I've been uploading my files as 1400 on the longest side. But a quick survey shows me that most people seem to be upload 1024 or less. Is there any benefit to the lower resolution? Should I reduce mine?
I upload at 1500 or 2000 longest side, usually, but sometimes drop the quality to 94% or so. I watermark, and am not overly concerned about my images being stolen from this site. The maximum size anyone can steal on this site is the maximum displayed size anyway, so I could upload at 10000 pixels and it wouldn't make a dot of difference. The reason I use the pixel dimensions I do is simply uniformity - I use those sizes for other applications. Most files come to 1-2MB.
On my own website images are 1920 on the horizontal edge, for full-screen viewing. Image quality is only 60-70%, however, and despite the reduction I think it is hard to see the difference between that and 100%. My new site is Flash-based and, despite there being ways to steal even from Flash sites, people would have to remove the menu and such or crop what are already-cropped images (designed for widescreen monitors). Again, not overly worried, and if anyone steals them I'll just commence legal action.
For this site, I resize to 550 on the longest side and just upload that since it's what is shown on photo pages. That's because the resizing software, algorithm, or whatever it is on 365 sucks and results in a lot of lost detail if uploading a large image and allowing it to resample it for display.
I chose 1280 longest side (I rarely do portrait) after experimenting with the magnifier option. I was frustrated that even shots as high as 1024 longest side ended up a small images when you hit the magnify button. 1280 (by anything over 800) seems to force the software to provide a large screen image.
@marubozo I think @eyebrows tested the "size it at 550" method and found it actually degrades more than if you upload a slightly larger version. I have found, personally, that if I resize to 550 the displayed image is washed out and no longer sharp, so I don't do it.
Yup @marubozo as @jinximages says, even resizing to 550 doesn't help, your image still gets resampled, for diskspace conservation reasons, which is perfectly understandable. Here's a pretty direct example.
I do mine at 1280 on the longest edge, for no reason whatsoever.
I don't choose, it's something I don't think about. Every one of my photos seem to different after looking at my exif details. I do tend to crop to 8x10 inches a lot. I've noticed looking at my latest images that the longest side ranges between 4000-5000 ish but this really is something I'm clueless about.
@jinximages Interesting. I will have to try that. I used to upload at 1024 but noticed all the sharpness that I applied in post was virtually gone so I uploaded smaller versions. But like you point out, I have noticed some images get incredibly washed out like with my star trails. I guess I just have to pick my poison.
@jinximages It has been a while since you posted your comment here and I just found it. Do you still post the same size, 1500 or 2000 longest side, and at what dpi?
@cirasj Still the same, though I don't tend to treat the images differently for 365 anymore in regards to sharpening - I just use whatever I did for print (which is oversharpened anyway).
DPI is irrelevant, unless you are choosing a display size in inches (or centimetres). "Web-res" is 72DPI, because a "typical" monitor (apparently) has a pixel density of 72DPI, so if you want a photo to be 3 inches tall, you size it to 3" at 72DPI. But, if you are choosing pixel dimensions of your image (as I do), the DPI is redundant. You could select 3DPI, or 3000000DPI, and the image will be identical to display if you have set a fixed pixel dimension (such as 1500x1000). If you choose to go the route of "6x4 at 72DPI" you will get an image sort-of close to 6x4 inches on your display. Of course, displays nowdays can have pixel density well over 100DPI, which makes the actual display size considerably smaller... I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this. :)
@jinximages Thank you and yes I can see were your are going. I usually edit my photos to be 1880px (1800px + 40px border) on th longest side and 300 dpi. I think I will keep my photos at 72 dpi to post.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
On my own website images are 1920 on the horizontal edge, for full-screen viewing. Image quality is only 60-70%, however, and despite the reduction I think it is hard to see the difference between that and 100%. My new site is Flash-based and, despite there being ways to steal even from Flash sites, people would have to remove the menu and such or crop what are already-cropped images (designed for widescreen monitors). Again, not overly worried, and if anyone steals them I'll just commence legal action.
I do mine at 1280 on the longest edge, for no reason whatsoever.
Should I pay more attention to this?
DPI is irrelevant, unless you are choosing a display size in inches (or centimetres). "Web-res" is 72DPI, because a "typical" monitor (apparently) has a pixel density of 72DPI, so if you want a photo to be 3 inches tall, you size it to 3" at 72DPI. But, if you are choosing pixel dimensions of your image (as I do), the DPI is redundant. You could select 3DPI, or 3000000DPI, and the image will be identical to display if you have set a fixed pixel dimension (such as 1500x1000). If you choose to go the route of "6x4 at 72DPI" you will get an image sort-of close to 6x4 inches on your display. Of course, displays nowdays can have pixel density well over 100DPI, which makes the actual display size considerably smaller... I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this. :)