Beer Photo Blog...

SWMBO and a mutual friend across the ocean have started a blog of photos about beer... She keeps asking me to spread the word, and then gave me a load of hell this morning when I told her I hadn't posted it on HBT..

So, here I am, posting it... *waves at SWMBO*


Beer Lens | Photos of beer, pubs and breweries from the UK and USA

Let me know if you have any feedback to forward their way.

You take some great pics, as do the other contributing individuals.

My pics look like a 7 year old took them.

BUmping thread because SWMBO made me muffins for breakfast.

I want muffins!

The blog looks great, my only "beef" is that the pics are too big. I even have a widescreen flatpanel monitor, and I still have to scroll up and down and left and right to view them. And honestly no matter How much I might like a site, if I have to do more than just scroll down to look at the next picture I won't venture back to the site.

I noticed that the Sam Smith tap pict has a resolution of 990px × 684px and you top pic is 990 width as well. AND like I said, I can't see the whole images without having to scroll.

Since this is my work computer and I often have to project images to a large lecture hall it is locked to 800 X 600 pixels.

When I post pics on here I usually make them all a width of 500 w, so I'm not warping anyone's post frame on here, or making them have to slide to see the pic.

You guys may want to consider re-sizing your images if you want them viewable to do them no more that 800 X 600 pics or smaller if you plan on having text along with the pics.

Here's sort of an nice Primer of "etiquette" for posting pics online in a way that is ealisly viewable by everyone. Posting Your Pictures

He ends it like this;

Wrapping all this up... I have found that an image about 500 pixels wide by 400 pixels tall saved at 16 bits per pixel and 72 ppi seems to be fine for sharing, although I keep "deeper" versions for printing purposes. With those parameters, on my monitor the 500W x 400T image is about one-half of the width and height of the screen, while on the 640 x 480 monitor set at 72ppi it occupies about 80% of the screen, but is still viewable without scrolling.

Click to expand...

Like I said, I like the concept of the blog...I just would get to really enjoy the whole experience of the pics instead of just a screen bit at a time.

The Duvel Green photo is my new desktop image.

They might want to watermark the images somehow so that they don't end up stolen around the net.

Good feedback, and its not the first time someone has pointed out the size.

Last time I brought that up this was her reply:

SWMBO said:

The idea we had was to make it look like the Big Picture
The Big Picture - Boston.com

So while the size is big, it still fits on my small laptop and the macbook fine but we wanted pow in your face photos of beer.

Click to expand...

But I'll let her know what you said.

Nice, thanks for sharing.

chumprock said:

Good feedback, and its not the first time someone has pointed out the size.

Last time I brought that up this was her reply:



But I'll let her know what you said.

Click to expand...

Tell her it's not "POW in your face" it's bad web ettiquette. And it actually takes the pleasure out of looking at the website. I was a freelance photographer for years, and if I'm frustrated by it people who can't appreciate a good photograph may be even less inclined to come back repeatedly to enjoy it.

If you can't see the image in it's entirety, then the craftsmanship of the photograph is really lost to the viewer. The POW ness should come from it being a great photograh that you can see in it's totality, not a gimmicky or frustrating slide around....You lose so much impact by not seeing the whole pic at once.

That's pretty cool. The photos are just a hair wide for my screen.

I bet your wife and your friends get mistaken for tourists with their cameras out at bars in their home towns!

If I ever make it back to Europe for a beercation (you better believe I will!) I'll definitely do something like this.

You all need bigger monitor resolutions. I don't have a widescreen and it looks great. Nice pictures.

ODaniel said:

You all need bigger monitor resolutions. I don't have a widescreen and it looks great. Nice pictures.

Click to expand...

Some of us can't change our montitor resolutions for projection reasons. But like that article I cited in putting photo's on a website you want to acommodate everyone, even those with lower resolutions.

Display Resolution
The current trend is that most computers are using a screen size of 1024x768 pixels or more:

Date Higher 1024x768 800x600 640x480 Unknown
January 2009 57% 36% 4% 0% 3%
January 2008 38% 48% 8% 0% 6%
January 2007 26% 54% 14% 0% 6%
January 2006 17% 57% 20% 0% 6%
January 2005 12% 53% 30% 0% 5%
January 2004 10% 47% 37% 1% 5%
January 2003 6% 40% 47% 2% 5%
January 2002 6% 34% 52% 3% 5%
January 2001 5% 29% 55% 6% 5%
January 2000 4% 25% 56% 11% 4%
Browser Display Statistics

who the hell is running 800x600?
4 out of 100 and how many of them would look at a beer photo blog aparrenty 1 out of 100 i think the photos are great but them i am look at this on a computer of my own and not my employers

Clayton said:

Display Resolution


who the hell is running 800x600?
4 out of 100 and how many of them would look at a beer photo blog aparrenty 1 out of 4

Click to expand...

I've seen those stats...

I am running an 800X600 because I have to run a feed off of the puter to an lcd projector running a 15' X 15' rear screen projector, and have also to run my feed down to a studio to feed live streaming, when I'm not surfing the web that is.

But the funny thing is Clayton I don't have this issue on any other photblog or website I look at and I look at a lot of them. So they are doing something different than the other websites.....because this hasn't been an issue before today. And that's why I pointed it out to him.

oh and revvy you can ajust the zoom on your brouser. its under view in ie 7 and 8
i am running mine at 120%on this site

Yea but if you make the pictures small to accommodate even the smallest of resolutions, then that takes away from the quality of the pictures. If I'm looking at photography I want the pictures to be big, not small. I don't think any web designers cater to resolutions smaller than 1024x768 anymore. Yea plenty of websites are fine below that, but they don't build it around resolutions smaller than that.

We went to a local brewfest this weekend, I just have to share this awesome **** she got of our buddy tapping a cask:

Tapping the Cask | Beer Lens | Photos of beer, pubs and breweries from around the world

Ok, this is the first time i have read this and I completly agree with revvy. Not to give you guys a hard time but mearly as a suggestion. I do both web design and photography on the side so I really do know what I am talking about when it comes to this. Bottom line is that yes, some (maybe most) people have higher resolution but you still need to cater to the ones that do not. All sites should be based on a 800*600 resoltution. What you might want to conisder is actually having two versions one high and one low rez. It would be easy enough to do it like that.

Also, from a photographers standpoint I would love to see some technical info. Pretty much camera and lens used, the exposure settings, and any lighting that was used.

I do really like quite a few of the pictures on the site though.

While I appreciate the feedback, it's not my site, and SWMBO doesn't listen to me or read these forums...

So, yeah. I just wanted to post that pic 'cause I think it's awesome.
Also, you cannot say the past-tense word for shoot as it gets blocked by the profanity filter.

I really do like that picture to.

chumprock said:

Also, you cannot say the past-tense word for shoot as it gets blocked by the profanity filter.

Click to expand...

shot

The photos look great. I viewed the on both a 24" and a 19" with no problems.

Unless someone has their resolution cranked up to 800x600 they shouldn't have any issues seeing them.

They also look completely fine on an iPhone... *shrug*