I got some problems when it comes to file size. Just the fact that the resolution i use (2000x2000) seems to be extremely big for this website. Anyone know what size will work better?

bigger = better. the auto resize function exists for a reason.

Mutisija said:
bigger = better. the auto resize function exists for a reason.

Yeah but 300 dpi should just about do it. double that if you want.

Anything >1024 and 2ⁿ IMO.

Talking about DPI, I know for what it stances for, but I don't see any difference compared to a 2000 X 2000 px 72 DPI with a 2000 X 2000 px with 300 DPI. It seems to only be used as a printer settings or I'm missing something out

Use "Show reduced samples" on https://e621.net/user/edit

It saves e621 $1,000,000 in hosting costs.

Neitsuke said:
Talking about DPI, I know for what it stances for, but I don't see any difference compared to a 2000 X 2000 px 72 DPI with a 2000 X 2000 px with 300 DPI. It seems to only be used as a printer settings or I'm missing something out

Yup, that's for printers. 2000px would measure 27.77in while at 300dpi would measure 6.66in. As you may know, DPI stands for dots per inch, so to get the actual measure (in inches) you would divide pixels (in either direction) by dpi

Note: I may be a bit wrong but I hope I'm not too far from it

Dpi is purely for print, or if you want to have things appear at very specific sizes on displays.

Most computer screens are at around 72dpi, while most printers run from 300 to 600, but can easily go to 1400 dpi.

My last upload was created with printing in mind, which is why it's so large.
200dpi for A3 is already huge.

Some smartphones are higher than 500 DPI. Samsung Galaxy S6 is 577 DPI.

Lowering the resolution below 2000x2000 isn't helpful. Users can use the Image resize mode setting to control how the images are displayed.

Rather than DPI, think of the resolution. You can buy 5K screen size today, which is 5120x2880, and some people will have 7680x4320 soon.

Neitsuke said:
Talking about DPI, I know for what it stances for, but I don't see any difference compared to a 2000 X 2000 px 72 DPI with a 2000 X 2000 px with 300 DPI. It seems to only be used as a printer settings or I'm missing something out

You're looking at the wrong end of the process, I think.

Like, if I want to make a 300 dpi image, that means I need 300x300 pixels in my image for each square inch of printed output. If I have less, then the print either will not be as big as I wanted, or it will be printed at a resolution lower than 300 dpi.

To continue that example, supposing I want an 11"x8" print (roughly A4), but I have made a 1100x800 image. I can either print that image at 300dpi at reduced size (3.6" x 2.6"), or I can print it at 100dpi at full size.

So, DPI specifies an expected spatial relationship between an image and an output device (this can include monitors, tablets, and phones, not only printers; though it is usually called PPI for displays).

It's a little confusing because there are two independent elements, as seen in my example: the DPI the image was made for, and the DPI it is actually printed/displayed at.

But as an art consumer, what it boils down to is: If you already have an image that you want to view/print, the only thing changing the DPI should do is change the physical size of the image.

(the printer driver setting is a separate thing. In general, that's a 'global quality' setting. So you won't be able to print at 600dpi if your printer driver is set to 300dpi, for example -- you'd just get 300dpi anyway)

That's what I thought DPI was for (This and scanners too now that I think about it)
Seeing that one post that said "You should use 300 DPI or higher" Just made me think that the setting actually does something on a project, that and how every time I create a new project, they ask for a DPI value. Since it seems to only be for physical sizes, that value should not even be asked in the first place since it is not final and can be changed at any time

Neitsuke said:
Seeing that one post that said "You should use 300 DPI or higher" Just made me think that the setting actually does something on a project.

It does. a) when the artist switches to units other than px (inch/mm/pt/etc), it ensures that the measurements they get are accurate, and b) it's attached to the image, so the image is printed at the desired size.

It's true that changing the desired size of the image overall is not a big deal and can be done any time, but not having correct physical measurements right from the start can be.

