Why Small Web Images on our Web Sites?

[david_senesac]

I recently built my web site and went live on our World Wide Web.

Before doing so I spent considerable time reviewing the latest

visuals on a lot of pro photographer sites on the web. Especially

those who sell large format as fine art prints since that is the main

thrust of my offerings. The internet has now been around with market

presence for a dozen or so years. During this period all facets of

the medium have evolved rapidly with increasing maturity now slowing

the pace of change. For those offering photographic prints, three

initial limitations influenced our web page displays. One was the

slow dial up phone connection modem speed of the bulk of users that

made larger images annoyingly slow to load onto one's monitor. Hence

small images were normal for most web sites of any kind across the

internet. The second minor issue was that average monitor size used

to be smaller. Displaying an image larger than can fit on ones

monitor screen is a poor way for anyone to evaluate an image's

aesthetic. The third issue was that any monitor displayable images

are easily illegally copied ala <Alt><PrintScreen> and many other

ways. Or downloadable larger images required sophisticated

safeguards to guarantee a customer was real. Thus photographers

displaying images online were caught between wanting to display their

images large enough to provide a reasonable sense of the aesthetic

and quality of the image while not wanting to display too large of

sizes such that their images were taken illegally. Large stock

agencies were able to provide access to larger size images online

because they had the legal machinery, money clout, sophisticated

access software, and technical search resources, to guarantee their

images were not being used commercially. However for the vast

numbers of small businesses such was not practical so photographers

displaying images became used to using thumbnails and small VGA or

sized images for display. For large format images the issue of being

limited to displaying only small images forces us to compete on the

same playing field of a vast pool of smaller format photographers.

The same subjects taken with a puny 1mp digital camera can look just

as good as one taken with an 8x10.

 

Today two of those issues have definitely changed though from what

I've seen, photographer web sites continue to display mostly small

images. With broadband connectivity rapidly gaining dominance, we

no longer have to worry about displaying somewhat larger sized images

simply because we don't want to annoy visitors with slow page loading

times. In fact for those selling prints at the high end, the

probability is most of our potential customers are those with both

broadband and larger monitors. Monitor size still is a limitation

however most photographer gallery images still display far smaller

than such widths. Displaying a larger image will almost always

benefit the aesthetic of any quality image. And for we with large

format that impact is even more apparent. The other issue of

worrying about internet users copying images off their screens is

probably not an issue of photographers on this forum selling fine art

prints? Do I care if someone doubles the size of my displayed images

and tries to market the result as a screen saver? Or someone makes

some cutesy 2x2.5 inch images they stick on coffee cups or t-shirts?

Of course not because all that is low end chicken feed. A ten-inch

wide display at 72 ppi is only going to make for a 3-inch wide image

from any serious printer. I can understand concern with those who

are just selling little stock images because that stuff often ends up

being small in commercial use. But for we who are offering high

quality prints, that ought not matter or am I missing something?

 

...David

 

www.davidsenesac.com

[bob_gentile]

<em>"... With broadband connectivity rapidly gaining dominance, we no longer have

to worry about displaying somewhat larger sized images simply because we don't want to

annoy visitors with slow page loading times..."</em></p>

 

<p>Broadband is gaining "share," but hardly "dominance"at least

here in the U.S. When I design a website using Flash animation or any other bandwidth hog,

I always provide an HTML-alternative for dial-up users. For that, my design goal is

20-seconds of load time on a dial-up line.</p>

 

<p>If you choose to target (limit) your prospect-base to those with broadband connections

and large monitors, that's certainly your call. To me, it makes sense to try to appeal to

the least common denominator. That means (1) designing web pages that display well on a

15" monitor, but will scale smoothly to larger ones, (2) keeping in mind that default

fonts will be displayed if the viewer doesn't have the "neat-o" font I like, and

(3)  avoiding telling the visitor that "this site is best viewed with Netscape

7.2" or IE, or whatever. I don't expect visitors to change or upgrade browsers (or

monitor settings) just to view a website. </p>

 

<p>I think it's all a matter of one's personal philosophy.

