Well I'm just saying that's how I save files when I put them on face
book - whether or no the 300 ppi or 72 ppi has practically "no meaning"
for my web page the images are 4 or 5 mgs 300ppi, and _if printed_ they
would be, say, 12" x 8. The same image, if I save it with a width of
800 px and a "resolution" of 72 ppi - is smaller. I also decrease
the file size (in jpg conversion from my dngs) to 10 but leave it
at no compression for my web page - where, of course, I hope people will
find things they want to buy.
I do get confused about the terms sometimes but regardless of my
possible misnaming terms, the files I submit to facebook are
intentionally smaller.
ann
On 1/23/2014 16:24, Igor Roshchin wrote:
Ann, just in case:
"ppi" dor a digital image has practically no meaning.
That's definitely the case when you upload images to FB.
It's only the total number of pixels that matters.
Igor
Thu Jan 23 15:36:09 EST 2014
Ann Sanfedele wrote:
OTOH - improving the quality there may lead to more photo swiping.
I send Facebook on jpgs at 72 ppi and no larger than 800 px across..
but I don't do "save for web" because that clobbers some meta-data.
ann
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
