I have a feeling that it will be the browser, not the screen that's the issue....A degradation in quality (and more jaggies etc.) will occur if the image is reduced (try it in photoshop...look at an image at 100%, then at something like 70%....looks horrid )....

Some web browsers may try and automatically reduce images in order to fit on the smaller screen (and eliminate the need to scroll), thus resulting in the loss in quality....

Just an idea (they look fine on my 1680x1050 )

.mic

I think the important thing is the resolution of the image. I run my wide-screen monitor at its native resolution of 1440 x 900. As it's wider than the maximum allowed on the forum all images posted here within the width limits fit nicely on my screen.* Must admit I've often wondered what my photos look like on other people's systems, especially at a screen resolution like 800 x 600 where the standard 1024 width images are displayed bigger than the screen. I know a lot of people still use these resolutions for various reasons.

Quote:

I suspect Mic might be right about this. LCD flat screens not being set at their native resolution is another thing that might affect the display quality of images.

*PS. This is one reason I would be against raising the width limit. I think it would have negative results for the majority of members with smaller monitors.