[dean_tomasula1]

While the Internet itself has been around for nearly 40 years, the Web has only been around for 10. In 1996 the Web started to gain popularity.

 

Back then there were only very slow dialup connections. I remember what it was like using a 1200 baud modem. When I got a 1400 baud modem I thought I'd died an gone to heaven.

 

Photographers use small photos on the Web for a number of reasons. Part of it is a holdover from the old slow connection days. Part of it also is you don't want to use up all your server space with large photos.

 

Then there's the security factor -- small, low-res photos are less likely to be stolen from your Web site and used other places than large, hi-res images.

[bhneely]

Even with a large monitor, which I count as a 17" unit, 800 pixels of height is the maximum you can see without scrolling. Any image that requires scrolling loses more effect than a small image does.

 

I'm a very impatient surfer, so when I write a page, I have my habits in mind. I do not stay at a site that requires scrolling to view one image. I do not stay at a site where I don't have a thumbnail gallery option, because I generally don't want to look at every picture someone posts. I don't stay at a site that doesn't have clear navigation. I don't wait for flash to load. I don't stay at a site with bad grammar or spelling or broken links. I don't stay at a site that requires a membership or personal information before viewing anything.

 

I do stay at and explore sites with compelling images (a completely personal, esthetic thing, and I don't expect every photographer to compel me). I do stay at and explore sites that are well-written, where the links work. I do stay at sites where I can pick and choose which galleries/portfolios, as well as which pictures within each gallery I can view. I do stay at sites that, even if member-driven, give me at least a view images before requiring membership.

 

If I can make a curmudgeonly guy like that happy, I can make anyone happy. Flash is neat, big images are cool when you can see the whole thing, paradigm-shifting creativity in web design is amazing when it works right, but if I don't feel compelled in the first few seconds, I'm confident I can find another site (and another artist) that is compelling.

 

Brian

[steve_sivak]

check these out- they may shed some light on the issue:

http://www.sksantos.com/

http://www.stevensivak.com/

http://www.manipulator.com/

[bob_gentile]

<em>"... I remember what it was like using a 1200 baud modem. When I got a 1400

baud modem I thought I'd died an gone to heaven..."</em></p>

 

<p>Dean, </p>

 

<p>Ha! Back when a baud was a "bit per second." Yeah... I yoosta work on

DARPANET hardware back in the late 60's, early 70's, when 300 baud modems were the thing.

Before DARPANET became ARPANET. It wasn't until we <em>exceeded</em> 2400 that a baud and

a "bit per second" were two different things. Dibits? Tribits? Quadbits? In all

fairness, though, even up at 9,600 bps and beyond, it was basically a <em>text</em>

medium. </p>

 

<p>-------------------------------------------------</p>

 

<p><em>"... I do not stay at a site that requires scrolling to view one image. I do

not stay at a site where I don't have a thumbnail gallery option, because I generally

don't want to look at every picture someone posts. I don't stay at a site that doesn't

have clear navigation. I don't wait for flash to load. I don't stay at a site with bad

grammar or spelling or broken links...."</em></p>

 

<p>Brian,</p>

 

<p>Amen! Nor do I. </p>

 

<p>-------------------------------------------------</p>

 

<p>"... <em>check these out- they may shed some light on the issue..."</em></p>

 

<p>Steve,</p>

 

<p>Yup! Good examples. David, do you see the comon message here?

[mskovacs]

Image theft is something that requires consideration as well.

[david_senesac]

BG, true about the current broadband market penetration though it is rapidly gaining share. More importantly though those customers that are looking for fine art prints are more likely to be within that group versus the average web surfer.

 

SS, that site has an excellent method of display. I liked the time gauge at bottom which helps show the loading speed and position. Of course that has been a complementing downloading display mechanism for years. I like the concept and might implement such at some time.

 

BN >>>"Even with a large monitor, which I count as a 17" unit, 800 pixels of height is the maximum you can see without scrolling..."

