>> |
Anonymous
Am I the only one here using a sensibly-sized monitor? Viewed in a web browser, these huge photographs need to be raped by browser resizing to be viewed all at once. That sucks for the viewer, and thusly for the artist. File size doesn't bother me one bit; it's the physical dimensions of the image.
Listen, don't take my word on it. What size does Magnum Photos, made up of the absolute top professional photographers in the world, want its submissions in? You can read it right on their website: "The maximum size of each image should not exceed 700 x 950 pixels."
What size do professional and art photographers present their portfolios in? James Nachtwey's are all (depending on the aspect ratio they're cropped to) in the range of 500-600x300-400, including a small border. Michael Reichmann's front image right now is 540x309, with a larger version of (gasp!) 792x453 available. Erwitt's site is in flash, so I can't just get the dimensions by right-clicking, but they're reasonably sized. David Alan Harvey posts his at 450x299, with a larger 576x383 version available.
These are all people who know ten thousand times more than any of us do about the art and science of photography, and they don't see the need to post anything over 1000 pixels wide on a horizontal framing. Hell, Magnum won't even look at photographs that are.
|