Totally dumb question I'm sure...

... but my employer's strange requests end up making me question what I think I know.

He likes the images on his site to display at 6"x8" (540x720) at 90dpi (jpg). These are for web only, but the store creates thumbnails that enlarge to the actual size. But... he keeps asking me to INCREASE the file size?! He believes the images all need to be between 150-300k... sometimes this just isn't the case when I'm done with it, even if he is perfectly content with how it looks on the screen and how it enlarges. I could increase the resolution, but this is unnecessary. I can readjust the display size back down and accomplish what he wants, but what a waste of time. I don't think he understands what he's talking about? Or is it me that doesn't know what I'm talking about?? He's starting to make me wonder.

Thanks for the help! Sorry to waste your time, lol

If he's satisfied with the size and the way it looks there is no reason to make the file larger. Increasing the file size will only make it take longer to load. If images take too long to load some people, myself included, will just click off.

hi,
not a waste of time... smiling.....
right now if he satisfied that it ... smiling... bottom line you keep the boss happy!!

but let me give you my slant on this and your questions does bring up several issues...

1. first... dpi (dots per inch) and ppi two different things they are not equal... dpi is ony used when your talking about printing... PPi (pixal per inch) is when your talking about editing or viewing and such.... so I think he really meant ppi.... although for editing i like to set thing for 200 or 300 ppi... however for just web page viewing... 70-100 ppi is fine since depending on a viewers monitor what screen resolution is set up for... it only going to be able to display at 72-96.... now he maybe thinking he wants to be able to also print... in which case 150-300 ppi i would use... bottom line for viewing doesn't hurt for the image itself to be at 150-300 ppi ..

2. the primary factor for the viewing quality of the image is going to be the pixal resolution.... not how many inches.... for example... 1024x800 will look better than a 320 by 200 .....
a. when you go to put it into your webpage of courseit will probably the display be smaller than the actual size... unless you want actual size or by clicking people can see the actual size to get a better close up of the object .. and if this is something that being sold... then you want details... when they go to the enlarge picture.. i know i do...

3. now the file size.... now this is going to be a jpg format (unless your picking png-non lossy) ... and jpg a lossy format... this is where you can adjust the file size.... jpg is compressed and you can adjust the compression... however the higher the compression the more likely the quality of the image goes down... now i like to around 80-85% compression.. it a nice balance between getting a nice small file size and maintain quality ... but you can lower the compression ratio and get a better quality but a larger file size....

note: something to keep in mind.. program setting will use either the terms of compression or quality..... if compression the higher the compression (smalleer files size) but lower quality of image,,, if theyuse the terms quality..... the higher the quality, the lower the compression (bigger files size) photoshop there in the "save for the web" they use the term quality ...
note: since your not eally concern about small file sizes... you might think about png..!! now it compress around 50-60% it non lossy.. which mean you don't lose quality of the image...

well those are some rambling thoughts.... don't know if it any help to you...... smiling... ...

dawdler said:

... but my employer's strange requests end up making me question what I think I know.

He likes the images on his site to display at 6"x8" (540x720) at 90dpi (jpg). These are for web only, but the store creates thumbnails that enlarge to the actual size. But... he keeps asking me to INCREASE the file size?! He believes the images all need to be between 150-300k... sometimes this just isn't the case when I'm done with it, even if he is perfectly content with how it looks on the screen and how it enlarges. I could increase the resolution, but this is unnecessary. I can readjust the display size back down and accomplish what he wants, but what a waste of time. I don't think he understands what he's talking about? Or is it me that doesn't know what I'm talking about?? He's starting to make me wonder.

Thanks for the help! Sorry to waste your time, lol

That's what some other people have said! There's absolutely no reason he needs a larger file size, especially when he's running an online store that holds thousands of images!

Also, you're right, dpi and ppi are different, and [6"x8"] is a useless quantification in this situation. The images will not be printed by anyone other than, perhaps, the consumer for him/herself privately if they want to show someone the nice dining table they're about to receive.

So what's most important is just how it displays on the web, and right, I don't actually need more than the 90 res we're already using. I can bump it up to 600 and readjust back down to 540x720, but the document printing dimensions (the 6"x8") auto-scales relationally (an unnecessary example I'm sure, but 600 brings it down from 6x8 to 1x1.2), so the actual filesize ends up remaining the same no matter what.

Truly he should be thanking me! I just don't know how to explain this to him without making him feel like an idiot. Thanks for the input, guys!