Thumbnails: big or little

Not sure if there's a standard on this or not, but even if there isn't,
was wondering what your opionions are on what the size of a thumbnail
should be when used for a photo gallery/album, and why.

I use bigger ones (I'm currently using 225px wide, but have gone up to
300px), with the idea that this gives the user a choice - if they have
limited bandwidth, they're not necessarily forced to look at the bigger
(in my case 640x480) pictures "behind" the thumbnail. Of course, the
bigger thumbnails do load slower.

However, others like to use really small thumbnails, less than 200px.
This, I guess, allows more images per page, and faster download times.

Is there any sort of standard, official or not, for the size of a
thumbnail in a gallery? What size thumbnails do you use, and why?

jmc
coolimages.us

jmc wrote:

[thumbnail sizes]

> Is there any sort of standard, official or not, for the size of a
> thumbnail in a gallery?

Not that I know off, although 300px sounds much bigger than a
thumbnail to me.

> What size thumbnails do you use, and why?

I use two types - one shows an entire picture in small, and is 150px
on the longest side, the other is 79px square, and only shows a
portion of the larger image.
For a friend's web site, I use thumbnails that range between 100px and
160px on the longest side, depending on the type of gallery it's in.
(portraits for instance using larger thumbs than snapshots)

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -

jmc wrote:
> Not sure if there's a standard on this or not, but even if there isn't,
> was wondering what your opionions are on what the size of a thumbnail
> should be when used for a photo gallery/album, and why.
>
> I use bigger ones (I'm currently using 225px wide, but have gone up to
> 300px), with the idea that this gives the user a choice - if they have
> limited bandwidth, they're not necessarily forced to look at the bigger
> (in my case 640x480) pictures "behind" the thumbnail. Of course, the
> bigger thumbnails do load slower.
>
> However, others like to use really small thumbnails, less than 200px.
> This, I guess, allows more images per page, and faster download times.
>
> Is there any sort of standard, official or not, for the size of a
> thumbnail in a gallery? What size thumbnails do you use, and why?
>
> jmc
> coolimages.us

http://www.mbstevens.com/howtothumb/
....may help. Instead of direct click through, you can use a small
thumbnail sized image with several sizes of enlargements available
through links near the image.

The dimensions of the thumbnail are of less importance than the actual
size of the file. You want to keep the download size very small indeed.

"jmc" <NOnewsgroupsSPAM@NOjodiBODY.HOMEus> wrote in message
news:3rs399Fkpo5dU1@individual.net...
> Not sure if there's a standard on this or not, but even if there
> isn't, was wondering what your opionions are on what the size of a
> thumbnail should be when used for a photo gallery/album, and why.
>
> I use bigger ones (I'm currently using 225px wide, but have gone up
> to 300px), with the idea that this gives the user a choice - if they
> have limited bandwidth, they're not necessarily forced to look at
> the bigger (in my case 640x480) pictures "behind" the thumbnail. Of
> course, the bigger thumbnails do load slower.

I use 160px wide. I find this large enough for the viewer to see
whether they care to see the larger photo. Saves a lot of band width
when the viewer is not clicking every single thumbnail.
--
Tom J
When everything's coming your way,
you're in the wrong lane.

jmc <NOnewsgroupsSPAM@NOjodiBODY.HOMEus> writes:

> Not sure if there's a standard on this or not, but even if there
> isn't, was wondering what your opionions are on what the size of a
> thumbnail should be when used for a photo gallery/album, and why.
>
> I use bigger ones (I'm currently using 225px wide, but have gone up to
> 300px), with the idea that this gives the user a choice - if they have
> limited bandwidth, they're not necessarily forced to look at the
> bigger (in my case 640x480) pictures "behind" the thumbnail. Of
> course, the bigger thumbnails do load slower.

I sometimes have a couple of hundred on a page; I go for small ones.
For a different kind of display, I can see the argument for
larger thumbnails.

> However, others like to use really small thumbnails, less than
> 200px. This, I guess, allows more images per page, and faster download
> times.

Yep.

> Is there any sort of standard, official or not, for the size of a
> thumbnail in a gallery? What size thumbnails do you use, and why?

No standards, of course. I don't recall anybody complaining about
mine, either.

Mine fit in a 96h x 144w box.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

"jmc" <NOnewsgroupsSPAM@NOjodiBODY.HOMEus> wrote in ...
: Not sure if there's a standard on this or not, but even if there isn't,
: was wondering what your opionions are on what the size of a thumbnail
: should be when used for a photo gallery/album, and why.
:
: I use bigger ones (I'm currently using 225px wide, but have gone up to
: 300px), with the idea that this gives the user a choice - if they have
: limited bandwidth, they're not necessarily forced to look at the bigger
: (in my case 640x480) pictures "behind" the thumbnail. Of course, the
: bigger thumbnails do load slower.
:
: However, others like to use really small thumbnails, less than 200px.
: This, I guess, allows more images per page, and faster download times.
:
: Is there any sort of standard, official or not, for the size of a
: thumbnail in a gallery? What size thumbnails do you use, and why?

do that artists trick, hold your thumb up to the screen next to your 'thumbnail' and
if ones bigger than the other you need surgery! OTOH, just keep the whole page
under a megabyte, I find 160 wide or high captures a lot of detail in the picture and are
about 10kb to 20kb each.

Herc

Toby Inkster wrote

> I'd like to add that I'm from Sydney

Do you have an Australian accent?

--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com