- Last post
- 6 Responses
Curious if anyone is exporting images for the web at a size larger than ~2400px. Particularly for your personal portfolio or a photography site. Sites like these aren't for the masses so a user is less likely to notice the higher download time.
With Retina displays getting better every year, seems like it would be benefit us to use larger images to make the work really shine?
I do for my own portfolio. TBH, I don't think it matters with modern internet connections, anywmore.
After all, your target audience isn't granny running a 486, 800x600 on 14.4 dial-up.
- Hell, even 4G/LTE is faster than some connections I've been on in recent years.Continuity
- *non-mobile connections, I mean.Continuity
- Haha agreed. How high do you go for your portfolio?mtgentry
- If it's landscape and 16:9, then it's 3840, optimised as much as possible.Continuity
- Well, not optimised to the point the artwork is chunky.Continuity
Sometimes for extra crispy look. Mostly when responsive images are user or there is some kind of front-end solution to optimise and create smaller versions for users who don´t need large versions.
I generally cap the image dimensions at 1920px on the sites that I build.
On rare occasions I work with a photographer who is really particular about image quality then maybe I'll bump it up a little more.
1920px on client sites, generally. I have 2560px images as the larger loading images on my site.
last site i made used 1440p for backgrounds (2560 x 1440)
does safari/ ios still have a limitation of 2^24 pixels per image (effectively limited < 5k)? i've run in to that a few times over the years.