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)

You're kidding, right?

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

Ok, then second one.

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

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

Explain please?

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.' :2 cents:

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

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 :winkwink:

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

Funny guy. (This was a joke right?)

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