitor is 1440 tall, so I process all my jpegs to this size. I post the same to Flickr.

At 16:9 aspect ratio, Peter?

So, if someone posts a 1920x1080px do you zoom in and how does it look?

[pschlute]

At 16:9 aspect ratio, Peter?

No, I create jpegs for the most part at the same ratio as my camera's sensor output in landscape orientation.... 3:2. This is not the same as my screen which is 2560x1440 pixels. But by keeping 1440 pixels tall this means if I look at an image in 100% view it is displayed pixel for pixel on my screen ( with a black edge at either side).

If someone else looks at my image on their screen which has a lower resolution their computer software will "downsize" the display

If someone else looks at my image on their screen which has a higher resolution, they will see a smaller image, not a full screen one. if they want to see a full screen image they should ask me to send them a higher resolution image

So, if someone posts a 1920x1080px do you zoom in and how does it look?

if I look at a 1920x 1080 image, the software (browser/picture viewer etc) should display the image at the pixel size specified. I would not wish to look at any image at greater than 100%, thus would never look at that sized image in full screen mode on my monitor. Doing so would display a pixelated image.

[xpatUSA]

Originally Posted by xpatUSA At 16:9 aspect ratio, Peter?

No, I create jpegs for the most part at the same ratio as my camera's sensor output in landscape orientation.... 3:2. This is not the same as my screen which is 2560x1440 pixels. But by keeping 1440 pixels tall this means if I look at an image in 100% view it is displayed pixel for pixel on my screen ( with a black edge at either side).

Ah, understood. 3:2 is 2160x1440px on your 16:9 screen.

If someone else looks at my image on their screen which has a lower resolution their computer software will "downsize" the display. If someone else looks at my image on their screen which has a higher resolution, they will see a smaller image, not a full screen one.

Indeed, like for example the so-called "4K" 3840x2160px.

if they want to see a full screen image they should ask me to send them a higher resolution image

LOL

Originally Posted by xpatUSA So, if someone posts a 1920x1080px do you zoom in and how does it look?

If I look at a 1920x 1080px image, the software (browser/picture viewer etc) should display the image at the pixel size specified. I would not wish to look at any image at greater than 100%, thus would never look at that size image in full screen mode on my monitor. Doing so would display a pixelated image.

Again, I understand and agree. Who knows what algorithm your browser uses to go from 1080 tall to 1440 tall - certainly would not be pretty in Nearest Neighbor!

Thanks for the clarification!

[DanK]

Off topic, but may I ask what is "density correction"?

It threw me for a loop as well. I don't recall ever seeing this before. I did some casual searching, and that suggested that it is a vestigal film term referring to the density variation in the image. If that's the case, it would seem to be what I always thought of as part of tonality adjustments.

[pschlute]

It threw me for a loop as well. I don't recall ever seeing this before. I did some casual searching, and that suggested that it is a vestigal film term referring to the density variation in the image. If that's the case, it would seem to be what I always thought of as part of tonality adjustments.

I think "density correction" is what I went through when I tried to understand colour management