Photo quality

don't send them via facebook for anything but previewing

>>61005337
It would be visible. Can't say "how" visible. But just send by syncthing, email, dropbox, ipfs, flickr, rackspace, your ftp or whatever the fuck suits you and your friend.

Generally photos are printed at 300 PPI so for a nice looking edge-to-edge A4 print you'd want the file to be at least 3507*2481.

You could do a nice 6x4" print but A4 would be (literally) a bit of a stretch).

.zip them and send them like that

facebook and other services compress to save on stoarage

if its shit a snapshit it probably wont matter, but if its for a project or whatever do it the right way.

/thread

Appreciate the replies guys, thanks a ton.

>>61005434
Eh, for A4 you could get away with 200 PPI, if you're pixel peeping irl then you're doing it wrong. But obviously more is better and a trained eye would spot 200 PPI vs 300 PPI easily even at a normal viewing distance.

That said OP's files are about 165-175 PPI which would look positively shit. But then he doesn't sound like he knows what he's doing either, so very likely he wouldn't notice anyway.

File: 14268426743.png (490KB, 449x401px) Image search: [Google]

490KB, 449x401px

>>61005337
He doesn't shoot in RAW

>>61005337>>61005337
>Hey anons, recently took photos with my friend and after he sent them through Facebook the quality had decreased from (6000 x 4000) to (2048 x 1365). I had already finished photoshopping one until I became aware of the decrease in quality, so I was wondering if I were to print A4 images of both qualities, how visible would the difference in quality be? Thanks anons!
>facebook
Your picture is probably compressed (in terms of JPG quality) on top of the DPI loss. Just ask your friend to put the original files on a cloud-drive service or someshit

>>61005531

Yeah, quite sure the format was RAW but Facebook changed them to JPEGs for the sake of minimizing the size. Going to try using Google-drive now, thanks for the suggestion.

>>61005434
>Generally photos are printed at 300 PPI

completely false and a stupid meme perpetuated by people who don't know how human optical system works.

photos look perfectly fine on 100ppi screen but somehow needs to have 3x resolution when printed.

>>61005337

If you weren't retarded and did your photoshopping not destructively then you can just scale up your layers and do some finishing work. if not, then too bad.

>>61006807
> photos look perfectly fine on 100ppi screen
Smartphones now typically have 300 to 600 dpi, and cameras to match.

300dpi is a good rule of thumb for quality in prints or images in general.

>>61006807
>photos look perfectly fine on 100ppi screen but somehow needs to have 3x resolution when printed.
There's a practical reason for an image for printing to be higher resolution than one displayed on a screen. If the pixel density at the final image size is lower or the same as the halftone cell density of the printer, the final print will have the square pixel pattern reproduced as fuzzy/dithered halftones. This effect is avoided when the image resolution is high enough that the printer can't reproduce the individual pixels anymore at the desired print size. 300dpi as a rule of thumb may be unnecessarily high in some cases but you can't just compare to a 100ppi screen as an example, because a 100lpi halftone pattern doesn't have the same actual resolution due to sacrificing detail to approximate tones/gradients.

https://the-print-guide.blogspot.com/2009/04/image-resolution-for-printing-lpi-vs.html