what are your export settings? do they vary? I dunno, I don't think I've ever discussed this with people before.
rez has been at 240 forever but I'm trying 300 now because why not
>>2815929
>rez has been at 240 forever but I'm trying 300 now because why not
Because it doesn't fucking do anything?
Also
>quality 100
wewewewewewewewewew
>>2815934
god forbid I use 100% quality on a 1500 pix photo that's a single MB in size
>>2815939
Read up on jpeg compression, homeboy.
>Image format
PNG
>Resize to fit
1000 pixels on the longest side you fuckin shitboy
>Resolution
999999999999 pixel per inch because that shit doesn't even matter
Since none of these faggots can into print media, here's the lowdown. The PPI setting is only useful for print, for web there's no reason to go much over 72, that's the standard (you can go higher if you target hidpi screens). For print, 300 is the normal, although in some cases you'd go up or down depending on the context. Fashion mags tend to be higher, billboards much lower.
>>2816019
>you can go higher if you target hidpi screens
Retard.
>>2816020
Why are you so mad bro? Don't you want your shots to look crisp on a Macbook Pro?
>>2816023
K. :)
>>2816023
shame on you for coming here in the first place m8
>>2816022
Pixel's a pixel, bro.
>>2816032
It's more complicated then that, it's specific to how scaling works for high dpi. I'm pretty sure browsers ignore it, but it can play a part in image display software, like Preview.
The typical trick we use when targeting hidpi in web is that we double the res of the image, than shrink it to half the size, effectively doubling the PPI of the image.
>>2816039
So you make an image "print" twice as small and then cut the actual number of pixels in half?
M8 please. It's okay if you don't know what you're talking about, because you don't have to talk. It can be disruptive to beginners, however, if you do choose to espouse your ignorance as fact.
>>2816039
While the perceived sharpness depends on the scaling algorithm, both images, before and after, have the same ppi when you show them in the same scale on the monitor.
You can't have more than one pixel in one pixel.
You just can't.
>>2816041
>>2816042
It's nothing to do with the number of pixels on the screen, we aren't even talking about that, this is about scale factor. You could scale a 120x120 image up to 2000x2000, but that doesn't mean that it natively has enough data for it. PPI IS the correct term to use, even if it doesn't sound right.
The whole point of the web retina hack is that it DOES have enough pixels. A retina screen effectively uses 4 pixels for every one, meaning that in order to have an image of the same size as compared to a screen of the same size, you need 4 times the amount of data.
Web browsers don't work in pixels on a monitor, they work in CSS pixels. One CSS pixel could have any number of actual pixels within it, and that's based of the density of the screen. If 4 real pixels = 1 CSS pixel, then logically to have a sharp image you need to double the res.
wew the misinformation in this thread is off the charts. If you constrain your output to a given number of pixels wide, the dpi setting does absolutely NOTHING to the image resolution. The dpi setting will only change the interpreted image SIZE, i.e. inch/cm dimensions, which has fuck all to do with an image posted on the interwebs.
>>2815992
Storage costs nothing. You can have as many photos at whatever resolution you want. There's no reason not to.
>>2816122
Storage space != bandwidth.
My originals are either arw's or tiff's. But when I output, I use a jpg setting that is reasonable. Gotta be mindful of that anon that might be on 3g somewhere.
>>2815929
900x600, sRGB, 72 dpi is optimal for web use. You could use a larger size but there really isn't any need to and starts opening up problems with people printing the file. Resolution doesn't really matter that much but default that has been around for forever is 72 for web.
If you're printing, export at the size to be printed in adobe RGB at 300 dpi. There's is no meaningful increase in image detail exporting past 300dpi for most printing processes.
I do 1024x720, 100% quality jpegs.
1024 because fuck the sticky and the faggots that follow it.
100% quality because I have no idea what that means and in this board you can't get an answer to anything without having to dive in an ocean of condescending fucks.
Don't even vary the ppi, so I don't even know the default setting in my raw file editor.
I use 1 dpi because I like the look it gives.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 1 dpi Vertical Resolution 1 dpi
full size, jpeg quality 94, 4:4:4 chroma subsampling, all metadata intact, adobe rgb
working files are 16bit tiff, no compression, adobe rgb
>>2816124
>Gotta be mindful of that anon that might be on 3g somewhere.
thanks man, preciate it
>>2816128
>100% quality because I have no idea what that means
then you'll likely notice no difference when you export two images, one 100% quality and one 80% quality
if you, as I suspect, won't, then save everybody's bandwidth and go for 80%
>>2816132
>full size, jpeg quality 94, 4:4:4 chroma subsampling, all metadata intact, adobe rgb
to post on 4ch?
pic related's how I bake mine
Has the PPI changed from doing absolutely nothing, to doing something now that we got higher than HD screens?
Or is PPI still only relevant to print?
>>2816185
Also, how is PPI relevant to print?
Explain to me like I'm a 4channeler.
>>2816188
Ppi refers to screen resolution. Higher resolution screens need higher resolution files, which means more actual pixels. Setting "resolution" in the file doesn't do anything.
Dpi refers to print. When you set dpi in the file, you are sending a message to your shitty ink jet to print at a certain size. I order my prints online in a specific sizes, so I don't need to worry about that setting either.
>>2816188
For print, PPI changes to DPI. Dots per inch. And it's how fine the resolution of the print is. If you have a low DPI, then you can see stepping and what a millennial might call pixelation in the print. A very very high DPI means that transitions and gradients would look smooth.
>>2816128
>fuck the sticky and faggots who follow it
>can't get real answers
Maybe because you have a shitty attitude?
