First, some background. Most of the big images I see on the web, especially those in articles, are usually 800x600 pixels in size. Is there any reason for this, especially the height? (e.g. engadget.com, bgr.com)
Okay, now is it bad user experience to have big images on a web page (especially inside articles) if the height of the images is longer than the screen resolution of the user's PC? or it doesn't matter (i.e. users are just fine with it)?
For example, the images in the article on this site are pretty big, and when checked from my 13" laptop with a screen resolution of 1366x768, it's easily apparent that users on most laptops and even desktops will have to scroll to view the full image i.e. they can only see a part of the image at once. Is what the site's doing bad user experience?
It would be great if you cite a research/study to support your view, although not a must.
EDIT: Since I received an answer from an unthought-of angle, I would like to stress — the focus is only on 'user experience' when viewing the image that's bigger than their screen, and NOT if they are on a limited data plan or slower connection.
I mean, come on, the big image is smaller in size than the 800x600 resolution images on those sites!