 

Its a bit more complicated than your brief comment of course depending on specifics. The following is on the "Tips" section on my website:

 

"Monitors are specified in the diagonal screen dimension. For standard 4:3 aspect monitors, the horizontal screen dimension equals 80% of the diagonal and the height 60%. However only roughly 90% of those lengths are viewable between monitor housings. That reduces numbers to about 72% and 54% respectively. So for a 17 inch diagonal monitor, the usable screen might be: 0.54*17*100 = 9.18 inches by 12.24 inches. Given a 100 pixel per inch phosphor dot pitch, the screen size would be 1224 by 918 pixels. For such a screen 1024x768 XVGA would fit well and 1240x1024 SXVGA would moderately increase information viewable. UVGA at 1600x1200 would add no new information even if the mode was allowed."

 

Thus with a 17" monitor running Windows with the Display setting for SXVGA, one ought to be able to view at least a 1000 pixel widths even taking into account some overhead for browser scroll bars and window edges. Of course all this depends on what Display setting has been selected. If that selection is the more usual XVGA, your numbers of course look fine. I do think as bandwidths continue to rise and LCD prices continue to plummet, in the next few years we will be seeing monitor sizes continue to grow so 20 inch sizes will be more the norm. A more detailed image view will always be preferable given a choice. With images now being such a growth boon for the internet that marketing pressure will accellerate the increase.

 

...David

 

www.davidsenesac.com

[jeffpolaski]

I got on the Web from home on a dial-up connection and after I conducted the necessary on-line business, I thought of browsing a bit and then remembered where I was. Not worth the time. Broadband is not as ubiquitous as the media hype would have us believe.

[allen_whittier]

David,

 

" Do I care if someone doubles the size of my displayed images and tries to market the result as a screen saver? Or someone makes some cutesy 2x2.5 inch images they stick on coffee cups or t-shirts? Of course not because all that is low end chicken feed."

 

If you let your image be used publicly without challenging it, you start eroding the line between copyrighted material and public domain. Putting an image out in a format that is easily copied and not monitoring its use generates a lot of questions about how you wanted your image used.

 

So a small cup and T-shirt company uses your image knocking out a few items in a small local market for a few years. It starts becoming a trademark image for them because you've done such a great job creating the image and have, by your own admission, let them have it for free. One day they go big. At this time they decide to lock in the rights to use the image they've built an identify around. Who has the rights here. If you've deliberately made it easy for the public to use your image, is it in public or private domain. I believe the courts want to see you vigorously protecting your rights.

[w_t1]

I second what Brian and Allen said about thumbnails and image theft. From my personal experience, I want pics that are small for viewing on screen. I use broadband, both at work and home, the only time i've liked to look at large pics is on sample pics from digital cams on the dpreview web site, to print out ...

 

check out David Muench web site: http://muenchphotography.com/printgallery/index.html his files are 14k, one of yours i downloaded was over 180. Yours being larger doesn't tell me any more about the quality of the printed image.

 

Also, the technical data attached to your pics is interesting from a photographic point of view (good reference for all the lf posts here "does anyone have a scan from xyz lf lens?"), but a buyer would only want to make sure the print looks good. That's like going to buy a house and the real-estate agent informing you of the framing methods - nice but not necessary.

[bob_the_builder1]

The pace of innovation on the web has nothing to do with the medium reaching maturity,

and a lot to do with a lack of innovation and real competition in a M$ dominated age. As to

image size, nobody is going to allow free DL of large copies of their images that can then be

printed off - you can get such files, but you have to pay.... for viewing on a standard monitor

we have all the resolution we need right now.

[steve_sivak]

Theft on a well designed website? Now I am no pro but I was surprised that

these guys from Belgium (who designed all three of the links above) do not

allow my images to be lifted. I am not sure about the other two sites that are

linked. So this talk about thumbnail file size being the only wya to protect

ones images is way out of date...... Web design is changing faster than

photography.

[w_t1]

nice 5x7 print from david's web site, ready for trimming and mounting...<div></div>

[steve_sivak]

Only because he does not know how to "properly" protect his images.....

