J.Spin wrote:That image is around 2500 pixels in width, and due to its size there is certainly some added impact. There are some downsides to incorporating these types of images.
I'll say. It so completely hosed the formatting and in particular readability that it made the report totally useless.
J.Spin wrote: Obviously that image width messed with the width of the text lines in the report and made it a bit harder to read.
No. It made it impossible to read. If you want to insure a lot of people will immediately hit the back button, then sure, post an unreasonably huge photo.
J.Spin wrote: I'm loving the fact that linked picture width is now up to 1000 pixels or so on FT (whereas it used to be in the 600-800 pixels range?) but some of my pictures are still downsized and it would be nice to have the option to show larger ones like they do at places such as TGR.
You need to seriously, critically question exactly what you're trying to accomplish with the huge size. Note that the vast majority of professional photographer's sites keep their images sub-800 px wide. In fact, a lot of impact of an image is lost if you can't see it all at once and need to scroll around.
J.Spin wrote:As I recall, we also used to be able to click on downsized images in FT reports and have them pop up in a new window at full size,
That would be the only acceptable option IMO.
J.Spin wrote:... and increasing quality of images at higher resolutions, I think big pictures are going to become more common with people that like to use them.
In print, yes, but on the screen, the quality isn't increasing, the image is just getting larger. The monitor is still at a miserable 72dpi.