image size for internet use

[rafael_s]

<p> Scale everything down to 72 ppi, and 400 pixels width if horizontal image, or 400 pixels height if vertical. They can print a nice wallet size at that size, anything larger and they may get away with 4x6 or 5x7 prints.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Scale everything down to 72 ppi</p>

</blockquote>

<p>One more time. This is meaningless. There is no relevance to ppi for electronic display."DPI" is a five byte string in the header of the digital photo file. It's meaningless except when outputting to a printer.</p>

[megan_stone]

<p>jeff, so when they do decide to print it, will the DPI (if left at 300) for example not affect getting a quality print? this is my concern.<br>

when they do try to print it, then its the dpi that affects it. if i leave that at 360 as i do when i print in-house, then will they not get a good print?</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Resize the pics to 400x600 pixels. The ppi wont make any difference for web display. A 400x600 pixel image would give a 6x4 inch print at 100 ppi. For some people that will be good enough to make a 6x4inch print for the family album or to put in a small frame. From what I have seen from the rest of my family they will print anything on to plain A4 paper and be happy regarless of how bad it really looks.</p>

[mike dixon]

If they want to print it, it's a very simple matter to open up the same "image size" box that you use and enter whatever dpi they want. You have no control over the final ppi used. Unless you're doing the printing, <b>forget about dpi</b>.<P>

 

Your only control over the quality of prints they make is limiting the pixel dimensions of the images you give them.

[megan_stone]

<p>thank you everyone! will give 600 by 400 a go and do a test print and take it from there.<br>

thanks again</p>

[martin-s]

<p>Don't you think you might end up doing yourself a disservice by supplying such small files? It might annoy your customers.</p>

<p>Besides they could also take a picture of the framed portrait and have that printed. That should provide decent quality for prints.</p>

[davebell]

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2384875">Robert Johnston</a> - "PPI _does_ make a difference. If you give them a 600x pixel file, and make it 300 Pixels Per Inch, they can make a very good print."</p>

<p>Its been a long time since I've heard such drivel. My word... the confidence in this post I am referring to while stating the facts incorrectly is astounding.</p>

<p>It is VERY simple. A digital image has a certain number of pixels in the x-axis and the y-axis.</p>

<p>Try this - downsize an image to 600 pixels on the longest edge, and save it as 1 PPI "resolution". Repeat this exercise on the original file but save it at 10000 PPI. Okay, now open each image and view on your computer monitor. What is the result.... they are identical!</p>

<p>Now, send both of them off to a print lab and ask them to print them at 6x4. What is the result.... they are rubish as they only have 600 pixels on the longest edge. Both of them! A good quality print required say 180 pixels per inch, minimum (other may differ I tend to say this should be higher). So assuming 180ppi is the minimum acceptable level, then the largest print of acceptable quality is 600/180 = 3.3333" on the longest edge. This applies to both files, i.e. one saved at 1 PPI and the other at 10000 PPI.</p>

<p>The two files printed at 6x4 will both have a "resolution" of 600px/6" = 100 PPI, which is a rubish quality print in BOTH cases.</p>

<p>The PPI setting isn't some magic bullet allowing a higher quality print. If the required number of pixels are not present, then regardless of the PPI setting you will not get a quality print.</p>

<p>Phew....</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Its been a long time since I've heard such drivel.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You must not spend enough time on photo.net, for some reason, there are a few people who believe that the dpi field is something other than a file header for a printer.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Try this - downsize an image to 600 pixels on the longest edge</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Although one can and maybe should try this, it's also been widely documented. You can find a good example at <a href="http://www.rideau-info.com/photos/mythdpi.html">this page. </a> There is also a decent explanation of what's being discussed here on that page.<a href="http://www.rideau-info.com/photos/mythdpi.html"><br /></a></p>

<p>One more time for the original poster - choose a file size. Ignore the "dpi" field and the print size, these don't matter for resolution. Keep the resolution, i.e., the pixel dimensions, reasonable.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Because so many folks are so *TOTALLY* confused about this basic stuff; many folks release big images in pixels. This really is a TWENTY year old subject; here I got our first 35mm slide scanner in 1989.</p>

<p>This subject has been discussed many many many thousands of times on Photo.net.</p>

<p>The old 72 number comes from printers points; it is about a 400+ year old number.</p>

<p>It really does not bother me if I buy a good image that is 2000x3000 pixels tagged at 1,72,300, or 2000 ppi. The person I buy it from for 1000 bucks probably doesnt not care if he/she gets paid ten 100 dollar bills or twenty 50 dollar bills in cash. Folks with a screw loose will worry to no end about goofy stuff. If 144 eggs are required for a scout campout tommorrow; a select few will worry about the differences of twelve cartons of 12; versus 4 cartons of 36 eggs.</p>

<p>A common thing on photo.net is worrying about what does not matter; or arguing when KEY variables are missing.</p>

<p>(1) Thus many folks worry to no end how a 2000x3000 pixel image is tagged.</p>

<p>(2 Folks worry about if a tiny spec of dust ruins a Leica lens.They would rather ask a zillion folks than shoot a single frame as a test. You wonder if they are confused about ketchup on fries at McDonalds; asking folks at each table what to do.</p>

