How to make your photos display at their best for computer viewing

M

Mike D90

Senior Member
I have just been a little confused about how to make photo images display their absolute best when viewing on a computer/monitor.

Monitors only display a maximum ppi (pixels per inch) of resolution. So how do you make the best of that? I hate waiting on a 15 megabyte image to download so I can see it. Huge file size makes no better image quality on a computer monitor does it?

I see some images posted here that look simply fantastic. Others do not display so well.

I have read the threads where there are complaints about what this forum does to images that are posted. How could you make them display any better?

Are there higher quality monitors out there that do indeed make for better view?
 
G

Geoffc

Senior Member
Mike d90 said:
I have just been a little confused about how to make photo images display their absolute best when viewing on a computer/monitor.

Monitors only display a maximum ppi (pixels per inch) of resolution. So how do you make the best of that? I hate waiting on a 15 megabyte image to download so I can see it. Huge file size makes no better image quality on a computer monitor does it?

I see some images posted here that look simply fantastic. Others do not display so well.

I have read the threads where there are complaints about what this forum does to images that are posted. How could you make them display any better?

Are there higher quality monitors out there that do indeed make for better view?
Click to expand...

Resize the pixels of your image to the max width/height of your monitor as that's all it can display. The DPI setting means nothing unless you're a printer and even then not a lot these days in terms of telling the printer how big to print (this is another topic really). If you are curious measure the width of your viewable screen in inches then divide the pixels it has by that width. That will tell you the DPI and it won't come out at a neat 72.

I've had this debate several times on this forum and I'm not going to have it again. If the info makes sense use it, if not I won't be offended.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
Vixen

Vixen

Senior Member
While your question may be about viewing on your home monitor, posting to the www is another thing. I tend to process my images with intent to post to the www but maintain the original file should I decide to use them otherwise.

I make my files small for 2 reasons....1. Because they load up to the www faster & take up less room on my free photobucket account and 2. Because should anyone decide to steal any of my pics they won't be able to do a great deal with them to make any money out of them (maybe I should be flattered should that happen :D It has happened to people I know)

It is said that 72 dpi is fine for computer monitors and the www but I make mine 200dpi because most host sites eg photobucket, Facebook etc do have image compression built in, so an already small image is made even smaller and looks totally crap. Making it a little bigger allows the compression without losing too much quality. I then resize to 900x600 because most forums prefer that size (or slightly smaller) or resize them anyway when you post them. The images end up being about 85kb....they load fast :D

It is personal tho & everyone has their own opinion about how it should be done depending on their own circumstances :)
 
BackdoorArts

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
As others have said, create a jpg for posting in the precise size in which it will be displayed on the web. Here, the max size for an embedded image is 1000px. That said, depending on the size of your browser window it may not display at full size!! Ah yes, another beef I have with this software. You can link it at full size, but if someone hasn't closed the extra panel to the right ==> then it will compress the full size image mangling the display. So, unless you click on the image to pop-up the full size there is no guarantee you're seeing it as I intended. Bothersome, but something that must be lived with.

Same is true at sights like Flickr where they automatically resize your upload to umpteen different smaller sizes, and while their algorithm is pretty good, it's still not what I uploaded. 500px does the same if it's above (I believe) 1600px on the large side.

And Geoff is right about DPI's not mattering for display purposes. Where it does matter is when someone grabs the image and tries to resize or print it. Upload a 240 DPI image and someone can effectively triple the size without too much of a loss in resolution (a 1000x1000px image at 240 dpi is essentially the same as a 3000x3000px image at 72 dpi).
 
Last edited:
G

Geoffc

Senior Member
BackdoorHippie said:
As others have said, create a jpg for posting in the precise size in which it will be displayed on the web. Here, the max size for an embedded image is 1000px. That said, depending on the size of your browser window it may not display at full size!! Ah yes, another beef I have with this software. You can link it at full size, but if someone hasn't closed the extra panel to the right ==> then it will compress the full size image mangling the display. So, unless you click on the image to pop-up the full size there is no guarantee you're seeing it as I intended. Bothersome, but something that must be lived with.

