some graphic internal drama like stuff in here - GoFuckYourself.com

ddfGandalf · 10-27-2005, 04:59 AM

Hey,

So, our retouchers are retouching photos, and upload them in 600dpi, so it uploads to our sites.

A new idea came in, that by reducing the dpi-s to 72, the *size* of those JPEGs will also decrease.

Do any of you think that this makes sense?
(Im not really into graphics and stuff like that, but my designer friends say too that its nonsense, and the size of the file wont change)

GFX Wiz · 10-27-2005, 05:18 AM

You're kidding, right?

Sexsitesurfer · 10-27-2005, 05:25 AM

stupid question! of course it Won't!!!

ddfGandalf · 10-27-2005, 05:28 AM

Ok, then second one.

How would you convince someone who wont believe it no matter what you do?

GFX Wiz · 10-27-2005, 05:28 AM

I am rather concerned about you 'designer friends' at this point.

ddfGandalf · 10-27-2005, 05:37 AM

Explain please?

GFX Wiz · 10-27-2005, 05:49 AM

600dpi is BEYOND print quality -- 300dpi suffices NICELY.

I am assuming these images are for the web? If so, there's little reason to have an image greater than 72dpi as this is the resolution that MAC's display at (Windows displays at 96dpi).

If you reduce an original file from 600dpi down to 72dpi, the image will appear to "shrink" -- greatly -- and the file size will reduce tremendously as well.

Find new 'designer friends.'

GFX Wiz · 10-27-2005, 05:55 AM

Original 300dpi jpg - 613k
SAME file reduced to 72dpi - 74k

ddfGandalf · 10-27-2005, 05:56 AM

1024x768 image in 300dpi reduced in eg. Photoshop to 72dpi, but you keep the 1024x768 image size, then physical size (space taken, Kbytes, Mbytes) wont change...
They say.

My mistake i meant the physical disk space taken by *size* in the original post.

GFX Wiz · 10-27-2005, 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ddfGandalf

1024x768 image in 300dpi reduced in eg. Photoshop to 72dpi, but you keep the 1024x768 image size, then physical size (space taken, Kbytes, Mbytes) wont change...
They say.

My mistake i meant the physical disk space taken by *size* in the original post.

This is mostly correct...print one of each and see what you get. The size on the disk will be the same but the "physical size" will certainly change

grumpy · 10-27-2005, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ddfGandalf

Hey,

So, our retouchers are retouching photos, and upload them in 600dpi, so it uploads to our sites.

A new idea came in, that by reducing the dpi-s to 72, the *size* of those JPEGs will also decrease.

Do any of you think that this makes sense?
(Im not really into graphics and stuff like that, but my designer friends say too that its nonsense, and the size of the file wont change)

your not the smartest one on the block, are you?
Better leave this business while its still possible.

Screaming · 10-27-2005, 06:22 AM

Funny guy. (This was a joke right?)

ddfGandalf · 10-27-2005, 06:24 AM

And a very bad, one.
Ty i was expecting these type of answers

10-27-2005, 04:59 AM	#1
ddfGandalf Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Budapest, Hungary Posts: 534	some graphic internal drama like stuff in here Hey, So, our retouchers are retouching photos, and upload them in 600dpi, so it uploads to our sites. A new idea came in, that by reducing the dpi-s to 72, the size of those JPEGs will also decrease. Do any of you think that this makes sense? (Im not really into graphics and stuff like that, but my designer friends say too that its nonsense, and the size of the file wont change) __________________

10-27-2005, 05:18 AM	#2
GFX Wiz Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: SW Florida Posts: 916	You're kidding, right? __________________ ICQ: 148.167.599

10-27-2005, 05:25 AM	#3
Sexsitesurfer Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Porn land Posts: 3,157	stupid question! of course it Won't!!! __________________ Paul DDF Productions Marketing manager Skype: Marketing.DDF ICQ: 316302313 Cell: +36 30 732 6076 [email protected]

10-27-2005, 05:28 AM	#4
ddfGandalf Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Budapest, Hungary Posts: 534	Ok, then second one. How would you convince someone who wont believe it no matter what you do? __________________

10-27-2005, 05:28 AM	#5
GFX Wiz Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: SW Florida Posts: 916	I am rather concerned about you 'designer friends' at this point. __________________ ICQ: 148.167.599

10-27-2005, 05:37 AM	#6
ddfGandalf Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Budapest, Hungary Posts: 534	Explain please? __________________

10-27-2005, 05:49 AM	#7
GFX Wiz Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: SW Florida Posts: 916	600dpi is BEYOND print quality -- 300dpi suffices NICELY. I am assuming these images are for the web? If so, there's little reason to have an image greater than 72dpi as this is the resolution that MAC's display at (Windows displays at 96dpi). If you reduce an original file from 600dpi down to 72dpi, the image will appear to "shrink" -- greatly -- and the file size will reduce tremendously as well. Find new 'designer friends.' __________________ ICQ: 148.167.599

10-27-2005, 05:55 AM	#8
GFX Wiz Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: SW Florida Posts: 916	Original 300dpi jpg - 613k SAME file reduced to 72dpi - 74k __________________ ICQ: 148.167.599

10-27-2005, 05:56 AM	#9
ddfGandalf Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Budapest, Hungary Posts: 534	1024x768 image in 300dpi reduced in eg. Photoshop to 72dpi, but you keep the 1024x768 image size, then physical size (space taken, Kbytes, Mbytes) wont change... They say. My mistake i meant the physical disk space taken by size in the original post. __________________

10-27-2005, 06:22 AM	#12
Screaming I can change this!!!!! Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 18,972	Funny guy. (This was a joke right?) __________________

10-27-2005, 06:24 AM	#13
ddfGandalf Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Budapest, Hungary Posts: 534	And a very bad, one. Ty i was expecting these type of answers __________________