I have to admit to a certain curiosity about the tendency for so many people to add “best viewed large” to the descriptions of a photo they’ve uploaded to Flickr. Two things are constantly popping into my head when I see “best viewed large” added to a photo:
- Is there really any photo of decent quality that won’t be “better” (that is, clearer, easier to distinguish fine details, and showing less JPEG distortion) at a larger size?
-
How long (assuming it hasn’t happened already) before someone uploads a picture of a penis with this phrase tacked onto the description?
Chances are, if I like a photo enough, I’m going to see if there’s a larger resolution available whether or not someone tells me to; conversely, if a photo doesn’t interest me, I’m not likely to try downloading a larger version just to see if it magically gets better.
All in all, it seems a little silly.
“Under Pressure” by Queen from the album Classic Queen (1981, 4:03).
well, i usually say “click additional sizes and view in original” but only for pans and only because the Flickr default is a sliver about 400 pixels long and 50 pixels high – can’t see squat at that ratio and if you didn’t know it was in a hi-rez version, wouldn’t you just pass it over because at the Flickr default size it’s almost indistinguishable from noise? eh!