Same is true at sights like Flickr where they automatically resize your upload to umpteen different smaller sizes, and while their algorithm is pretty good, it's still not what I uploaded. 500px does the same if it's above (I believe) 1600px on the large side.

And Geoff is right about DPI's not mattering for display purposes. Where it does matter is when someone grabs the image and tries to resize or print it. Upload a 240 DPI image and someone can effectively triple the size without too much of a loss in resolution (a 1000x1000px image at 240 dpi is essentially the same as a 3000x3000px image at 72 dpi).
Click to expand...

Jake,

Maybe this is where the confusion comes in. What I generally bang on about is that a 1000x1000 pixel image is only 1,000,000 pixels in total regardless of the DPI tag. However if someone uses output settings of x inches at y DPI that's another thing altogether. Try creating a 1000x1000 export from Lightroom at DPIs from 1 - 1000 and the file size and pixel count is unchanged as it's nothing more than a tag in the meta data.

Doh I've done it again and got sucked in!!!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
M

Mike D90

Senior Member
Geoffc said:
Jake,

Maybe this is where the confusion comes in. What I generally bang on about is that a 1000x1000 pixel image is only 1,000,000 pixels in total regardless of the DPI tag. However if someone uses output settings of x inches at y DPI that's another thing altogether. Try creating a 1000x1000 export from Lightroom at DPIs from 1 - 1000 and the file size and pixel count is unchanged as it's nothing more than a tag in the meta data.

Doh I've done it again and got sucked in!!!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying here. It makes sense. The DPI tag then only matters for printing?
 
M

Mike D90

Senior Member
BackdoorHippie said:
As others have said, create a jpg for posting in the precise size in which it will be displayed on the web. Here, the max size for an embedded image is 1000px. That said, depending on the size of your browser window it may not display at full size!! Ah yes, another beef I have with this software. You can link it at full size, but if someone hasn't closed the extra panel to the right ==> then it will compress the full size image mangling the display. So, unless you click on the image to pop-up the full size there is no guarantee you're seeing it as I intended. Bothersome, but something that must be lived with.

Same is true at sights like Flickr where they automatically resize your upload to umpteen different smaller sizes, and while their algorithm is pretty good, it's still not what I uploaded. 500px does the same if it's above (I believe) 1600px on the large side.

And Geoff is right about DPI's not mattering for display purposes. Where it does matter is when someone grabs the image and tries to resize or print it. Upload a 240 DPI image and someone can effectively triple the size without too much of a loss in resolution (a 1000x1000px image at 240 dpi is essentially the same as a 3000x3000px image at 72 dpi).
Click to expand...

Jake, that is pretty much what I do. I save a JPEG image of my originals, which are saved as TIFF files at 300ppi, and I resize it to 1000px on the long side at 96ppi. I use 96ppi because some monitors can display 96ppi from what I understand. My monitor has that option for 96ppi resolution.


I have also read somewhere that images are better saved at 380dpi due to some kind of aspect ratio thing? Not sure I understood what I was reading.
 
BackdoorArts

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
Mike d90 said:
Jake, that is pretty much what I do. I save a JPEG image of my originals, which are saved as TIFF files at 300ppi, and I resize it to 1000px on the long side at 96ppi. I use 96ppi because some monitors can display 96ppi from what I understand. My monitor has that option for 96ppi resolution.


I have also read somewhere that images are better saved at 380dpi due to some kind of aspect ratio thing? Not sure I understood what I was reading.
Click to expand...

Not sure where that would come from.
 
nikonpup

nikonpup

Senior Member
explain this please. When i click the icon "display all thread images" most of the images are about the same size. Some images are display 2-3 times larger. How do these get thru when images are to be resized when posted?
 
