I hope no one has already raised this question...

[TinyBird]

The least they could do is present the image in
a way that is easy to review.

Not to mention it usually is also beneficial to the artist to look at their own images bit smaller... Especially seeing the cases where the artist has worked in 100% resolution in their 5000x5000 canvas building up unnecessary details but haven't noticed that when made smaller all the details disappear and the whole image becomes a huge mess...

[s.ketch]

Are those International statistics?

I'm not sure.

There's this too:
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

Which is certainly international.

[QueenGwenevere]

The problem with those kinds of statistics is that they're often collected on techie sites based on the usage of the techie visitors to those sites... And techie types are more likely to have the latest-and-greatest equipment and browser updates, so the statistics tend to be skewed. Average non-techie users tend to lag behind the cutting edge... (Hence why a lot of my clients have very conservative specs for their projects. They assume the average user is not 100% up-to-date. The broader the user base, the more conservative the specification is.)

In fact, to quote w3c on their own statistics (note that their data is based on their own log-files, and therefore indicates stats for typical visitors to the w3c site - i.e., geeks):

Statistics are important information. W3Schools.com is for people with an interest for web technologies. This fact indicates that the figures below might not be 100% true for the average internet users. The average internet-user might have a lower screen resolution.

Anyway, our data, collected from W3Schools' log-files over ten years, clearly shows the long term trends.

Also, those stats don't seem to indicate mobile usage... Which is a whole separate animal...

[axisis]

err... I honestly didn't expect this amount of people to discuss this subject.

[Star Eater]

err... I honestly didn't expect this amount of people to discuss this subject.

It's a good thread and brings up some points that deserve
to be expanded upon and has support on both sides of the
argument.



It's just a fact that our side is right though.

[axisis]

I suppose,
I always resize any image before uploading it anyway,
but it was just somthing I've observed since joining CA. =]

[dierat]

If your talking colour wise, most of the browsers now have the ability to use colour profiles attached to images.

As far as I know, Firefox and Safari support color profiles but not Internet Explorer, Chrome, or Opera. So actually more people are using browsers without color management than with, though the people looking at your work (hopefully art directors) may be more inclined to use Firefox and Safari. (Not trying to be argumentative or anything; I just think it's something we should be aware of.)

[s.ketch]

The problem with those kinds of statistics is that they're often collected on techie sites based on the usage of the techie visitors to those sites... And techie types are more likely to have the latest-and-greatest equipment and browser updates, so the statistics tend to be skewed. Average non-techie users tend to lag behind the cutting edge... (Hence why a lot of my clients have very conservative specs for their projects. They assume the average user is not 100% up-to-date. The broader the user base, the more conservative the specification is.)

In fact, to quote w3c on their own statistics (note that their data is based on their own log-files, and therefore indicates stats for typical visitors to the w3c site - i.e., geeks):



Also, those stats don't seem to indicate mobile usage... Which is a whole separate animal...

The hardware to support 1024x768 has been on the market for a long time. Long enough that I can safely bet that your graphics card and monitor support it. I would even go further and say that if your monitor and/or card is only two to three years old, you support 1080i. And this correlates loosely to the stats. Obviously you don't have to consider anyone running 800x600. Move up to the next, and that should be the floor of your resize limitation.

Go to your local electronics retailer. Go to the computer section. If you notice, even the cheapest one will support 1080i. It's not like there's a $50 computer using an old CRT monitor. What you pay for is better quality of hardware, more memory, and more power. So the idea that mostly "techies" have the higher resolutions is mostly false. While I'm sure there's some computer enthusiast somewhere with a resolution of 4000k and a 60 inch monitor, I'm also sure every soccer mom and old guy has buys what's on the shelves.

I wasn't saying that since everyone is using a bigger monitor that you can post a 4000k image on the forums.

You people are making a huge deal out of something simple. It's like some sort of weird Viewer's rights vs Publisher's rights political debate. Resize your shit to the appropriate audience, and if you come across a huge image you can zoom out in your browser.

