Best Resolution for Online Gallery.

So I'm trying to decide on a good resolution to export from LR for online viewing. I started exporting from LR at 1100 pixels on the longest side, and 96 dpi. Just recently I read that 800 on the longest side at 72 dpi is preferred for modern screens. So the last few exports have been to 800, at 72 dpi, quality 80, sharpen for screen on high.

My question to you guys; what resolution do you export/save to? Or what resolution would you recommend? I want to be sure the images looks crisp and clean and are presented online in the best way possible.

DPI is irrelevant for screen viewing, it just tells a printer how big the image will be if printed at that pixel density.

The only thing that matters for screen viewing is the resolution, and with most modern monitors being in the 1600x900 to 2560x1440 range, an image size of around 1100 pixels on the long side is pretty good.

Kolor-Pikker wrote in post #16758385
DPI is irrelevant for screen viewing, it just tells a printer how big the image will be if printed at that pixel density.

The only thing that matters for screen viewing is the resolution, and with most modern monitors being in the 1600x900 to 2560x1440 range, an image size of around 1100 pixels on the long side is pretty good.

Thanks for the info! So exporting at 1100 on the long side at 72 dpi (to keep the file size smaller) would work out pretty well then with the qaulity slider at 80?

rivas8409 wrote in post #16758486
Thanks for the info! So exporting at 1100 on the long side at 72 dpi (to keep the file size smaller) would work out pretty well then with the qaulity slider at 80?

72dpi won't make the file size smaller, a 1100x800 jpeg at 80 quality will always be the same size (with minor variation) whether dpi is 72 or 800, it's just metadata.

70% quality is good too, 80-100% is usually overkill for web images.

^^^ Hmmm....good to know. So I'm starting to see that dpi value is only relevant to printing.

Starts to explain it at minute 8.

http://www.youtube.com …4mV3NsLmXw&feat​ure=relmfu

http://www.rideau-info.com/photos/mythdp​i.html

Look at post #32. I posted two images. One at 1 DPI and the other at 1000.

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1343652

It's really all up to what you are after and what your viewing "media" will be, as well as what the viewers are using to view it!

My Web host PBase uses 800 pix as the "standard" large viewing size, so an image that I upload will be resized to say 800x600 pixels, but I personally find that small for what you could call "gallery viewing", so I upload to a larger size and then use the PBase "Original" size for image viewing.

And then, we have POTN here, which has been using a "standard" viewing size, max of 1024 pixels at the widest. It's a bit out-dated for our modern systems, and is in the process of being upgraded, but still since POTN has been my main place for "image sharing" when I upload pics to PBase I typically have them at the 1024-pixel standard for the "original" viewing size.

More recently, though, I've been checking the other options out there. For example, I'm not a Flickr user and don't have expertise, but I know that there are a couple levels. The free Flickr account lets you upload photos and then resizes them to the "standard" viewing sizes. The "Pro" (for pay) account, though, lets viewer see the photos in the "original" size so, like my PBase (for pay) account you can view those photos large!

Well, that's well and good, except that the photos may in fact be too large for my viewing screen!

Well, not long ago FaceBook came out with a cool option -- you can upload a large-res photo and viewers can choose to view in the "Full Screen View" mode. What this does is when it loads a photo in that mode, all extra "stuff" goes away and you get a nice view of the photo with black frames. And then, if the photo has a nice large resolution, FaceBook will render it to fill your screen. But if the image is too high a resolution for your viewer, it will back off -- fill your screen with the whole image, not overflow. Smaller-res images will just view at their full res.

I know that FaceBook has had a bad rep with a lot of folks for how they handle images, but since I've been playing with this I upload images at a "medium" resolution, which for me is about 1600x1000 pixels, and I've been quite happy. And, since I interact with a fair number of photographers on FaceBook, a lot of them have taken to my practice of uploading nice large images and then informing people to make sure and view them at the "Full Screen View" mode to get the most out of them!

I'm not sure of the specifics, but I believe the new version of POTN when it's released will have some viewing flexibility...it will have a "max" resolution but larger than the present 1024 pixels, which is to me a good thing for image sharing!

rivas8409 wrote in post #16758666
^^^ Hmmm....good to know. So I'm starting to see that dpi value is only relevant to printing.

Yeah, it's meaningless for Web viewing. One "iffy" area can be if you are using a software tool for laying out images in a document, but that's another area!

I forgot. If you go to LR, open the Web page and scroll down to the Output Settings tab it does not even offer a DPI setting.

Here is a free idea for Adobe. LR 5.4 update. When you select sSreen on the export page the DPI setting greys out and and dialogue box appears stating DPI is for print resolution only.

digital paradise wrote in post #16758737
Here is a free idea for Adobe. LR 5.4 update. When you select sSreen on the export page the DPI setting greys out and and dialogue box appears stating DPI is for print resolution only.

Generally that is true, but Lightroom is the one exception. The value put into the ppi box affects the nature of the Output Sharpening, according to its designer Jeff Schewe. That includes the sharpening for screen display which is different when the ppi is set to 72-150 from what is done when the ppi is above 150.

I have heard this but see no evidence on any tests I have tried. Can you provide a link to that.

Random search and he did reply adobe in forums (2012). I'll dig more later.

http://forums.adobe.co​m/thread/983614

Thanks a lot guys! My biggest "complaint" was that at 800 pixels on the long edge the photos were just....small. Fine for facebook, but not for a gallery. After little more searching I remembered that zenfolio defaults to 1100 pixels for galleries....hence why I was using 1100 before. With 800 pixel files they were stretching a bit on a few pages to fit the 1100 default and causing a little pixilation that I just wasn't liking. Back to 1100 pixels I go. I thought about going for the max of 1560 pixels that zenfolio displays but I don't use images that big on the site so I figured there's no point.

tzalman wrote in post #16758996
Generally that is true, but Lightroom is the one exception. The value put into the ppi box affects the nature of the Output Sharpening, according to its designer Jeff Schewe. That includes the sharpening for screen display which is different when the ppi is set to 72-150 from what is done when the ppi is above 150.

I posted this question at Adobe Forums.