M

Mike D90

Senior Member
nikonpup said:
explain this please. When i click the icon "display all thread images" most of the images are about the same size. Some images are display 2-3 times larger. How do these get thru when images are to be resized when posted?
Click to expand...

I too have noticed some images are much larger than others. Would like to know this as well.
 
D

Don Kuykendall_RIP

RIP :(
nikonpup said:
explain this please. When i click the icon "display all thread images" most of the images are about the same size. Some images are display 2-3 times larger. How do these get thru when images are to be resized when posted?
Click to expand...

They are linked from another site like photobucket etc.
This is why we require people to upload to this site for the monthly assignments. When we judge we look at the photos that way. It makes it easier for us to judge them better. We can see more of them at the same time.
 
M

MeSess

Senior Member
Mike d90 said:
I have just been a little confused about how to make photo images display their absolute best when viewing on a computer/monitor.

Monitors only display a maximum ppi (pixels per inch) of resolution. So how do you make the best of that? I hate waiting on a 15 megabyte image to download so I can see it. Huge file size makes no better image quality on a computer monitor does it?

I see some images posted here that look simply fantastic. Others do not display so well.

I have read the threads where there are complaints about what this forum does to images that are posted. How could you make them display any better?

Are there higher quality monitors out there that do indeed make for better view?
Click to expand...

File size only relates to quality when it comes to compression and data loss. Some file sizes are larger than others because they retain all of the original data from the image that was taken (RAW, TIFF etc.) and that is why they are referred to as lossless file types. Because these retain all of the original data that was captured their file size is going to be large. When converted to formats like JPEG the file is compressed and loses some of the original data in order to make the file size smaller. When this occurs you have a decrease in image quality and the degree at which this happens depends on the amount of compression that occurs and the quality of the original image. The higher the quality the better it's going to withstand this compression. There are very high quality JPEG files out there that retain most of the original file's data. These files that lose data are often referred to as lossy file types which is for obvious reasons. When people complain about what websites do to their images they are complaining about these compression rates and loss of data. If you take a very high quality large file size image and compress it down to use on Facebook or something like that the quality dropoff can be quite drastic.

As for monitors and how they display your pictures, a high quality monitor can make a world of difference. First of all most modern monitors are capable of displaying at greater than 72dpi or whatever the default setting is and that is just set like that because that used to be the industry standard (google it). Secondly, you can buy monitors that feature ISP panels (Dell Ulstrasharp etc.) that have a much higher resolution and much better color reproduction than your standard monitor. These monitors are very popular with photographers and graphic designers because they can accurately portray images better than other monitors and are better suited for editing. If your monitor isn't very good it's not going to matter how high quality your image is because it's just not going to be able to reproduce it.
 
Last edited:
M

MeSess

Senior Member
blacktop said:
Would a Hd 1080p tv monitor give you better resolution then your standard lcd computer monitor?
Click to expand...

The simple answer is no, most likely not. This has more to do with screen size and pixel density. Even though your laptop monitor or standard desktop monitor's resolution is less than 1080p the pixel density is probably higher than your 1080p TV because of the smaller screen size of monitors and that is why they appear sharp when you sit closer. Imagine a bunch of pixels crammed into a tiny screen and then you begin stretching it outward, you're going to start to notice the pixels get bigger and bigger. Just like when you zoom in on a photo. Since most people buy 1080p TVs 32 inches or bigger the recommended viewing distance is further back than it is for computer monitors so that the pixels aren't as noticeable. If you sit really close to your TV you can see the pixels because they are larger and the pixel density has decreased with the increase in screen size. 1080p works well on computer monitors because they are generally smaller and the pixel density is higher due to the smaller screen. Another good example of this is the Ipad and other smaller devices. Their screen resolution is lower than 1080p but they are so small that the pixels are crammed into there making the image appear very sharp and crisp. That is why when you look at larger monitors in the 27-30 inch range the resolution is much higher so that the image can still appear sharp when sitting close. I hope that makes sense.
 
Last edited:
Top