[Star Eater]

You people are making a huge deal out of something simple.

I could say the same thing for the other side of this debate.

EDIT: I do see where you are coming from and I have
scrolled out, elsewhere on the net, but the point I'm
trying to make is that its just good practice to tackle
resizing your image for appropriate places, kind of
what you said actually.

You'd be surprised, maybe, at the amount of new
digital users in the critique section who ask almost
on a weekly average how to resize an image...
and are posting these polar bear rug size images
purely because they still have no grasp of basic
features.

[Artimatum]

The 'noone' in the title should be 'no one'

Yes,I'm being a grammar Nazi,shoot me.

[Star Eater]

Yes,I'm being a grammar Nazi,shoot me.

Fixed it for you.

[Brashen]

I'm not sure.

There's this too:
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

Which is certainly international.

Thanks for that.

As far as I know, Firefox and Safari support color profiles but not Internet Explorer, Chrome, or Opera. So actually more people are using browsers without color management than with, though the people looking at your work (hopefully art directors) may be more inclined to use Firefox and Safari. (Not trying to be argumentative or anything; I just think it's something we should be aware of.)

Doing a little research I found out that Chrome was the only one of the major browsers to not make use of colour profiling. That is indeed a shocker considering Google's stance on web tech. Thanks for the info.

[Shahan]

err... I honestly didn't expect this amount of people to discuss this subject.

It's a good thread and brings up some points that deserve
to be expanded upon and has support on both sides of the
argument.



It's just a fact that our side is right though.

responding to this and not the technical stuff in here.
The digital art thing is in such motion right now, nothings solid as far as standards. This is true for all technology but its not like the years of 1500-1700 where it was just traditional tools and frames and whatnot.
computers and monitors and all that stuff is going to change drastically in the next couple of years...months... weeks even... lmao. i hope i'm not sounding like i'm saying it is futile to discuss this, it really isn't we're all just alive during a time when this stuff is in the process of changing. i mean compare the first version of Photoshop to CS5 ... y'know?
anyway... yeah
so amped for exponential technological advances and what will be available at the ends of our generations.

[QueenGwenevere]

The thing is the 1024 x 768 is the TOTAL area. Including interface and other junk.

Also, what's on the shelves now doesn't mean anything. Most people hang onto computers for years before upgrading, and dont update their browsers or plug-ins frequently, so a lot of people are running machines and software several years behind the times. Schools typically have equipment far behind the times, so if you do any work of an educational nature, you'll probably be asked to stick to archaic specifications.

Also you'd be surprised how many people don't even know they can zoom images even if they have upgraded their browser.

AND of course a lot of people don't browse full screen, so there's that, too.

And then there's all the people browsing on tablets...

And, most importantly, you have to consider actual screen real estate based on where you're showcasing or publishing something online. You need to consider how much space the browser bars take up, and how much space the site interface takes up, and how does your work look in the context of the site, especially if the site is fixed width. If you make stuff for websites professionally, you'd be surprised at how small you have to make images and movies and games sometimes... It can be a nuisance, but you kind of have to work with it.

As far as posting on CA goes, of course you can size things however you want, but whacking huge images screw up the layout of the threads and make them hard to navigate and just look stupid in the context of a thread. Hence they're annoying. If you don't want to annoy your audience, it makes sense to size images to something that looks good on CA.

Just saying that these are all things to consider when posting anything online... It looks more professional to tailor your content to fit the venue instead of throwing up a huge picture willy-nilly and hoping the hardware/software/viewers will adjust it to fit. (The viewers sure won't, because people are lazy.)

Although the color thing is a bitch... I haven't figured out the best way to make colors look really consistent on different browsers yet, and it's been driving me nuts. (Anyone else got a clue?)

(Ack. Didn't mean to turn this into a web design lecture/rant. Blame years of having web production best practices hammered into my brain...)