What's new
By:
Filters
Photoshop Gurus Forum

Welcome to Photoshop Gurus forum. Register a free account today to become a member! It's completely free. Once signed in, you'll enjoy an ad-free experience and be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Can i convert 300 dpi PSD file to 72dpi?


J

JimmiOO

Member
Messages
18
Likes
10
Not sure if this can be done, i have a web development project to start but have been given a lot of PSD files. Normally this would be ok as i would just bounce them to HTML. The problem i have is they are all set to 300dpi. Is there a quick way to convert them to 72dpi? I don't like the idea of have to convert each layer.

Any help will be greatly appreciated
 
Image/Image Size converts the open image. Just change the setting from 300 to 72.
JimmiOO said:
Not sure if this can be done, i have a web development project to start but have been given a lot of PSD files. Normally this would be ok as i would just bounce them to HTML. The problem i have is they are all set to 300dpi. Is there a quick way to convert them to 72dpi? I don't like the idea of have to convert each layer.

Any help will be greatly appreciated
Click to expand...
 
Actually, for web use, let me say this yet one more time in this forum:

THE PPI SETTING MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE FOR WEB USE

ONLY THE ACTUAL PIXEL DIMENSIONS MATTER


@OP - Sorry for the shouting using large, bold fonts. It most certainly wasn't directed at you. So, to answer your question, if the current pixel dimensions fit the region of the page where the image is going, you don't have to do a thing. However, I would recommend that if this is not done automatically by your software, you manually convert all PSD files to JPGs before putting them on your page. JPGs are much smaller than even flattened PSDs and if you do the conversion yourself, you can control things like the quality, color space (ie, should be sRGB), etc.

BTW, the history of my comment is that this, and very similar questions have come up repeatedly and regulars on this forum haven't seemed to grasp this point.

Tom M
 
Hi Tom

Thanks for the comments, my PSD files are set for printing, the width is 3500px x 2400px much to large for a website, and resolution 300. If i do a image / image size and set the resolution to 72 the file shrinks to width 850px, if i put it to 960 which i need it stretches some artwork, I am not great on Photoshop
 
Tom, could you explain that one more time please:mrgreen:
 
One more time, eh?

Well, should anyone be seriously interested in this, I suggest that they do an experiment that will convince them that the ppi setting doesn't matter when posting to the web: Start with a JPG that's small enough so that it doesn't trigger the automatic resizing routines built into this forum's image uploading software. Make a few identical copies of that file. Sequentially, open each of them in PS, then open the "Image Size" dialog box. Make sure the "resample" option is not checked. Enter some wildly different values into the ppi field and observe that while the physical size of the image (ie, in inches) changes equally wildly, the actual number of pixels in each direction doesn't change.

Next, save versions of the image with different ppi, and then post them to this forum.

You will see that when they appear on the website, there is absolutely no difference between them.

Even better, if you have written a website yourself, and have easy access to the html code, try exactly the same test with it.

Finally, if you don't want to be bothered to take the time to do such tests, yet still harbor a nagging suspicion that ppi does matter in web posting, I've posted the results of such experiments at least a couple of times in just the past few months:

a) Scroll down to the images in post #4 in http://www.photoshopgurus.com/forum...62-few-questions-about-screen-resolution.html .

b) Scroll down to the images in post #8 in http://www.photoshopgurus.com/forum...ing-importing-image-looks-too-small-page.html

In addition to just looking at the pictures cited above, you might also want to read the discussion in those two threads, as well as related discussions in these threads:

i) http://www.photoshopgurus.com/forum/general-photoshop-board/44481-desirable-resolution-web.html

ii) http://www.photoshopgurus.com/forum/photography/45029-meaning-term-resolution-photoshop.html

HTH,

Tom M
 
Talk louder Tom, We can't hear you. I know what your saying but the man asked a question, I gave a simple answer as it did not require anything beyond that.:neutral:
 
JimmiOO said:
Hi Tom - Thanks for the comments, my PSD files are set for printing, the width is 3500px x 2400px much to large for a website, and resolution 300. If i do a image / image size and set the resolution to 72 the file shrinks to width 850px, if i put it to 960 which i need it stretches some artwork, I am not great on Photoshop
Click to expand...

Hi Jimmi - From what you described, you are adjusting the ppi with the "resampling" option checked. By doing so, you are indirectly doing what I recommended above, ie, adjusting the pixel dimensions to be close to what you need to fit onto your webpage. Since the goal is to set the pixel dimensions to be exactly what you need, I would suggest that a more straightforward method would be to simply type in the desired pixel dimensions (with the "resampling" option checked). Doing it this way, you will get exactly what you want in one step and don't have to keep playing with the ppi to get the pixel dimensions close to the desired value.

HTH,

Tom M
 
Larry, even though in the OP's initial post, he says that he wants to convert 300 ppi to 72ppi, it's clear from the OP's 2nd post in this thread (ie, #4), that like all web designers, his actual problem is that he has to make some images fit into a rectangular area that is specified in numbers of pixels, not ppi, and he is adjusting the ppi parameter only because he has discovered that it indirectly can get him close to the pixel dimensions he actually needs.

There is absolutely no reason a web designer like him should ever be concerned with ppi. Instead, if he simply enters the desired pixel dimensions, not only will the resizing give spot-on accurate results, and not need to be iterated (as is necessary when playing with the ppi number), there is the issue of clarity of thought: Why should he continue to fret over a variable (ie, ppi) that is only indirectly related to his real needs.

My beef with your response is that you didn't help him see through this. In fact, by your simple response, you indirectly encouraged him to continue thinking about ppi, as if it was the right approach, even though you and I have been through this exact discussion in one or more previous threads and you seemed to understand it at that time.

Best regards,

Tom
 
Tom is exhibiting signs of student overload or keyboard finger fatigue.........:mrgreen: Take your guess:rofl:
 
My bad Tom I agree. However, I do have a through understanding of the issue. In my business, I am not concerned with files for online viewing as much as I am for production by a machine that absolutely spits out junk with 72 ppi files. That may be where my terminology etc gets me in trouble. Your the man when it comes to this subject..no doubt. I was just messing with you a little bit with the post. Thanks for being a great educator on this stuff.
Tom Mann said:
Larry, even though in the OP's initial post, he says that he wants to convert 300 ppi to 72ppi, it's clear from the OP's 2nd post in this thread (ie, #4), that like all web designers, his actual problem is that he has to make some images fit into a rectangular area that is specified in numbers of pixels, not ppi, and he is adjusting the ppi parameter only because he has discovered that it indirectly can get him close to the pixel dimensions he actually needs.

There is absolutely no reason a web designer like him should ever be concerned with ppi. Instead, if he simply enters the desired pixel dimensions, not only will the resizing give spot-on accurate results, and not need to be iterated (as is necessary when playing with the ppi number), there is the issue of clarity of thought: Why should he continue to fret over a variable (ie, ppi) that is only indirectly related to his real needs.

My beef with your response is that you didn't help him see through this. In fact, by your simple response, you indirectly encouraged him to continue thinking about ppi, as if it was the right approach, even though you and I have been through this exact discussion in one or more previous threads and you seemed to understand it at that time.

Best regards,

Tom
Click to expand...
 

Back
Top