Originally Posted by davemies

it's the same file size for the web whether it's 300 dpi or 72dpi or whatever (actually we're talking ppi - pixels per inch, not dpi - dots per inch which is printed resolution)

see
http://pp.kpnet.fi/prescott/stuff/leaves72.jpg (72ppi in photoshop)
and
http://pp.kpnet.fi/prescott/stuff/leaves300.jpg (300 ppi in photoshop)'

BOTH are 73k when exported

Sorry, I must disagree with you. Dots per inch don't count. File compression can make a world of difference and I offer this article that I wrote a few years ago to support my position.

Originally Posted by colbyt

Sorry, I must disagree with you. Dots per inch don't count. File compression can make a world of difference and I offer this article that I wrote a few years ago to support my position.

if you disagree with me then you ARE saying that photos on the web are RESOLUTION DEPENDANT. read my thread again AND the bit where i said this

"the resolution doesn't matter for web photos: 1pixel is one pixel"
THEN see if you really disagree or you just didn't bother to read the thread properly

Hey Brian- I see we are sharing yet another forum! Whasup!? As far as your images go, I was taught that 72dpi is the standard res for web stuff, and saving it as anything higher is just a waste of bandwidth. However, I will often bump web art up to 92dpi, just in case somebody wants to print it out. It will give them a slightly better image without a lot of needless bloat for the other web users.

And when using Photoshop, you MUST use Imageready, it will make life so much easier for you. They stopped including it around PS8 or CS1, which is why I still use PS7.

Originally Posted by Capt Quirk

Hey Brian- I see we are sharing yet another forum! Whasup!? As far as your images go, I was taught that 72dpi is the standard res for web stuff, and saving it as anything higher is just a waste of bandwidth. However, I will often bump web art up to 92dpi, just in case somebody wants to print it out. It will give them a slightly better image without a lot of needless bloat for the other web users.

And when using Photoshop, you MUST use Imageready, it will make life so much easier for you. They stopped including it around PS8 or CS1, which is why I still use PS7.

bumping it up to 92dpi (i assume you really mean ppi) MAKES NO DIFFERENCE! it prints at screen resolution. try it! save an image at 20ppi (which should be pretty lousy - open it in a web page and print it. do the same for one at 300ppi and print it. see any difference? thought not

try the leaf pictures in my links in my earlier post in this thread and print them both. there is no difference when printed from a browser. and there's no difference in file size either. try the links, see the results and believe it

Well you learn something new all the time When I was studying web design I was told you use 72 pix/inch (RGB) for web work and 300 pix/inch (CYMK) for print work...

That's a decent rule of thumb, but there's so much variation in monitor size and screen resolution that dpi is basically irrelevant in web design. It's all about the pixel size!

If the photo is going to be view on a webpage, you'll want to see what the width (and to a lesser extent, the height) in pixels of the area it will show up is - this will vary a lot, depending on the site's layout and the use of the photo.

A computer monitor can't display resolutions higher than 72 ppi. Any higher resolution in your web graphic files just wastes bandwidth. Printing is another story alltogether...all that extra data *can* get printed so it's worth having.

Bottom line, make all web graphics 72 dpi.

bittersanta - it doesn't matter.
it's simply one pixel in the image is one pixel on the screen.

a '72 dpi' image (which as i already explained is 72 ppi) is the same filesize as a '300 dpi' image' so you're wrong to say that a higher resolution wastes bandwidth as it's immaterial.

just keep your graphics at whatever resolution they already are.

Originally Posted by davemies

bittersanta - it doesn't matter.
it's simply one pixel in the image is one pixel on the screen.

a '72 dpi' image (which as i already explained is 72 ppi) is the same filesize as a '300 dpi' image' so you're wrong to say that a higher resolution wastes bandwidth as it's immaterial.

just keep your graphics at whatever resolution they already are.

Thanks for correcting my post. You are entirely correct.

I didn't make my point clearly. What I meant to point out was that when comparing two images of the same physical size, the 300 ppi image contains more data than a 72 ppi image.

I should know better than to post something at 2am....

