In my most recent "Astro-image of the day" post about Mars, I used a 600-pixel-wide image instead of 500, as I've used for months. This makes a larger, prettier image, but might mess up people's LJ Friends view. On the other hand, people might like even bigger images! So a poll:
[Poll #1101676]
To help you decide on your favorite image width, below are a variety of examples of this same image in different sizes.
500 pixels (my usual size for these posts):

600 pixels (the size I used today):

800 pixels:

1000 pixels:

Images courtesy of NASA.
Thanks for your feedback!
Chris
[Poll #1101676]
To help you decide on your favorite image width, below are a variety of examples of this same image in different sizes.
500 pixels (my usual size for these posts):

600 pixels (the size I used today):

800 pixels:

1000 pixels:

Images courtesy of NASA.
Thanks for your feedback!
Chris
From:
no subject
I think it's really funny that you have the options:
1. The universe is a beautiful wonderful thing and I love to see it!
2. I hate the universe and think that anything associated with it should go behind a cut.
When most people seem to be of the opinion that they think the images are beautiful, but want them behind a cut.
From:
no subject
I, for one, am irritated about having to click to see behind a cut and usually don't do so; therefore, I didn't want to be one of those bloggers who forces people to click to see a photo. That's why I've been using 500 pixel-width, because that's the cutoff for people who use narrow LJ formats.
Hm, perhaps the question is unnecessary: If it's an option to set LJ to show images behind a cut, I don't need to change anything, because those who want an image behind a cut probably do it themselves!
From:
no subject
Having said that, there is a plugin or option that will pull out the first image behind cuts if you want them to be,
It's very much a YMMV thing, that's why I've clicked don't care, placeholdes do the job for me.
From:
no subject