Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Photo Gallery
Just reruns here; testing viewing capabilities of different settings.
Page 1 of 2 next>
Sep 10, 2020 13:51:34   #
Rolk Loc: South Central PA
 
I normally don't mess around with size or resolution (well,
almost never), so I wanted to see how an image would look,
load, be viewed in "download" by changing the resolution
or the size.

I can see no appreciable difference, even in "download", from
one image to another, other than the images with lower resolution
obviously "load" much faster. I know printing them would make a
huge difference, especially if going above 8x10. The reason I wanted
to do this, I've been pressured into joining Facebook (which I
have STRONGLY resisted for years) and wanted to keep my
uploads more manageable.

Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
Tim

Original "jpg" file created from "RAW" file
Original "jpg" file created from "RAW" file...
(Download)

Lowered resolution to 200 pixels/inch...
Lowered resolution to 200 pixels/inch......
(Download)

...then to 150 pixels/inch...
...then to 150 pixels/inch......
(Download)

...then to 100 pixels/inch...
...then to 100 pixels/inch......
(Download)

...and finally kept resolution at 300 pixels/inch but changed size of image to about 5x8
...and finally kept resolution at 300 pixels/inch ...
(Download)

Reply
Sep 10, 2020 13:59:15   #
Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington
 
You should read Chg_Canon's recent comments. Some are here:
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-663718-1.html

ppi is for printing. File size (mb) is related to pixel dimensions insofar as loading speed online and how big someone can view the image (the infamous and incorrectly labeled "double download" on UHH). The mb of a 4000-pixel-wide file will be greater than a 1000-pixel-wide of same image.

Browsers down-size a photo to fit within the size of your screen when you first view the download on UHH. For example, using Chrome browser in my 13.3 inch Chromebook, I see the same dimensions of a photo whether it's 2000 pixels wide or 5000. If it didn't work this way, a device with resolution of 1900 pixels wide would only show a portion of the photo.

I'm not going to comment further because resolution and ppi are black holes that almost no one understands these days, including moi

Good luck!

Reply
Sep 10, 2020 14:04:27   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
I downloaded each to a new tab, then zoomed in on each with the browser magnifier, then flipped tabs.
When zooming in with the magnifier in my browser, there IS a difference between them.
You won't see much difference on images that are all ~4x6 on the screen though.

I've found that 1150x(768) (fits within a 1366x768 screen) is quite sufficient for Facebook.
(Windows Image Resizer selection: Medium) People get the general idea of the image.
I might even be able to get away with Small, which fits 854x480.

Reply
 
 
Sep 10, 2020 14:06:05   #
CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City
 
Thank you Linda!

Tim, I thought of the new egg anology yesterday, see if that helps take ppi out of the discussion.

Your screen has a pixel resolution, only. And pixel resolution is very simply the 'x' number of pixels wide multiplied by the 'y' number of pixels tall (divided by 1-million when you want to say 'megapixels'). Whether the screen is 12-inches or 12-feet, it doesn't matter. The screen resolution very simply has x number of pixels by y number of pixels, arranges in rows across the image file and / or screen display. Haven't you ever wondered why monitors / HDTVs never express PPI? ANS: 'ppi' has nothing to do with pixel-based image display.

Think of an egg carton. There are 12-egg cartons, and there are 18-egg or 24-egg, even 6-egg cartons. You don't put 18-eggs in a 6-egg box; you don't even put 7-eggs in a 6-egg box. You simply match the exact number of eggs to the exact number of slots / openings, just as you match the exact number of pixels in the image to the exact number of pixels in the screen display. The typical dozen eggs comes in a 12 egg resolution carton, or 2 eggs by 6 eggs. There's no relevance of a 1 egg per inch (epi) expression of how many eggs are stored in how long of a carton, as measured in inches.

When displaying an image with more pixels than the screen size in pixels, like 12-eggs to a 6-egg carton, the pixel-based display technology dynamically resizes the image to the pixel resolution of the monitor. That's why images don't look any different whether the pixel resolution matches 1:1 for the image file to the screen or the file is larger such as 2:1 / 3:1 / 5:1 and so forth.

