Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos Presentation & Building Galleries
Thread started 08 Jun 2012 (Friday) 09:50
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Quality of web images

 
dkizzle
Goldmember
1,184 posts
Joined Mar 2012
Jun 08, 2012 09:50 |  #1

What resolution / quality / ppi do you set on your web images?

I am working on my website right now and exported my photos at 1.0 mp, 80% quality and 120 ppi. I am wondering if this is good enough or if I should bump it up to 1.3 mp & maybe 85% quality?


I want to guest blog on your Landscape / Travel photography blog, PM for details

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
smclaren
Member
smclaren's Avatar
213 posts
Joined Mar 2009
London
Jun 08, 2012 09:59 |  #2

dkizzle wrote in post #14549952external link
What resolution / quality / ppi do you set on your web images?

I am working on my website right now and exported my photos at 1.0 mp, 80% quality and 120 ppi. I am wondering if this is good enough or if I should bump it up to 1.3 mp & maybe 85% quality?


I usually sizes 640px X 420px, 72dpi, jpeg level 9: www.stevemclaren.comexternal link




LOG IN TO REPLY
dkizzle
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,184 posts
Joined Mar 2012
Jun 08, 2012 10:25 |  #3

Thats below what I set mine to. What do others do?


I want to guest blog on your Landscape / Travel photography blog, PM for details

LOG IN TO REPLY
tracknut
Goldmember
tracknut's Avatar
1,740 posts
Joined Jun 2005
Folsom, California
Jun 08, 2012 10:57 |  #4

640px wide, 80% quality is the most I put on my site and what I sell as a "web image".

ppi/dpi is irrelevant, I have no idea why in 2012 it keeps coming in to the discussion!

Dave


Performance/sport dog photographerexternal link
Facebookexternal link
"Always available to shoot your dog"

LOG IN TO REPLY
renlok
Member
249 posts
Joined Jun 2008
Perth, Australia
Jun 09, 2012 00:23 |  #5

I seem to be bumping up my images, started on 640px on the longest edge, then up to 800px and now I'm exporting at 1200px usually 60-80%.


Renlokexternal link | G+external link
Canon 70D | Canon 5D MKii | 35L | Sigma 24-105 | 100L | 85 | Sigma 150-500

LOG IN TO REPLY
Hikin ­ Mike
Walkin' Like a Penguin Now!
Hikin Mike's Avatar
Joined Aug 2005
Atwater, CA
Jun 10, 2012 18:24 |  #6

On my website, I use 600px around 70-80%. When I post here, I use 720px.


Images in the Backcountry (external link) | Facebook (external link) | Google+ (external link) | Twitter (external link)
SEO for the Photographer (external link) | Creating HDRs Using Layer Masks (external link)
Canon 5D 17-40 Ճ/4L 300 Ճ/4L IS 70-200 Ճ/4L 50 Ճ/1.8 1.4x TC Օ Kenko Ext. Tubes

LOG IN TO REPLY
TPhantom
Member
33 posts
Joined Jan 2012
Orlando
Jun 13, 2012 01:49 |  #7

I was told 900X600 and 72dpi for web.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Christopher ­ Steven ­ b
Goldmember
Christopher Steven b's Avatar
3,546 posts
Joined Dec 2008
Ottawa, Canada
Jun 13, 2012 14:34 |  #8

I have a lot of 1200 pixel wide shots on my (wedding) site. My aim is for folks to get a better sense of the quality (in terms of noise, focus selection, crispness) of my work before they even meet me. I think it's mainly because of this that I very seldom get requests to see more photos, larger res. versions, prints etc.



christopher steven b. - Ottawa Wedding Photographer

www.christopherstevenb​.comexternal link| Blogexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Todd ­ Lambert
I don't like titles
Todd Lambert's Avatar
12,611 posts
Gallery: 9 photos
Joined May 2009
On The Roads Across America
Jun 13, 2012 14:37 |  #9

1024 on the longest side for me. Not much you can do with a 1024 image and honestly, even if they do, what am I really losing? They weren't going to pay anyways.

I like my images to be large enough to satisfy anyone looking at them. I may actually start going even larger soon, since retina displays will start becoming more pertinent.




