image resolutions

[jungleboy]

I have noticed that in recent image sets the resolution o the pics is smaller than older sets ... now its 981 *1472 .
so why is that... I prefer high resolution , bigger images .. hope to get an answer from technicals

[lzimbu]

they shrinkin?

an interesting observation if true.

What would your ideal resolution be btw? Personally I'm used to 3000K and 4000K images from the american and european 'nude art' sites, if you know them.

Wouldn't 2000x1200 be big enough? (to use them as wallpapers, at least those in landscape)

[Frans]

Can't see much difference between old and newer set with regard to size/resolution. You aren't confusing normal sets with the extra large sets are you? Those XL sets are done for some selected shoots, not all.

[lzimbu]

Ok... I'm going to have to waffle

jungleboy, I'm with you. As I'm looking through some of the pictures sets and opening some of the pictures.. none are big enough to view those other important details (eyes).

http://solo.abbywinters.com/main.php?page=image&index=23&shoot=7297

The pictures are just too small. I doubt that even at 2000 pixels on the long side that the details of her eyes would comes out enough to be "stunning".

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=17499#ModelTechSpecsAct

15 megapixels for under 1200USD?

http://solo.abbywinters.com/main.php?page=image&index=156&shoot=7255

See? Details

but for some reason it still feels blown up.. I don't know what it is (the pores, they aren't there...)