Also, there is no PPI value in an image file. Look up, down, left, right, back, front, anywhere within the file. PPI (pixels per inch) is a calculated value and relates simply to the print resolution. How many pixels on one side of the image divided by the print size expressed in inches, hence pixels per inch. PPI is relevant for printed images, irrelevant for image display. And, 'ppi' can be determined only when you know the intended print size, not before.

Reply
Sep 10, 2020 14:07:07   #
CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City
 
And other post that includes some of the same discussion, see the section What are DPI / PPI? within the text:

Recommended resizing parameters for digital images

Reply
Sep 10, 2020 14:15:46   #
Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington
 
Tim, one other note: UHH works differently from many websites in that all photos display at 600 pixels wide if you use the UHH choose file/attach option (there appears to be no limit on height, however). The second step of "store original" and downloading to a new screen is the only way to see the size as originally uploaded.

My only presence on Facebook is in Create 52 Group, but the FB Help section says:
- Regular photos: 2048px wide or smaller
- Save your image as a JPEG with an sRGB color profile

There is another page for "HD Photos" when using iphone or Android, neither of which I own. But I generally post to Create 52 using between 900 and 1200 pixels wide. That fills the allotted space of the layout area quite nicely. Keep in mind that most people are NOT interested in pixel-peeping

My workflow, using PS Elements, is to save as jpg (from raw and psd editing) in "high quality." Then I simply resize another copy for posting. If I'm going to share it through flickr, and I think the pic can hold up to a bit bigger, I might resize to a whopping 1500 pixels wide See my most recent:
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-663972-1.html

.

Reply
Sep 10, 2020 20:56:55   #
L-Fox
 
Rolk wrote:
I normally don't mess around with size or resolution (well,
almost never), so I wanted to see how an image would look,
load, be viewed in "download" by changing the resolution
or the size.

I can see no appreciable difference, even in "download", from
one image to another, other than the images with lower resolution
obviously "load" much faster. I know printing them would make a
huge difference, especially if going above 8x10. The reason I wanted
to do this, I've been pressured into joining Facebook (which I
have STRONGLY resisted for years) and wanted to keep my
uploads more manageable.

Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
Tim
I normally don't mess around with size or resoluti... (show quote)


That scene is my very favorite of all of your pics that you have posted.

Reply
 
 
Sep 10, 2020 22:46:17   #
Rolk Loc: South Central PA
 
Linda From Maine wrote:
You should read Chg_Canon's recent comments. Some are here:
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-663718-1.html

ppi is for printing. File size (mb) is related to pixel dimensions insofar as loading speed online and how big someone can view the image (the infamous and incorrectly labeled "double download" on UHH). The mb of a 4000-pixel-wide file will be greater than a 1000-pixel-wide of same image.

Browsers down-size a photo to fit within the size of your screen when you first view the download on UHH. For example, using Chrome browser in my 13.3 inch Chromebook, I see the same dimensions of a photo whether it's 2000 pixels wide or 5000. If it didn't work this way, a device with resolution of 1900 pixels wide would only show a portion of the photo.

I'm not going to comment further because resolution and ppi are black holes that almost no one understands these days, including moi

Good luck!
You should read Chg_Canon's recent comments. Some ... (show quote)


Oh no...I think I started the term double download on here...meaning you click on the "download" link, and when the image opens, you click on the image again, which in MOST cases give you a tighter view of the image...useful for pixel peepers...lol

What I was curious about is file size, and therefore, the "upload" and "download" times. Cutting the resolution does decrease the file size without too much degradation of the "viewed" image, but I'm sure the printed image would tell a completely different story.

I'm going to read Chg_Canon's article again and try not to get lost this time.

Thanks Linda!!!

Reply
Sep 10, 2020 22:47:55   #
Rolk Loc: South Central PA
 
Longshadow wrote:
I downloaded each to a new tab, then zoomed in on each with the browser magnifier, then flipped tabs.
When zooming in with the magnifier in my browser, there IS a difference between them.
You won't see much difference on images that are all ~4x6 on the screen though.

I've found that 1150x(768) (fits within a 1366x768 screen) is quite sufficient for Facebook.
(Windows Image Resizer selection: Medium) People get the general idea of the image.
I might even be able to get away with Small, which fits 854x480.
I downloaded each to a new tab, then zoomed in on ... (show quote)


Thanks, Longshadow!

