Self taught artist gave great advice when she said to change the pixel height and width. When you display a digital image on a monitor using a web browser the only thing that determines the size of the image when you enlarge it for viewing is the width and height of the pixels. I was surprised to discover that all other data in the image file is ignored, even resolution (ppi data). By fiddling with Adobe Photo Shop, I discovered that changing the height and width in pixels also produces a smaller file size (kb). That makes sense. The aim is to size the image so that when you click on it to enlarge it, it fills the computer screen without "going over" and to have it load quickly. Resampling your image to 640 by 480 pixels works well with most monitor sizes.
It seems I was mistaken when I thought that resizing would affect the amount of detail visible in my image on the web. The smaller the file size the less detail available when you print the image. The proof is in the pudding:
2232 pixels wide
What did I learn by comparing these two images?
- no difference in the amount of detail visible
- both are the same physical size in the post
- can't tell how large they will be when enlarged until I publish the post
- decreasing pixel height and width affect the size of the image when you enlarge it
- decreasing pixel height and width affects how quickly an image loads