>>4362155>comically transparentI guess you are one of the numbnuts who assume i samepost as haters, enjoyers and myself in order to garner attention? Or do you mean something else?
>>4362292Because screen size, and even if i break up the photos into quarterly bunches after scrolling for bit you cant still end up with more in memory than many devices can handle.
Also most of the pics are out of focus or have shake, so why accentuate that shit if you dont need to?
Theres also a limit to how much my host will allow. Last time I checked i'm not even close to the max, but things can change, and bigger images mean bigger bytes. It stacks up fast over time.
I was considering upping the size a little last year, to y960px or 1080. But when I did a test run it didnt really work as well as 720px, the tiling was bad on 1080 screens, 4K looked weird and bigger images had the same issues, but most importantly any mobile device i looked at basically need to scale the page down to make it tesselate even remotely nicely.
Very few people have ever even noticed that the images are small. Even the people who save some images do so by screencapping; almost never by just saving the image. So to them, and 99% of the people who regular my site: its all the same.
The only time i hear complaints re size is here, and once or twice that wannabe models got demanding about having the original image. Because some fuckwit told them to always demand the originals (even if im not working for them) and/or they assumed it would be better to post a ~30MB, 24megapixel DNG to facebook.
Also because humans dont like being able to see their minor blemishes in a zoomable media. Less pixels mitigates that a lot.