Reply
Sep 10, 2020 23:05:27   #
Rolk Loc: South Central PA
 
CHG_CANON wrote:
Thank you Linda!

Tim, I thought of the new egg anology yesterday, see if that helps take ppi out of the discussion.

Your screen has a pixel resolution, only. And pixel resolution is very simply the 'x' number of pixels wide multiplied by the 'y' number of pixels tall (divided by 1-million when you want to say 'megapixels'). Whether the screen is 12-inches or 12-feet, it doesn't matter. The screen resolution very simply has x number of pixels by y number of pixels, arranges in rows across the image file and / or screen display. Haven't you ever wondered why monitors / HDTVs never express PPI? ANS: 'ppi' has nothing to do with pixel-based image display.

Think of an egg carton. There are 12-egg cartons, and there are 18-egg or 24-egg, even 6-egg cartons. You don't put 18-eggs in a 6-egg box; you don't even put 7-eggs in a 6-egg box. You simply match the exact number of eggs to the exact number of slots / openings, just as you match the exact number of pixels in the image to the exact number of pixels in the screen display. The typical dozen eggs comes in a 12 egg resolution carton, or 2 eggs by 6 eggs. There's no relevance of a 1 egg per inch (epi) expression of how many eggs are stored in how long of a carton, as measured in inches.

When displaying an image with more pixels than the screen size in pixels, like 12-eggs to a 6-egg carton, the pixel-based display technology dynamically resizes the image to the pixel resolution of the monitor. That's why images don't look any different whether the pixel resolution matches 1:1 for the image file to the screen or the file is larger such as 2:1 / 3:1 / 5:1 and so forth.

Also, there is no PPI value in an image file. Look up, down, left, right, back, front, anywhere within the file. PPI (pixels per inch) is a calculated value and relates simply to the print resolution. How many pixels on one side of the image divided by the print size expressed in inches, hence pixels per inch. PPI is relevant for printed images, irrelevant for image display. And, 'ppi' can be determined only when you know the intended print size, not before.
Thank you Linda! br br Tim, I thought of the new... (show quote)


Chg_Canon, thank you first and foremost, for being so helpful to everyone on UHH. I've read quite a few of your recommendations, and when it comes to this particular subject, for some reason, for me, it just doesn't seem to totally fall into place. I reach a point where I say "Oh, now I get it," but then 10 minutes later it's more like "Wait! What?"

I'll continue to read what you've just said, try to digest what Linda is saying and even go back to the article she mentions...sooner or later it should fall into place.

Thanks again!!!
Tim

Reply
Sep 10, 2020 23:20:30   #
Rolk Loc: South Central PA
 
Linda From Maine wrote:
Tim, one other note: UHH works differently from many websites in that all photos display at 600 pixels wide if you use the UHH choose file/attach option (there appears to be no limit on height, however). The second step of "store original" and downloading to a new screen is the only way to see the size as originally uploaded.

My only presence on Facebook is in Create 52 Group, but the FB Help section says:
- Regular photos: 2048px wide or smaller
- Save your image as a JPEG with an sRGB color profile

There is another page for "HD Photos" when using iphone or Android, neither of which I own. But I generally post to Create 52 using between 900 and 1200 pixels wide. That fills the allotted space of the layout area quite nicely. Keep in mind that most people are NOT interested in pixel-peeping

My workflow, using PS Elements, is to save as jpg (from raw and psd editing) in "high quality." Then I simply resize another copy for posting. If I'm going to share it through flickr, and I think the pic can hold up to a bit bigger, I might resize to a whopping 1500 pixels wide See my most recent:
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-663972-1.html

.
Tim, one other note: UHH works differently from ma... (show quote)


Thanks again, Linda. I do use PS Elements 2019, and I'm not sure what you mean when you save your image in "high quality." I always use sRGB color profile, but wind up going to "Image," "Resize," and then "Resize Image."

Forget Facebook for a minute. When I upload images here, I want them to be of the highest quality, so I make any PP changes in PSE to my raw file then use save as, etc., etc. I have my camera set to the highest resolution and in PSE, the default "printed" resolution is 300 ppi, which I know has nothing to do with the screen display. The default pixel dimensions of that raw file are 5184w x 3456h. What pixel dimensions would you recommend for images to be shown here, on UHH? 1800 x 1200? That should display a 4"x6" image in download, yes?