LOG IN TO REPLY
joedlh
Goldmember
joedlh's Avatar
Joined Dec 2007
Long Island, NY, N. America, Sol III, Orion Spur, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Cluster, Laniakea.
Jun 13, 2012 14:45 |  #10

Usually 700 pixels on the long side. Monitors (Apple Retina excepted) are usually 72 dpi. I don't generally pay attention to quality except for this forum which has a 150kb maximum. Even with the higher resolution monitor, I wouldn't put up greater resolution as it would make the images more useful to thieves.


Joe
Gear: Kodak Instamatic, Polaroid Swinger. Oh you meant gear now. :rolleyes:
http://photo.joedlh.ne​texternal link
Editing ok

LOG IN TO REPLY
Todd ­ Lambert
I don't like titles
Todd Lambert's Avatar
12,611 posts
Gallery: 9 photos
Joined May 2009
On The Roads Across America
Jun 13, 2012 14:51 |  #11

I guess I don't get the whole theft part. I mean, if someone uses an image on the web somewhere, it's not hurting you/me? What does it matter? I'll issue a DMCA and be done with it. If it's a credible company, then legal proceeding will follow, but otherwise, it's not worth any more effort than the DMCA to remove it.

I can see only posting small watermarked files for things like wedding proofs, sports photos, etc.. but otherwise, it doesn't make any sense to me.

I'm starting to really think along the same lines as Trey Ratcliffe: http://www.stuckincust​oms.com ...ht-and-embrace-pinterest/external link




LOG IN TO REPLY
joedlh
Goldmember
joedlh's Avatar
Joined Dec 2007
Long Island, NY, N. America, Sol III, Orion Spur, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Cluster, Laniakea.
Jun 13, 2012 15:47 as a reply to Todd Lambert's post |  #12

Hey Todd,

I hope your comment wasn't a direct response to mine. If it was, then I am guilty of being too abbreviated in my comment. I don't use water marks. I agree that they deface the image. I use an unobtrusive by-line. And all of my images have a creative commons copyright notice in the exif data, which is very much along the lines of the photographer whose link you posted. I've seen lots of my images used all over the Internet without my permission. I've never issued a DMCA e-mail for any of them. My big concern is that somebody might be tempted to use one of them to generate revenue and not give me a fair portion. And I don't want to spend time hunting down this kind of mischief. That's why I post low resolution images. It keeps me from having to scour the Internet with Tin Eye on a regular basis for every shot that I think has commercial potential. And the 700 pixel shots look pretty good. I've been contacted by museums, researchers, and graduate students who graciously request permission to use some of my images. In support of science, culture, and the arts (and, yes, to get my stuff out there), I have sent them the high res shots pro bono. One time a Fortune 500 company wanted to use one of my shots in an advertising campaign. They paid. I wonder if I would have been faced with a disagreeable incident similar to what Trey Ratcliffe reported with Time if I had posted a high res shot. I think my approach is pretty practical.


Joe
Gear: Kodak Instamatic, Polaroid Swinger. Oh you meant gear now. :rolleyes:
http://photo.joedlh.ne​texternal link
Editing ok

LOG IN TO REPLY
Todd ­ Lambert
I don't like titles
Todd Lambert's Avatar
12,611 posts
Gallery: 9 photos
Joined May 2009
On The Roads Across America
Jun 13, 2012 16:14 |  #13

Nah, Joe... I wasn't specifically referring to you at all, sorry for the confusion. I was making a more general statement/question.

It sounds like your thinking is very similar to mine and Trey Ratcliffe's actually.

I just question how much good it does to make your images small, watermarked, etc.. in the name of preventing theft [Scratch that... copyright violation]. I am starting to not really care much about where my images end up unless it's a fortune 500 company as you indicated. Smaller companies, I'll pursue if I feel it's warranted, but a lot of times it's not worth the effort especially fly-by-nights operating out of the country, etc... which is where the DMCA takedown can be effective to at least remove the image from their site.

As I said earlier, I don't question this tactic for things like portraits and wedding photos etc.. where a bride WILL print something if it's not made small or unusable.

Otherwise, I think it's chasing things and expending time on something that doesn't return any monies - so essentially a waste of time that might be better spent on shooting or marketing the shots you've already taken.




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

1,456 views & 0 likes for this thread
Quality of web images
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos Presentation & Building Galleries


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00119 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.03s
Latest registered member is Nickothurston
768 guests, 582 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016