Why? "View Larger"

<p>Why must so many photos posted say "view larger". I'm really asking, but if I really wanted to see it larger wouldn't I try on my own to make "larger"...right? Is it that critical that I get the "large" view to fully appriciate a photo?</p>

<p>I agree with you - I don't quite understand that either. Maybe it's meant to create some mystique or anticipation.</p>

<p>Surprisingly, many people aren't aware that an image enlarges by clicking it. This is especially true of visiting non-PN members. Also, some may intend their photo to be viewed 'large' and would rather not have it default in 'small' view, hence the reminder.</p>

<p>It's meant to make the photo look better.</p>

<p>At the small size, the jpg is being further compressed by Photo.net software. Often that compression creates digital artifacts that are not present at the smaller size. Very often highlights are compressed so they are not as bright as they should be and shadows become a bit muddier than they were originally. They are sometimes very subtle changes and sometimes more obvious. If you look very carefully at many photos, you should notice a difference. With some, there will be much less difference than others. For most savvy photographers, it's not just about size, though since this is a visual medium size ought to come into play. It's about quality.</p>

<p>Check out this photo of mine. Notice how the main tree comes alive so much more when you click on the photo to see it uncompressed. Also look at the area on the wall around the guy smoking. See how much more detail you see in those shadows when it gets larger (uncompressed). These changes are not just because it's bigger. It looks better because Photo.net software, when viewed larger, is not compressing it:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/8494175&size=md</p>

Much what Fred G stated above is also the reason one can sometimes see the notice to view larger on Flick[e]r. One well known malady is that smaller sized images, that Flick[e]r generates, are sharpened; there is no way to override it.

<p>@Fred,</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"For most savvy photographers, it's not just about size, though since this is a visual medium size ought to come into play. It's about quality".</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I don't know Fred? This is the same line I used to use when I was younger and dating. It never much worked for me!</p>

<p>Mark</p>

<p>Unfortunately, alot of photographers don't understand scale or preparing a photo for a particular medium. This is why many post photos that don't look good at a certain size, and they KNOW it doesn't look good at a certain size. Obviously, the medium here is the center column of an online forum that is only about 7" wide at best. You must select photographs, crop, and edit them with the knowledge that they will be viewed at this size. Most of us don't bother to click to view larger, even if we know it's an option, because it's too much work and you don't gain much for doing it. It's rude to even ask a viewer to do this.</p>

<p>It's as if you were to hold a gallery show at a gallery where everything has to be 8x12". The curator has stipulated this limit, and even provides you with frames. This is because it is a free combined gallery with many other photographers being showcased. So what do you do? You choose photos that you know will look best only at 24x36". You edit them in PS at 24x36 and provide files to the printer that are appropriate for 24x36. You put up a sign at the bottom of every photo that says, "Please put face 8" from photograph and make your eyes really big. You will see more detail this way."</p>

<p>Unfortunately, you are now showing your work right next to someone else who just selected, cropped, and edited his work for 8x12, and his photos look great from 2-3 feet away, as well as from across the room.</p>

<p>The resizing issue is not an issue if you prepare your images correctly. I have never had an issue with it. Then again, i don't upload overly large images to the site either. 800px on the longest size and prepared for the web. Turns out fine.</p>

<p>For many (though not all) people however, I think it's a case of "you can't understand the glory of this image if you dont look at it big. So if you rate it low, you just didn't bother to look at it full size". Which is silly.</p>

<p>However, just to throw a wrench into everything. We've got a new uploading system and resizer i the works. So we'll see how that changes everything (or not).</p>

<p>All sounds reasonable to me. I guess maybe it was wrong of me to assume that viewers would know to view larger. I can't help but agree with Hal though, and find it somewhat rude to ask. I figure if someone is nice enough to look, at even a thumbnail, they don't need instruction to view the photo further. </p>

<p><strong>J</strong><strong>osh--</strong></p>

<p>I'm curious if you looked at my example. It's not an overly large file but the compression seems to affect the quality, and I'm not talking about just size and not talking about ratings. Do you see any gain in actual visual quality going from the small to the large size?</p>

<p>Just looked at Fred's sample and noted the luminance in the highlights reduced in brightness in the foreground stone wall texture and also seem slightly flat looking overall on the smaller versus the larger version.</p>

<p>That's about the only difference I see though and it's quite subtle.</p>

<p><em>For many (though not all) people however, I think it's a case of "you can't understand the glory of this image if you dont look at it big. So if you rate it low, you just didn't bother to look at it full size". Which is silly.</em></p>

<p>Yo, Josh! Sloooow down a minute. I (and many others) upload panoramas, which the PN resizer makes ludicrously small at the default size. Hence, I say 'View Larger', because at 500 or so pixels wide, my nice pano SUCKS. Hell, <em>I'd</em> give it a 3/3. And I never give 3/3s any more.</p>