"I should know better than to post something at 2am...."

lol

dont use too huge resolution it can take much time to load the pictures

Originally Posted by wchua24

dont use too huge resolution it can take much time to load the pictures

did you actually READ any of this post? your comment is ill informed and unsubstantiated.

did you look at the examples i posted?

do you understand that 1 pixel in the image is 1 pixel on screen and that´s it!

HEY just listen to me, trust me.
72 dpi optimized for web jpeg 100%

don't go any higher than 72, your not offering Free artwork.
your giving us a taste.

*side note, i work with a large firm, many photogs, many copyright lawyers, never let anything touch the web with a high resolution, it DOES matter. We can steal your photo's, remove watermarks, and print billboards in 2 days.
Save for web, offers another little form of protection that i will not get into.
it matters it matters it matters. If your images are copyright and you don't want theft, which is done all the time by competing firms. i would recommend virtual watermarks as well (for high end photos to be displayed).

since the owners have had the photoshop guys send us photos following those guidelines, we have had no probs.
some lowhanded attempts, but nothing successful. if it works for photographers who sell prints at $15,000.00 it should work for everyone else lol

salcedomark - no, we're not listening and we don't trust you as you're talking bollocks...

if anyone else wants to chime in with 72dpi or similar at least read the post AND pot examples proving your point. believe me.

Originally Posted by salcedomark

HEY just listen to me, trust me.
72 dpi optimized for web jpeg 100%

don't go any higher than 72, your not offering Free artwork.
your giving us a taste.

*side note, i work with a large firm, many photogs, many copyright lawyers, never let anything touch the web with a high resolution, it DOES matter. We can steal your photo's, remove watermarks, and print billboards in 2 days.
Save for web, offers another little form of protection that i will not get into.
it matters it matters it matters. If your images are copyright and you don't want theft, which is done all the time by competing firms. i would recommend virtual watermarks as well (for high end photos to be displayed).

since the owners have had the photoshop guys send us photos following those guidelines, we have had no probs.
some lowhanded attempts, but nothing successful. if it works for photographers who sell prints at $15,000.00 it should work for everyone else lol

dude u save it at 72dpi, open and save for web.

its not "bollocks", let me see some of your photography on the web please.
I'll have coasters, mugs, mouse pads, greeting cards, bookmarks
all with MY copyright info on it.

ok, ill give you examples just send me a link with your work. pm it to me.

You guys seem to WANT to give artwork away.

I'll give you an example:
A print shop in L.A. has been making "Limited Edition" prints, thousands all numbered "1 of 100" of my brothers artwork, the prints are blown up from a 400px width picture (i don't remember the height, i used to make everything 400width for his myspace). The image was blown up about 250% (about) and the **** things are so crisp.

They are still up,

myspace.com/artedemoises
all these images are perfect for bootlegging, even though they are soo small.

it's too the point where its too big a hassle to go after everybody. a small shop in l.a. a small shop in china, arts and crafts people print them on boxes, on coasters, even on floor tiles and sell them as trinkets.

Heres the example:
This was taken from a 400 pixel width.

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/b...la-promesa.jpg

I'm only telling you this, so you don't make the mistake i did.
that image is good enough to print on the gallery window, we checked.

all from a myspace graphic that was 400px width, the resolution was very high. so whatever bullocks is, i think your full of it or uh...them.

Originally Posted by salcedomark

Heres the example:
This was taken from a 400 pixel width.

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/b...la-promesa.jpg

I'm only telling you this, so you don't make the mistake i did.
that image is good enough to print on the gallery window, we checked.

all from a myspace graphic that was 400px width, the resolution was very high. so whatever bullocks is, i think your full of it or uh...them.

that example is only 17cm wide at a measly 100ppi. how is that going to look good? unless of course the gallery window is very small

and i gave examples earlier in this post - try reading the whole thread before you jump in.

Originally Posted by cool sam

Hi
Its should be 72dpi ..................
|

so someone else who can't be bothered to read the whole thread.

dpi is dots per inch which refers to printed material. ppi (pixels per inch is what you're thinking of)

images for the web are simply displayed according to how many pixels wide they are by how many pixels high, irrespective of 'resolution' and changing the resolution makes no difference to file size on the web.