indeed, a higher resolution looks way better

Hi-res is better.

Bigger is better, in terms of image size.

I tend to post minimum 600x800, and on many occasions have only shrunk it down to fit the 1280x1280 size limits of the website.

true, I do that with my pieces even not being in color XP

Hi-res can have its perks, but I know some artists just don't like the 300dpi print quality stuff getting around. Guess it depends on what you plan to do with the image and what you want the viewer to do with said image as well.

Could probably go in the middle and do 150dpi or whatnot.

I usually like to post things on FA around a 1024x768ish resolution though many people use 16:9 or 16:10 format monitors. The one I'm on now is 16:10 at a 1920x1200 resolution so I'll normally ask for the highest rez version of images I commission I can get since from there I can easily resize to what works for me be it using for a desktop background or whatever.

It would be a good idea to post in larger res, especially in pieces like htis that have so much miniscule detail, it can kind of get lost in the smaller copies

It would be a good idea to post in larger res, especially in pieces like htis that have so much miniscule detail, it can kind of get lost in the smaller copies

Yeah, I usually go by FA's maximum pixel resolution rather than DPI, which is 1280 pixels either in width or height (so the largest image you can post is 1280x1280). There's ways around it for even larger images, but there really isn't any reason to do that.

the higher the better ^^

When working with viewing on the web for FA, don't bother with DPI. It's meaningless. Just reduce it to 1280px on the larger dimension.

This. DPI only matters if you're scanning or printing. 72 DPI on a 10"x10" is very different from 72 DPI on a 1" by 1" :p

Higher resolution is far better. Hope you do more of that in the future

Agree with what has been said above. Bigger=Better.

I usually go at 1024x768 for my final post though 800x600 is typical for my WIPs. Sometimes I post my more detail works at 1200x900 though that is rare. I think those works well enough for the monitors most people run these days.

it also took me a while to get into that mindset as well for bigger pictures and more detail, as opposed to like 10 years ago when almost everyone was stuck with dialup and listening to MIDI songs.

Yeah I wouldn't worry about older internet connections and stuff. The only country you'd be leaving behind is Australias late 1800's-built-copper-wire tinpot internet framework which would be spluttering away at a healthy 28 baud per second.

hey even us aussies with our poor excuse of a telecomunications network want to see higher rez images

True true X) I wish the govt would hurry up with it's proposed broadband network >< Maybe they'll finally bring this country into the 19th century and maybe one day we can move into the 20th and then the 21st.

And many, many people that don't live within city limits of whatever town they live in, and as such don't have a very good chance at getting broadband. You'd be surprised how many people are literally stuck with dialup or nothing, and at best, hope for wireless via cell towers.

I'm writing this from a 34k connection =) I understand that only too well. Thanks Colour City Internet X)

Yeah, I tend to target ~96DPI as that tends to be the monitor resolution I encounter the most, though some drawings I do even higher DPI depending on the details and general resolution.

Unless you're planning on selling a certain pic you upload, go for high quality! Your art is amazing, but standard resolutions don't do it justice.

Mm. It's all up to you. I tend to keep two different files. One of high quality and full size, and the other a shrunken version with decent quality, but not as good. I've had art taken from me before, and since I'm not as well known as you are, I can't just say "Oh, well they'll know its me by the style."

However, if you can trust that nobody will take your images, make personal prints and try to make money off of them, then put up higher quality. <3

Id' actually say go ahead and use FA's limit on uploading images. 1280x1280 is a fairly large screen real estate to fill but it allows for a great amount of detail without having to post your print-quality work.

Wow, I've done some calculations and 72DPI is ancient!! the only known screen size/resolution I found to match would be a 14" 800X600 screen lol

Most screens now range between 90-110DPI, a good value nowadays is 96DPI (ratio of a 17",1280x1024 monitor)

I vote hi-res. A year ago I would've said otherwise.

Large and incharge is the way to go resolution wise.

Bigger is better!

72 DPI is used to keep people from stealing art, shoving it onto cd's and selling them for personal profit 'because if is on the internet its public domain.' (Sibe anyone?) 72 DPI is quite good enough for the viewer to see your work, and if they are interested (and have a job) offer to buy.

All art posted on my Naorhy and Space Opera sites are 800x600x72 DPI. I don't care if people are using 13" monitors or 24" wide screen monitors. I have a duty to the artist that I purchase from not to give away high quality copies of images, images that might be found on a milkshake & crisps flyer in England one day. Yes, this happened to a FA Artist this year.

High res owns. My monitor displays at 2560x1600, I love it big!

High res? What is this you younglings speak of?

One of the artists on my watchlist posts images that often exceed 2 megabytes in color, sometimes more than 3MB. Even with DSL, they take so long to load that it's like my machine hung. I've now developed the habit of not enlarging her color images. Oftentimes, I skip her uploads entirely. I usually don't have the time to sit and wait for those pics to load (I reiterate that I'm on DSL).

One of the FA features I've been campaigning for is for thumbnails to display their file size, so artists who routinely post gigantic images can lose traffic :). Dimension-wise, I hold mine to 750px on the shortest side. I never kept track of the actual DPI, other than knowing I work at 300, then resize to roughly 25% of that for display.

This could be interesting. Although smaller images have nicer details you could do the odd large image with tiny details throughout.

I always support using higher resolutions myself. So far I'm sticking with 1280 x 932 for my art, which seems about right. But higher is always better if you have the disk space

FurAffinity allows up to 1280 pixels on either axis. I say, "Use 'em!"

...And don't over-compensate with heavy JPEG compression, by the way. File sizes in the high-tens to low-one-hundreds aren't as important as they used to be.

Image quality is something about which I care a lot.

unfortunately I do not have a better connection or a large monitor.

I have a 14", 4x3 laptop and the second one is the perfect width for me.

FA already does a good job of keeping the images at a reasonable size, please post higher-res. :)

Fur affinity default max size is 1280x1280, i sugest that unless its a preview for something you're going to sell, that you try and fit your image to this size

Remeber, resizing up is usually not possible with any reliable quality, but resizing down is easy, simply press the download button and most browsers will fit it to your window size for easy viewing. and lets not forget that for those with limited bandwidth or speed, there's always the preview view that resizes it down server side to send a smaller file.

Also, i find that in a lot of cases where a lot of people have posted comments, that it actually takes longer to load everyones avatar than it takes to load the image you actually want to see.

900x900 minimum for me. file size should be 250kb+ with jpeg. DPI doesn't matter unless your printing.