I've noticed in the galleries that people have a tendency to make very large images.  Images too large to fit on a screen unless you have the monitor set to an extremely high resolution. Why is that? So the image can be printed out? I’m just wondering, not complaining.

I think it just looks a normal size on their monitors. for all I know, mine probably look huge to others. Yep, I would put it down to ignorance. Love esther

The other possibility is that they're working on the details of the image, so keeping it at a larger size. If they're postworking it at all, then it's easier to work when you have more pixels to play with. And keeping it at that size means that their appreciative audience can see all the small details they've put in, as well.

Or, possibly, they're ignorant... :)

JonTheCelt

I tend to make mine around 1280x1024, since that's my monitor res. If people have gigantic monitors, they probably make their images much bigger without really thinking about those with smaller monitors.

I tend to make large images if I'm showing the close-up detail of a character.

It all depends on what the image is being made for. Some ppl create for the screen and others create for print. 300 dpi (way over whats needed IMHO) makes HUGE images. A 10 inch poster would be 3000 pxl.

Me, I make em for the screen and try to keep em under 1024 for more universal viewing.

I make my images large for printing and also because the detail shows up better in larger sizes. When I upload the image here at Renderosity, I have the "How the image should be initially displayed (unless overridden by the viewer):" prompt set to resize so the image will fit on the viewer's screen*.* That way, the viewer has the option of "zooming for a closer look.

I usually render mine at 3600x2700 to make it easier to fix in postwork, but I always scale it down to about 1000px for on screen viewing. I hate side scrolling on images.

I do mine at 1600x1200, the size of my desktop. Most graphic artists are migrating to bigger and higher res capable monitors every day.

Larger renders include a lot more detail then pixelly smaller renders. When i do my popup product images for my daz products, I always render 2-4 times larger then the popup, and then reduce that down.. sometimes that will give me a better quality popup image, but the amount of detail that's lost is staggering.

A lot of the best new content now has many effects to get things liek skin specularity, displament for micro detail, and that all can add up to a much more realistic image. But if you reduce that image size down to 600x400, it's going to look like hell compared to the original, and as an artist, you want to showcase the best looking image possible.

I've been itching to get a letterbox sixed larger desktop flatscreen monitor, and if I do that, my gallery renders will probably increase in size again, as I migrate to that.

BTW, a Daz popup image is maybe 1/16th the size of my monitor, just a few inches square , and I always zoom in on them because they are just too dang tiny.

The smallest size I render at is 3500x3750.  I render at print size and res. in case I decide to have the image printed.  I usually post here at either 1/2 or 1/3 of the render size, though. 

I usually render at either 800x800 or 1024x768. If I add a frame to the image prior to uploading it, the size will be a bit larger (less than 100 pixels) than those dimensions. I do realize that depending on the resolution of the viewers computer, the image may be larger or smaller than it is on my screen, but not unreasonably larger.

Many upload large images simply because they can.  The fact that the maximum gallery size is 4096x4096 doesn't help either. There are some people who  push the limits and will always choose the far end of the spectrum rather than a middle ground.  That whole "bigger is always better" mentality.

One time a friend of mine got some critique about her gallery images being too small (she worked with the default pose window and rendered at the same dimensions), so to try and appease her viewers she decided to render at the largest size allowed here thinking it was better.

When she sent me a link to her first large rendered image all I could see was the elephant's eye and I had to scroll around and around to see the rest of it,  LOL  I told her "Nice eye!" And suggested alternate render sizes to her :)

I render as big as possible, generally around 3000 x whatever.  Images posted to the Gallery are usually between 1200 to 1600 pixels wide.  As Gareee says, there's a huge loss of detail on small renders.  I honestly don't mind scrolling to see a good, detailed image.  What really hacks me off is a huge fancy border which, IMO, adds nothing to the picture.

Quote - Many upload large images simply because they can.  The fact that the maximum gallery size is 4096x4096 doesn't help either. There are some people who  push the limits and will always choose the far end of the spectrum rather than a middle ground.  That whole "bigger is always better" mentality.

Bigger is not always better. Sometimes I can see the pixelation in larger images because the source textures aren't that good...

Just like the images coming out of a digital camera were not meant to be looked at full size, I don't think most renders were meant to either.

Quote - What really hacks me off is a huge fancy border which, IMO, adds nothing to the picture.

For me it depends on the "border". I like to frame some of my images because to me a picture isn't a picture without a frame.

Quote - > Quote - What really hacks me off is a huge fancy border which, IMO, adds nothing to the picture.

For me it depends on the "border". I like to frame some of my images because to me a picture isn't a picture without a frame.

Respectfully differ.  I put a plain black border around my pics these days, simply for the sake of finishing to a definite edge.  A picture should stand on its own merits.  If it needs a frame, it ain't working.  IMO, of course.  

But then, I do play one of the hardest guitars to work with.  Maybe it's me.  :)

I'm still learning so I have yet to render an image. I'll render it at the size of my monitor's res when I do. 

As far as picture frames goes, I absolutely love them. Especially fancy ones. They add a finishing touch to an image. Similar to in life.. when you have a picture, you frame it.