Neitsuke said:
That's what I thought DPI was for (This and scanners too now that I think about it)
Seeing that one post that said "You should use 300 DPI or higher" Just made me think that the setting actually does something on a project, that and how every time I create a new project, they ask for a DPI value. Since it seems to only be for physical sizes, that value should not even be asked in the first place since it is not final and can be changed at any time

The DPI setting in art programs works differently based on the program. If you set the DPI in ps, and show the rulers around the image in inches or cm you will see those rulers change based on your chosen DPI. You can also tell PS what DPI you'd like and what real life measurements the print should have and it will calculate the required pixels for the canvas, but if you have set a pixel amount manually the DPI will not change that amount but only rl measurements.
Also if you pick a DPI the sizes of your brushes will change if you use inches as units for them, instead of pixels, that is useful if you want to draw a line that is 1" thick, or things like that.

Lance_Armstrong said:
Use "Show reduced samples" on https://e621.net/user/edit

It saves e621 $1,000,000 in hosting costs.

This is acctully 41050% more usefull than having to resize most of my uploads
Thanks alot buddie!

neko-3240 said:
This is acctully 41050% more usefull than having to resize most of my uploads
Thanks alot buddie!

If you still ever need to do that for something (or to convert or rename a bunch of images) have a look at IrfanView and specifically the batch processing.

Reduced Samples mode is a bit horrible for picture quality though, I just stick with Dynamic Resizing.

Jugofthat said:
Reduced Samples mode is a bit horrible for picture quality though, I just stick with Dynamic Resizing.

It is good for bad net connections. Just download the file or click full size if you want the quality

Off topic, but when I draw digitally, should I save in .jpeg format or .png format?

GameManiac said:
Off topic, but when I draw digitally, should I save in .jpeg format or .png format?

png
You want lossless until filesize becomes an issue.

NotMeNotYou said:
png
You want lossless until filesize becomes an issue.

Ok.

GameManiac said:
Ok.

Oh, png also supports transparency, that is something jpg can't do at all.

If you want an explanation, or example, then pick something that Ratte created (post #665688 or post #684150 are good because lot's of different colors [artifacts are also easier to see on red]), and open those in any image editor, save them as jpg in the highest quality possible, then compare png with jpg.

Jpg reduce filesize by simplifying the image, areas that have a similar hue get smoothed to one color, and that throughout the image, you can see most image artifacts around stark changes in hue and color (using the examples above around the green fire and red background, near any black lines or highlights), and that just accumulates.

Png doesn't have any of this, the format simply reduces redundancy in the file itself (so instead of saving each pixel with the exact same color they save that as an area of that color), this helps in preserving the original image as it was created.

Eh, IMO 'neither' is probably correct. If you're drawing digitally, you will probably want to use layers to some extent, which means you should use your paint program's native fileformat (.sai, .psd, .xcf, .ora, .kra, .svg, etc). There are usually other features (like guides, for example) that are only supported by this kind of format, you will lose that information if you just save to a web format like png or jpg.

When you're ready to show it on the web, you can export a copy to png or jpg.

If you are uploading to the web, it's nice to also run optipng, pngcrush, or similar on any PNGs you make. Especially if the image is simple, this can reduce its size a lot.

savageorange said:
Eh, IMO 'neither' is probably correct. If you're drawing digitally, you will probably want to use layers to some extent, which means you should use your paint program's native fileformat (.sai, .psd, .xcf, .ora, .kra, .svg, etc). There are usually other features (like guides, for example) that are only supported by this kind of format, you will lose that information if you just save to a web format like png or jpg.

When you're ready to show it on the web, you can export a copy to png or jpg.

If you are uploading to the web, it's nice to also run optipng, pngcrush, or similar on any PNGs you make. Especially if the image is simple, this can reduce its size a lot.

I think he meant once it's fully done, during the creating process the image should definitely always be in the program specific format.

But after that png has always the better quality and filesize should never really be an issue anymore (depends on many factors but storage and transmission is pretty cheap in any case).

NotMeNotYou said:
I think he meant once it's fully done, during the creating process the image should definitely always be in the program specific format.

But after that png has always the better quality and filesize should never really be an issue anymore (depends on many factors but storage and transmission is pretty cheap in any case).

Admittedly that comment was partly made because certain programs (Photoshop) are notably terrible at compressing PNGs, to the point where optimizing it will reduce the filesize by a factor of 4 or more.
(In cases where compression was done competently to start with, optimization tends to be more like a 20% - 50% reduction)