<p>(3 Folks worry about if it is ok to charge for shooting a wedding.</p>

<p>(4) Folks worry about if a 12 megapixel image is good enough for a dumb giant billboard; that only requires about a VGA image.</p>

<p>(5) There are endless threads where folks CAN NOT tie down the viewing distance of a print or poster and folks inject all sorts of absurd statements; often off by 100 times in the megapixels required.</p>

<p>(6) There are endless threads were folks post BIG images on the web; then wonder why the stuff they gave away is lifted/stolen</p>

<p>(6) we *all * start off not knowing anything. A decent part of dealing with the public here in printing is about the basics like pixels; thus after 20 years it is quite frustrating to see the average person with digital knows less than in past eras, With time maybe it will get better as more folks learn.</p>

<p>(7) One has endless threads about flatbeds; where newcomers discover their flatbed is not really a zillion dpi device</p>

[garrison_k.]

<p>someone way up this thread suggested entering in exif data. It's a good idea for all images. And I just wanted to mention that Facebook strips all meta and exif data when you upload. I always suggest you use watermarks, Megan, for a couple reasons. One of course is a false sense of protection and the other is so that when they do use them and pass them around the internet, at least your logo goes with it and can at least capitalize on it and have it work in your favour for exposure. I know many photogs in the private industry that use this to their advantage and go a step further and help them by batch re-sizing their clients files to 720 pix and watermarking them and include the final images in a folder called "For Facebook" with a note that encourages the upload and sharing.</p>

<p>Do you use Lightroom? If so, pay a few bucks to "Photographers Tool Box" (donation ware) for the LR Mogrify plugin. It makes adding your logo as a water mark so much easier in LR as the stock Adobe LR option for watermarking are so lame. Just save your logo as a .png file and not jpg.</p>

<p> </p>

[Spearhead]

<p>LR 3 completely changes the watermarking options. There is no reason to go for the Mogrify plugin unless you are stuck with LR 2. LR 3 watermarking is far better than Mogrify. </p>

<p>If you do want to use LR, start with the LR 3 beta, the release should be at the end of the month.</p>

[garrison_k.]

<p>Indeed. But it's not a matter of being stuck. I just don't recommended beta to anyone. Besides, we've been hearing "should be released" for sometime now. Don't hold your breath.</p>

<p> </p>

[Spearhead]

<p>I don't know anyone having problems with the current beta. And Mogrify is not a particularly user-friendly experience.</p>

[garrison_k.]

<p>It's still delayed and behind schedule. I just don't advice anyone to put a business work-flow through a LR beta. As a windows user, we've even had released versions that were buggy.</p>

<p>Mogrify is really popular, cheap, does more than watermarks, and has easily found support on the LR forums and Flickr groups for those that perhaps need help. Mogrify is how most of the LR users get away from the boring in-house LR version that we see too often.</p>

<p>What did you find tricky about Mogrify?</p>

<p> </p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Besides, we've been hearing "should be released" for sometime now. Don't hold your breath.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's released. What's the problem? And no need for Mogrify any more.</p>

[rafael_s]

<blockquote>

<p>One more time. This is meaningless. There is no relevance to ppi for electronic display."DPI" is a five byte string in the header of the digital photo file. It's meaningless except when outputting to a printer.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>... actually there is a big difference. Have you ever tried to build a website using 300 ppi images without changing it to 72? Go and see what happens. That's why so many photographers who don't understand web end up with websites that take forever to load. Unless you are uploading images to something like facebook or something that compresses and does it through backend programming you are going to get crazy results. Not to mention that the higher resolution you upload to any site, people can still download that image to their desktop no matter how it displays. I use a mac and can easily drag and drop any image and it will appear on my desktop as it was uploaded to the server of that site. For example, go to this site: http://robliefeldcreations.com/ and you will see 3 images of artwork at the top that look fairly small. In fact they are about 200x400 in size. Save or drag one to your desktop and open and you will see they are larger than what is displayed. That first one I dragged was 740x1150 when I opened up in Photoshop. Anyone with knowledge on how pixels work can easily upsize to get a larger print.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Rafael; one can have a 100x100 pixel image on many web sites and have them tagged at all sorts of "dpi/ppi" tags; an one still usually has the same image; same size file too; thus meaningless. The tag might as well be the photographers weight</p>

[garrison_k.]

<blockquote>

<p>It's released. What's the problem? And no need for Mogrify any more.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, lol, LR3 was FINALLY released yesterday. This event has no relevance when I posted. I still don't suggest beta versions and feel it's poor advice and practice for a pro work-flow when there are solid and proven methods already in place. There's nothing wrong with Mogrify and a ka-zillion thankful people use it. It's very inexpensive for the professional results it provides.</p>

<p>What's the problem? Maybe she's not interested in paying $100 for an upgrade from v2 to v3? Instead, paying $5 for Mogrify is a great alternative for v2 software she might already have? Seems reasonable to me. But heck, we're not even sure if Megan has LR let alone wishes to start watermarking.</p>