CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

For all those who STILL do not understand that making an image 72PPi for screen display is meaningless:

http://fstoppers.com/originals/understanding-file-resolution-and-why-it-doesnt-matter-when-showing-your-photos-106631

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Captain, can you amplify this a bit, from the article:

Pixel dimensions (e.g. 3,000x2,000, 900x600, etc) affect how your image is seen on-screen...

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

Well...it is self explanatory, i thought. a 3000x2000 pixel image will take up 3000x2000 pixels on the screen. A resolution number like 72PPI or 300PPi or 569 PPI have ZERO relevance and will not affect the size of the image in any way.

If you monitor happened to be 6000 pixels wide, that image would take up half the screen.

Bill_de Loc: US

The issue with not properly sizing your image for the screen is most noticeable right here on UHH. When an image is posted with too many pixels, the software downsizes the image. It doesn't make the pixels smaller, it throws a bunch away. That's the main reason there is often a drastic difference between the posted image and the download.

If you post a picture close to the size in pixels that UHH displays, and do your final sharpening at that size, there would be less need to look at downloads.

--

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Well, that certainly explains a lot! Can't believe I've been on this long (as have hundreds of others) and that hasn't been mentioned more often, or become part of more people's steps to posting!

Thank you Captain and Bill.

TheDman Loc: USA

Amen. But I fear it will never sink in.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

I may be repeating what has already been said in different words, but here's my take on the confusion.

I want to display an 8 X 10 300ppi (2400 X 3000 pixels) photo, but I don't want it to be worth stealing. The only way I can really do this is to reduce the number of pixels displayed. If I just resize the picture to a 4 X 5 without changing the original ppi, I'm going to have a 4 X 5 600ppi image. I can change this, however, by creating a copy of the original and BOTH resizing and resampling the print to a 4 X 5 72ppi (288 X 360 pixels), which will change the image displayed from a 7.2mpx picture to a <104kpx picture by throwing away >7mpx. But at least I will be displaying a picture of such inferior quality that only a fool would want to steal ( not that anybody would want the original either :) ). If I had displayed just the resized picture and assuming that the program had not resampled the picture automatically, no matter how large or small it had appeared on the screen, the file I uploaded would have been my original 7.2mpx "masterpiece".

Now, have I helped or just added more confusion to an already confusing situations?

TheDman Loc: USA

Your adding unnecessary confusion. There aren't any inches in digital files. You can't display an 8x10 image because it's not 8x10 anything until you print it. All you're displaying is pixels, and the more you have, the more stealable your image will be.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

First of all, I was able to control aspect ratio and relative viewing size by controlling print paper; both standard format and odd shapes (e.g., 6 X 20) were easy to display. And yes, sometimes I could post an odd sized photo sized on the basis of pixels alone.

As for your last sentence, that was the EXACT reason I uploaded low resolution (sparse, low pixel) images.

Bill_de Loc: US

While pixels determine the size of an image on a screen, there is still a relationship that can be used.

Monitors typically display 72 or 96 ppi. So, as an example, if you want a ten inch wide image on screen, make it 720 pixels wide. That's easy, although not 100% accurate if it is displayed on a 96 ppi monitor.

Now, if you want your image to be 7.75 inches wide, you can do the math, or set the image size for 7.75 inches at 72 ppi. The program you are using will determine that the image be 558 pixels wide. PS has a dropdown box in the resize window which lets you choose the best method for downsizing. Once resized, it is at this point you sharpen your image. In PhotoShop, settings of 250, .2 and 0 applied once or twice will give you a sharp image.

If you sharpen an image that is 3,000 pixels wide, and 2/3 of the pixels are then discarded by the software that posts the image, it is no longer properly sharpened.

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

You are STILL harping on this stupid 72PPI crap. That has NOTHING TON DO WITH ANYTHING! There has not been a 72PPI monitor out there for decades. The Apple 5K monitors are 218PPI! You math is worthless on those monitors.

Did you read the article posted? ALL that matters is pixel dimension.

BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

Ah, but it does make for a smaller image file to transmit over the web. Also if makes it harder for someone to purloin your image and call it their own.

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

NO, it does not. ONLY the pixel dimension does that.
Did you even read the link? You are poorly informed and as Dman said, it seems this will never sink in to many who have bought this myth.

Now, if you are in Photoshop (for example) and you go to Image Size and change the PPI to 72, or 80, or 87, or 106, and Resample is checked, then the pixel dimension does change, but it is the change in pixel dimension that makes the smaller image, NOT the PPI number. If Resample is not checked, then the image just get physically larger for printing as you are printing fewer pixels in every inch. But it is a PRINT function.

TheDman Loc: USA

Low pixel is all you need mention. The DPI/PPI is completely irrelevant, so mentioning it just adds confusion to people who don't understand this. Not sure why you're bringing up aspect ratio, as any aspect ratio can either be printed or displayed on a monitor. It's irrelevant too.

TheDman Loc: USA

NO! Those are the exact myths we're trying to dispel. It has no effect. None. At all.