I tried on my site and Jill Greenburgs' and there is no piracy possible....... that's

what you get when you hire a pro.....

[eric merrill]

Steve:

 

If it can be displayed on the web, it can be copied or stolen. If anybody tries to tell you differently, don't believe him.

 

There is *no* way to copy protect an image on a web site. None. Period. No exceptions.

 

Locks are for honest people. "Protection" schemes just make getting around on your web site more difficult for your honest viewers.

 

If you don't believe me, send me an email, and I'll email you the picture of your choice lifted from your site.

 

 

Eric

[david_senesac]

Sep, indeed that would make a 5x7 print on your little ink jet and your Mom will love it haha. But on a low res printer since the web image has just 864 pixels in width which is just one-fourteenth the width of the real image. On a quality 300 ppi printer the width would be less than 3 inches. So indeed per my thread question what is that worth? Someone could make a business card from it of course but that again is small change. About your other comment referring to Muench's teenee images. I don't think anyone seeing one of those images is going to doubt the quality behind the few pixels. But if he tried selling the same stuff without his name at a no-name business site I'd expect the only business would be from newspaper comic strip editors. And you are right about even the larger images not being able to reasonably tell a customer about what the real image is like since any image displayable wholy on a monitor is still going to be far smaller than a fine art master file. But on the other hand the larger displayed image will almost always look more interesting and show more detail.

 

Allen's comment about not letting thieves mug us without resistance rings with some common sense, but for such tiny images I just don't see much an issue. My site does of course have obvious Copyright notices all over. If some business stole an image with enough money involved to interest a lawyer for free, I would likely become interested. But that is not going to happen with a small internet business like mine if one of the myriad peon surfers on the internet grabs something to make a t-shirt for his art and wine festival booth. If I saw something like that, I'd say BOO, making a empty threat and that is as far as it would likely go.

 

As for Steve's comment about protection, yes one can get protection from the ignorant masses but anything that displays on a monitor if not simply picked off the screen with <Alt><PrintScreen>could otherwise be picked off the video board frame grabber with simple consumer available pc hardware.

[michael_chmilar]

It seems that the Steven Sivak, Sean Kennedy, and Jill Greenberg sites (linked above) have a unique approach to protecting their content.

 

The web browser I am using (Mozilla on Red Hat Linux) renders these sites as a 4cm (about 1.5 inch) strip at the left-hand side of browser window. As such, it is impossible for me to navigate around the site - thus protecting the images from my gaze, let alone snarfing a copy.

 

Of course, it makes me wonder why they bother to put up a site if it cannot be browsed.

 

Were these created by a "professional" web designer? It seems unlikely. A professional's code will work on all browsers.

 

(I was going to figure out how to snarf some images, but the lack of functionality of the sites has prevented me from even seeing any images.)

[bob_the_builder1]

I just lifted an image from one of the above sites. Took all of 3 secs. .....

[w_t1]

I love this thread, disputing stated facts and performance with evidence.

[trw]

<blockquote>check these out- they may shed some light on the issue: http://...</blockquote>

<p>Indeed, all three of these sites demonstrate that if you try browser specific tricks to protect your images your site <b>may not render <i>at all</i></b> on a different browser.</p>

[steve_sivak]

Eric-

Go ahead and grab one of my images..... now on a g5 (as well as any pc)

you can take a screen shot...... but can you then take it into photoshop and

clear away the surrounding info and present the image as one's own?

 

Of course these are "professionally" designed sites.....

 

Prove it to me-

 

SS

[bob_the_builder1]

Here you go stevie, one taken direct from your website:

[w_t1]

another pilfered image from a "professionally designed site" whatever that means, took me all of 2 minutes here at work, and I didn't even go to Harvard

 

BTW, if I wasn't there to pilfer an image, would not have viewed the site at all, annoying as heck to have mtv style images popping in and out...<div></div>

[eric merrill]

Steve:

 

Here's an interior shot. Plain jpg. Can put it anywhere.<div></div>