Sorry....I'm soooooo confused...🤯

Reply
 
 
Sep 10, 2020 23:22:08   #
Rolk Loc: South Central PA
 
l-fox wrote:
That scene is my very favorite of all of your pics that you have posted.


Larry, thank you SO much...after this
discussion on ppi, resolution, I really
needed to hear that!

Reply
Sep 10, 2020 23:24:13   #
CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City
 
Rolk wrote:
Chg_Canon, thank you first and foremost, for being so helpful to everyone on UHH. I've read quite a few of your recommendations, and when it comes to this particular subject, for some reason, for me, it just doesn't seem to totally fall into place. I reach a point where I say "Oh, now I get it," but then 10 minutes later it's more like "Wait! What?"

I'll continue to read what you've just said, try to digest what Linda is saying and even go back to the article she mentions...sooner or later it should fall into place.

Thanks again!!!
Tim
Chg_Canon, thank you first and foremost, for being... (show quote)


Thank you and glad to help Tim. It can be confusing because of the legacy 'knowledge' of physical printing and 'dot based' technology that no longer apply to pixel-based images and technology. These dot-based ideas still linger prominently around the internet with no way to scrub them away. The other point of confusion seems to be that a pixel is a thing, not a standard unit of measurement. See if these changes in thinking help in how you consider the questions.

Reply
Sep 11, 2020 00:11:33   #
Rolk Loc: South Central PA
 
CHG_CANON wrote:
Thank you and glad to help Tim. It can be confusing because of the legacy 'knowledge' of physical printing and 'dot based' technology that no longer apply to pixel-based images and technology. These dot-based ideas still linger prominently around the internet with no way to scrub them away. The other point of confusion seems to be that a pixel is a thing, not a standard unit of measurement. See if these changes in thinking help in how you consider the questions.


And that's especially true (legacy knowledge) in my case, Paul.

I sold IBM based computer systems, including "dot-matrix" printers
for over 15 years. Even when ink-jets came out, it's was always
about DPI...we need more DPI...lol!

Reply
Sep 11, 2020 07:36:08   #
Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington
 
Rolk wrote:
Thanks again, Linda. I do use PS Elements 2019, and I'm not sure what you mean when you save your image in "high quality." I always use sRGB color profile, but wind up going to "Image," "Resize," and then "Resize Image."

Forget Facebook for a minute. When I upload images here, I want them to be of the highest quality, so I make any PP changes in PSE to my raw file then use save as, etc., etc. I have my camera set to the highest resolution and in PSE, the default "printed" resolution is 300 ppi, which I know has nothing to do with the screen display. The default pixel dimensions of that raw file are 5184w x 3456h. What pixel dimensions would you recommend for images to be shown here, on UHH? 1800 x 1200? That should display a 4"x6" image in download, yes?


Sorry....I'm soooooo confused...🤯
Thanks again, Linda. I do use PS Elements 2019, an... (show quote)
When I'm finished editing the psd (from raw beginnings), which might include using the crop tool, I click "save as jpg" and after selecting target location, a little pop-up window comes into view. See first screenprint below. Note that it has a slider and a number for quality.

For resizing for UHH, I go to top of workspace to IMAGE - Re-size - image size. See screenprint #2. I only select the width and let the system select the height proportionally. There is no reason to change both height and width; if you do, you'd better have your math right, especially if you cropped to a non-standard dimension

For UHH posting I click into pixel dimensions/width and usually change to 1200 or 1500 if a landscape orientation. The height automatically changes because my "constrain proportions" box is checked. I ignore anything in the document size area. The bottom section (boxes and "bicubic") settings don't have to be selected each time; they remain as-is 'til you change. Hence, I haven't reviewed these steps for a very long time

See this help article for more info:
https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop-elements/using/resizing.html

Of course when you resize to smaller you'll probably want to rename or put the resized image in a different folder, so you know which one you have created specifically for UHH or other online destinations.


(Download)


(Download)

Reply
Page 1 of 2 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Photo Gallery
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.