[Kitamard]

So, I was wondering what size to paint in photoshop. SO I can print poster size without loosing detail and getting big ass pixels. Does anyone know? What size do you work in? Whats your DPI level? Do you like girls?

thanks,
_________________
Beaumont 'from the beautiful mountain' origin French

[B0b]

printing without big ass pixels can be achieved with 300dpi

yes i like women

[Kitamard]

Haha thanks Bob.
_________________
Beaumont 'from the beautiful mountain' origin French

[cheney]

I typically try to create art for 300dpi quality poster prints. For large prints 300dpi is considered top quality because it looks very sharp and because technology has no progressed far enough for typical users to create large prints at 600dpi.

My prints are 30x20. Size is not always a measure of quality, but larger final images carry much more appeal. Also, the larger the image the more details an artist can fit into an image. 300dpi at 30x20px equals 9000x6000px sized images. So, be prepared to work large even if you wish to create far smaller prints. Try not to lower your print resolution unless you have to. 200dpi is an acceptable quality for large prints, but you can definately notice a large difference in sharpness when you compare a 200dpi to a 300dpi image. Most people can tell any difference above 150dpi, however, because most people have an attention span of 4 seconds at 2-5ft away. So, if you care little for detail or the quality of your art then perhaps resolution matters little to you.

--------

Just a few days a ago I was walking through downtown Savannah, GA, US with my wife. She flew her with my daughter to visit me for a week just before I finally leave the US for Kuwait, how sweet of her. We walked into one of a few art galleries there selling street art. It was there that I saw the most detailed watercolor paintings I have ever seen in my entire life. I have never seen watercolors with more details in books, real life, internet, or anywhere. It turns out the artist was there at the gallery working. His name is Tom J Scipinski (sp?). I really wish I could remember how to spell his name, so I could find him on google. Anyways, this guy said the key to obtaining his fine details were buying the most expensive watercolor papers, and his horribly small vision. He claims that he is extremely near-sided being able to see between the fibers of the paper. I don't know about the rest of you, but this brings me great relief to know I am not the only one with such vision. Most optomotrists don't even have equiptment capable of measuring the degree of my near sided vision. They just tell me I see better than 10/20 at 3 inches away. This is good since I am about 750/20 at 20 feet. I think this is the reason why I pursue the finest texture details without any regards to composition. Unlike most artists I don't see the things as a dramatic subject with fuzzy details. Instead, my reality is seeing life through glasses that push every away to help equalize the effects of my microscope eyes. I think I see details naturally that most of you never will. As a result I create art that is extremely large and focused entirely on details such as hair fibers that weave to create a sheet of paper rather than large subjects such as cute kittens or naked women. It was nice to see somebody who uses his bad eyes to create art so incredible that he can survive as a street artist selling his paintings for $3000 each.















/me puts his beer down......
_________________
http://prettydiff.com/