Sometimes it has nothing to do with a user's monitor size. I used to make wallpapers for themes.org ... back then, most folks had a 1024x768 resolution at most (usually it was 800x600), so I usually rendered something to 1280x1024, then resized downwards to accommodate that. Over time, everyone's monitors get bigger and higher-rez. Images that I made back in 2001 or so now look positively tiny on a 1600x1200 monitor, and are useless as wallpaper. I usually render items larger than I'd ever need to as a sort of future-proofing. You can always shrink an image without too awful much distortion and breakage, but making a smaller one larger tends to destroy detail, sharpness, and generally makes it look messy. When it comes to scanning negatives in, I always go for the biggest size I can for just that reason... so I don't have to re-scan the very same negative at a higher resolution later on. /P

Quote - Sometimes it has nothing to do with a user's monitor size. I used to make wallpapers for themes.org ... back then, most folks had a 1024x768 resolution at most (usually it was 800x600), so I usually rendered something to 1280x1024, then resized downwards to accommodate that. Over time, everyone's monitors get bigger and higher-rez. Images that I made back in 2001 or so now look positively tiny on a 1600x1200 monitor, and are useless as wallpaper. I usually render items larger than I'd ever need to as a sort of future-proofing. You can always shrink an image without too awful much distortion and breakage, but making a smaller one larger tends to destroy detail, sharpness, and generally makes it look messy. When it comes to scanning negatives in, I always go for the biggest size I can for just that reason... so I don't have to re-scan the very same negative at a higher resolution later on. /P

I remember years ago, asking for a scanner that would do up to 600 dpi.  The sales guy said, "Wow, that's gonna be a HUGE file."  I said, "And..."

Quote - As far as picture frames goes, I absolutely love them. Especially fancy ones. They add a finishing touch to an image. Similar to in life.. when you have a picture, you frame it.

Y'all have been conned by production values.  IMO, of course. :)

On the flip side, huge images are a PITA if your on dial-up, it takes ages to show up! ;-}

Quote - > Quote - As far as picture frames goes, I absolutely love them. Especially fancy ones. They add a finishing touch to an image. Similar to in life.. when you have a picture, you frame it.

 

Y'all have been conned by production values.  IMO, of course. :)

Lol. It's just the female in us. You know we can never be simple. We like to pretty everything up!

I render at 3000+ for post and then resize down for the web. I was on a dialup for a long time and hated to go through the galleries here. To many were maxing the limit or they would have a 800x600 image that was 500kb. They never bothered to do a little file compressing, which you can do quite well without any loss noticable on the web.

SamTherapywrote. "But then, I do play one of the hardest guitars to work with.  Maybe it's me.  :)

Curious as to what that would be. My 40th anniversary Strat, I use 9s but the high tension of strats, fender recomends 10s but that is a bit too much. But , the real difference from my strat to my gibsons, 72 les paul and 68 SG, is the finger stretch. The strat has a longer neck.

As the usual contrarian sumbich I am...;) I do most renders at 800x600 because

1. 22 years of staring at Monochrome/CGA/EGA/VGA/SVGA/whatever's current has left me blind as a bat...;)

2. Big renders take longer, because I still only have 512 meg on my PC, and sometimes even complicated textures will tank the OS...;)

3. since there's a size limit on uploaded files, I tend to be conservative about image size...;)

4. The mistakes I make (that I don't explain away with a fancy story...;) are 10 times as glaring at higher resolutions. Tiny things s*ck less...;)

I like seeing large images, especially when someone is doing really good work.
One can always see the smaller version on the gallery page. I usually look at full version when I'm wantig to see more detail. By then, I don't care that I can only see a part of it at the time.

My posts are usually  1000 x 900 or so, down from a 4000x render. 

I agree with those above that said a good picture is worth posting big, and it can be worth scrolling for.

But this point is well taken also:

What really hacks me off is a huge fancy border which, IMO, adds nothing to the picture.>

If I do post something wider than 1000x, I cut the border down to almost nothing. Just edge to edge girl.

Scrolling scrolling scrolling... ...on loOky nice eye ball... ...scrolling scrolling... ...good detail in the lips... ...scrolling scrolling... ...scrolling scrolling... ...scrolling scrolling... ...navel? ...scrolling scrolling... ... I'm happy with my itsy bitsy little itty bitty 17" at 1024x756 but I've worn out the scroll wheel on three mouses. Two MS's and one Logitec. LOL. (no kidding I really did) :biggrin:

And that's after spending 15 minutes for the whole image to load up! ^_^

Quote - I render at 3000+ for post and then resize down for the web. I was on a dialup for a long time and hated to go through the galleries here. To many were maxing the limit or they would have a 800x600 image that was 500kb. They never bothered to do a little file compressing, which you can do quite well without any loss noticable on the web.

SamTherapywrote. "But then, I do play one of the hardest guitars to work with.  Maybe it's me.  :)

Curious as to what that would be. My 40th anniversary Strat, I use 9s but the high tension of strats, fender recomends 10s but that is a bit too much. But , the real difference from my strat to my gibsons, 72 les paul and 68 SG, is the finger stretch. The strat has a longer neck.

Strat, as you correctly surmised.  The hardest to work with is probably a Tele.  I generally alternate between the Les Paul and the Strat but the Strat is my "go to" guitar.

I hear ya, Strat is my goto too. LOL

in case anybody asks, larger pixel dimensions on images posted here are also helpful to thieves downloading said images for the purpose of selling prints, t-shirts et al. I believe they prefer 'em to be around 2400X3000 for best results.

Genuine Fractals can be used to uprez surprisingly small images to print quality - moral is, if you don't want it stolen, don't put it on the web

I just make them big to keep them that way. 

The fact that Renderosity will allow me to upload is a plus all the way around!

I think small images has less to do with theft and more to do with saving bandwith. Important when you pay for your own server. :)