www.BoundAnna.com

Hi there,

I'm thinking of creating a site that has galleries. For those of you who don't know what this is, you have a page with a photo shoot, and you see small thumbnails that you can click to get a bigger version of the thumbnail.

If I look at other galleries, I notice that some show zoomed in thumbnails that will reveal a full photo when you click on it, which effectively means, the thumbnail hides some details of the photo, but because it zooms in, the small photo's show more detail. Also, sometimes it is required to cut off the sides if you have both landscape and portrait style photo's and you don't want to mix them in your gallery. But I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about zooming in to favor details over overview. Some would argue, that a thumbnail would spoil too much of the photo, and by requiring to open them, the surprise is not spoiled.

I'm wondering what you prefer.

Being on a metered service....
Having a site / gallery, that has small sized thumbnails shown on the webpage, then, when selected, the full sided picture is download (sent to the PC) would be best...
Wading through 20 full sized pictures of "not interested" pictures eats up a lot of bandwidth, just to find the one "Keeper"...
(I'm not sure if that was one of your options...)

Yes of course. All thumbnails are different/smaller images. That is the whole idea of a thumbnail. To save bandwidth. Otherwise, I would create one page, have each photo on big and you just scroll past them.

Interesting results so far. People seem to prefer landscape oriented photos, but if both are present, then the gallery itself should make sure things look okay, and all details are visible on the thumbnail.