Best Viewed Large

by
This entry was published at least two years ago (originally posted on September 19, 2005). Since that time the information may have become outdated or my beliefs may have changed (in general, assume a more open and liberal current viewpoint). A fuller disclaimer is available.

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:

  1. 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?

  2. 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.

iTunes “Under Pressure” by Queen from the album Classic Queen (1981, 4:03).

1 thought on “Best Viewed Large”

  1. 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!

Comments are closed.