Quality of web images

[dkizzle]

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?

[smclaren]

Originally Posted by dkizzle

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.com

[dkizzle]

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

[tracknut]

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

[renlok]

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%.

[Hikin Mike]

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

[TPhantom]

I was told 900X600 and 72dpi for web.

[Christopher Steven b]

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.

[Todd Lambert]

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.

[joedlh]

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.

[Todd Lambert]

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.stuckincustoms.com/2012/0...ace-pinterest/

[joedlh]

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.

[Todd Lambert]

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.