Reasons for not posting larger versions?

The larger versions are so helpful in both enjoying the images and in critiquing them that it many times seems unproductive not to have them, so I was wondering what the reasons are that people don't post larger versions (and I also wanted to encourage people to post them). I searched but didn't quickly see a previous discussion on this, but if there is one just let me know and I'll look again.

The main reason, Barbara, is because of fears of mis-use of images as the size gets bigger. The larger the image is, the easier it is to use for a variety of uses.

A secondary reason would simply be people not taking the time to create a larger version, or linking to versions they already have on their website and not wanting to put a larger one there too (particularly for non-members).

I can honestly say I've never opened the largest size, but I'm in the dial-up dark ages. Lots of rural folks around the country are in the same boat. The standard NPN size image take 2-3 minutes to open on a good day and over 5 minutes on a more typical day.

Well Hank, that's a reason for keeping the larger posts as a separate link, not really a reason for other people not to post larger images.

Suits me fine, but if the "standard" size gets any larger, images are pointless for me.

Interesting side-view on the larger images- We make our living selling studio prints to clients and won't let any digital file bigger than 320 pixels on the long axis out of our shop. Even at 640, someone a little creative with their computer can make prints at least as good as they get with an average pocket camera. Files larger than 640? I wouldn't post them even if I had the fastest connection on the continent.

Hank, does it not make a difference that most of you have copyright information across the image somewhere? Would it make more of a difference if it were right across the middle?

It's all a game of trying to keep the honest people honest, Barbara. Crooks and thieves know lots of work-arounds. Even prints are subject to copying on home machinery, but commercial printers are wising up to their liability in printing copyright-marked images. We get an interesting survey of honesty in the calls we get from people who complain that Walmart wouldn't make them extra copies of prints because our copyright was on them.

You haven't lived till you're walking down the street and see one of your images coming toward you on a t-shirt. After many calls from us and a personal visit from our lawyer, the local t-shirt print shop finally got the message.

I have uploaded one or two larger images to ESS mainly for the purpose of showing fine detail that are important to the composition, but for the majority of the time I post only one image.

I can certainly relate to the dialup dilemma. When I first came to NPN, I was on dialup and it would take forever to load a page. Even though my posted images are located on my site, I still try to keep the file size between 250 and 300KB for those on dial-up.

As far posting large images is concerned, I think it really boils down to the level of risk one is willing to take. As has been said, it only takes a minute or two to clone out a copyright notice, or to use other tricks to pilfer images: If it's on the Web, it's basically fair game, unfortunately.

--P

So...for those of us who have had to or still have to work on focus, it's important, yes, to post larger images? Would most of you advise that other than for purposes of working on focus it's just not a good idea to post larger images? (If you wouldn't advise that, I'd love to hear that, too.)

If you don't post larger images, can most of you gauge DOF and focus and everything else about an image from the smaller version?

It certainly varies with the monitor Barbara, but I don't find it a problem at all with 200k or so images.

Some people are made nutty by small size images, both for viewing the work of others and posting their own, and will complain bitterly. I'm not in that league.

I agree with Preston on the point of "on the web, up for grabs." If you don't want your images used without your permission you best not put them on the web. Def not the way is should be, but reality is different I am afraid.

I just don't buy the argument that "I don't post the larger version because I am afraid it will get stolen." These days with technology the way it is, if someone wants to use an image and has the knowledge to do it they can do just about, and I say just about, anything they can do with the 1200px version with the 720px version. So, again, if you don't want your images used without your permission you best not post them on the web. Another method of preserving your right to an image is digital watermarking that also includes tracking. I am now digial watermarking my images. I don't see how that can be removed as it is an integral part of the image. Time will tell. I am sure that tech will be foiled soon as well.

Lastly, I believe another reason at least some people do not post a larger version at least some of the time is because the quality of the image will not hold up to being viewed that large. It is much easier to hide a bit of soft focus in a 720px image than in a 1200px image. I am sure some people will not like me stating that, but it is the truth. I have many many images that look great at 720px, but at 1200px or more they just don't pass muster. They are still very appealing images to me, but I use those for purposes like printing small on notecards and greeting cards I make for my friends and family. I reserve the really nice, tack sharp, small crop images for posting and printing large.

Just my two cents on this issue.

Given a decent monitor, images whose main subject is out of focus will be noticeable, even at relatively small sizes. The major benefit of larger images is being able to see fine detail. Now, if the fine detail is really a major element of a shot, and you have a question as to whether or not that detail is in focus, a larger image is called for.

In my own work with 4x5 film, I know if a shot has correct focus by viewing the film on a light table with a magnifying loupe. So, if you really want to know if a shot is in focus, shoot film and view it on a light table!

--P

I agree Preston, film, light table, and loupe. No hiding anything from that process.

Another challenge is monitor resoltion. The standard keeps going higher (which is good) but there are still plenty of 1024X768 laptop screens in use. If I have to scroll to see the entire photo, it's too large.

I still use 1280X1024 as my main work station - the 1200 pix image just makes it. However, if you're using a newer, super hi-res screen, even the 1200 will look small.

Oh, the challenges of viewing photos on a computer and catering to all the different popular screen resolutions in use! And oh yeah, the speed of your Internet connection....

Excellent points on the monitor resolution Jim. In our "real life" away from the web, we do virtually all our portfolio reviews with clients on screen right after the shoot. And we do it on Apple's largest monitor while viewing full-screen versions of full-size files specifically so the detail can shine through. We've also demonstrated to our complete satisfaction that the larger size a client views, the larger the prints they buy. All that's well and good for sales, but for freebies on the web, I'm not giving away the farm.

Thank you all for the information. Personally, I don't understand the productivity of intentionally posting images that look good small but don't look as good larger, but I understand the rest.