Just was wondering what people think about the thumbnails they post with their art. My usual method is to choose a detail from the pic that is perhaps intriguing without revealing too much of the work. I think that if you use the full pic in the thumbnail, folks are less likely to want to view the larger image because they feel like they've seen all it has to offer. Of course, they miss out on the textures of the work because the thumbnail is too small to do it justice. It also seems to be true that the number of visitors that look at a work has more to do with the thumbnail than the work itself, because the thumbnail is what catches the eye first. Even thumbnails that don't show any part of the artwork at all seem to generate a lot of "hits" sometimes. I'm just wondering how others see this issue.

I agree with you, generally I post a particular of my image, and watching the gallery I usually click on a thumb thad don't reveal all the image. Thumbnail are very important they are the presentation of the image. After this we have to talk about big boobs or naked bottoms ( but that's another story...)

I usually post the full scene as a thumbnail, I sometimes feel cheated when the larger version is nothing like I expected...so I try to do the same, although a few of mine were posted with minor detail thumbs and no one complained :) sometimes it depends on the mood of the image I post .....interesting question tjohn

I performed a minor experiment with this a couple of months back when I had two similar images. The full-image thumbnail got more hits than the detail, because in that case the full image gave a fuller idea than the detail of what the viewer would see. I could see how subject matter could affect the outcome. I generally prefer, as a viewer, to see a thumbnail of the whole image.

I think that the thumbnail is the marketing piece. It depends on the image, but I try to make it as intersting as possible. Sometimes it's the whole image, other times it's part of it. I usually start with a 200 x 200 square, and look for a good crop, if that fails, then I crop it by eye, and if that still fails, you get the while thing. Like Kate, I get annoyed when I click on a thumb that is a minute detail. Usually it's because the thumb looks so cool, I need to see it, and I find out that the cool part is just a little part of the corner and the rest of the image sucks. I want the hits, but I don't want to deceive the visitor. If were intersted in deception, I'd make a thumbnail from images obtained from one of the many porn sites, blur out the naughty bits and check off the nudity box. That's a guarantee you'll get hits.

You know what? I'm going to do that. Just to see how many hits it gets. Give it a day or so. I'll think of it as a performance piece where everyone is invited. ;)

I've founf times I've clicked on a thumbnail, because I thought it was interesting, only to find a big huge picture with lots of other wonderful details. This has some meaning to it, but I think the technical point behind the thumbnail is for the gallery's sake rather than the individual piece's. It gives you the option to put several more images in perspective ar one time. = )

Johnpenn, I've seen that done a couple of times and it's either amusing or pathetic (depending on your point of view) to see the results. I've even thought of doing it myself once or twice, but just haven't gotten around to it.

I think the choice of thumbnail depends on the subject matter. It also seems to matter if there is a female in the picture or not. Most pictures with thumbnail manage to show some part of the female (face, boobs, etc). I don't consider showing a part of the image a deception, as much as a tease. The thumbnail should reflect the picture quality. Whether I use the whole pic or the thumb depends on the image. If showing the whole pic is the only way to do it justice, then I show the whole pic. If there is a thumbnail that summarizes the entire pic's intent and quality, than I use that, especially if the picture is too detailed to just look like a blur as a thumbnail. While I have been guilty of a couple tease thumbs, I generally follow the rule above.

The name of the image also has a lot to do with the number of views. "Girl on Beach" may not get the same response as "Hot Woman & Summer Nights." Of course, like the thumb, which one entices more is dependant on the viewer. Swannie's "Hot P**sy" in the photography section is a good example of the name enticing the viewer...

Just my 2c

My experience is that full-picture thumbnails usually get less hits than ones showing tantalising detail.

For me it's exactly the opposite. If I see a thumbnail that is obviously only a small part of a picture, I simply won't click on it, having been "burned" too often in the past by deceptive thumbnails linked to poor quality pics. I always do a thumb of the full pic when I post, and frankly, I consider 'partial' or 'tease' thumbs to be deceptive, period.

Gee, I'm sorry if you wasted a click ... that's so sad :)

Also, I believe the posts that contain nudity are supposed to have thumbnails that are "nudity-free", although this rule appears to be widely ignored. If this is the case, then a pic with nudity would not have the complete artwork show in the thumbnail, if the nudity is censored.