Landscapes, canvas size and resolution?

Anyone with some experience with landscape paintings who got some good advice when it comes to size and resolution doing digital landscapes?

Not that I’m all that experienced, but I’d say it depends on how you want to use it in the end. If it’s for print, use about 300 dpi.

50 x 70 cm at 300 dpi = 5907 x 8268

If you want to show it on screens only, you can get away with less. In that case I would suggest you use the screen resolution

Yes. It is like I’m not going to print but, you know… what if… : )

I just started working on a document 40cm x 30cm 200 ppi, changed to 300 now. The thing is I think is that I want the size and ppi to be of a size where it will be able to do good details and still not to go way to big with file size in mind… so I guess I’m looking for the golden number… heh : )

Get a big external disk to store the .kra files on and save a jpeg where you want to access it more readily. :wink:

Maybe two external disks, keep one at a different place if there’s a fire or burglary.

1 Like

Hehe it is that easy. I tend to look at things and solve them the hard way, in a way… Pretty sure I’m just gonna go buy a disk… thank you! ^^

Just stumbled upon this. Thought you might find it interesting.

1 Like

I guess that is if it is made only for digital… I would say, in retrospect, if you are going for print you should go with cm x cm and a resolution no smaller than 300 dpi (I think I remember from looking at this sometime before that depending on type of printer printers can do up to 600 dpi. So that would be something to ask the print shop if you’re printing for sure…). If it is only meant for digital I guess 4k would be some kind of a max these days and I believe 72 dpi is what computer screens use. So if you’re working digital setting the dpi to 72 and changing your px x px you would see on the screen what size it will be (keeping in mind what size computer screens are today maybe). I read somewhere that working in digital you can work in maybe two or three times the size your output image is going to be. At the end I think digital or not you would have to size your document to a size that when you do your smallest details they will look sharp and good (not to pixly).

It would be cool to get this from some professionals who has probably tried some different stuff…

Soma is arguably the best landscape artist around here. And I learned just the other day that he’s doing this professionally. :slight_smile:

That picture isn’t the best example of his work, but it’s the one where he commented on resolution.

What I found quite interesting about it is that he keeps the resolution reasonable because of performance issues. So if you want to use higher resolution you might have to restrict yourself to fewer layers.

My tablet screen is 222 dpi (13") and my main monitor is 93 dpi (32"). 72 dpi was probably a good recommendation a decade or two ago… maybe? I’ve heard that gamers use screens with lower resolution so that they can get higher frame rates, so perhaps 72 dpi is still relevant.

Another thing to consider is what kind of painting you do. If it’s simulated watercolors, the edges may be pretty soft anyway and scaling the picture up won’t be all that noticeable.

You learn something everyday and nothing i standard anymore, haha…
And yes, seen his work, was kind of from there i crafted my idea on digital size and resolution. : P

And yes performance is certainly something to take in to consideration… I used to do photoshop stuff on a old computer years ago with a bunch of layers, so I used to in process to copy and start a new file where I merged this and that that i did not need anymore to continue doing more layers on top of that. You can alway do that. :grin: hehe

Yes, I guess what kind of work you do can determine what to go with to… I sent some messages to some different people I follow on instagram about what size and resolution they do… Just have to see if anyone have the time to answer… : )

Don’t forget to share your findings here. :slight_smile:

1 Like

That’s the idea yes :grin:

Okay, this can be a bit confusing. And a bit difficult to to explain - but I’ll try… :upside_down_face:

As already mentioned; Dpi is an important consideration for print work because you need enough resolution to give clean detailed results. Generally you would aim for 300dpi as a minimum for high quality prints.

However: If you are only interested in displaying work digitally, you don’t need to worry about dpi (or rather ppi for screens, if we’re being picky). There is no standard ppi for screens and what you set a documents dpi to is irrelevant to how it displays on screen. What you need to decide is what resolution you want to display at, and then create a large enough document to meet your needs.

For example: If you want to create a widescreen 16:9 format image to display 1:1 at 1080p, the required resolution would be 1920 x 1080 pixels. But to get cleaner results (e.g. less risk of aliasing), and facilitate working on details, you paint the image at a higher res. In this instance, if you worked at 4x the required 1080p end resolution, that would be 7680 x 4320 pixels.

There are many instances where you might prefer to work at a low resolution - like if you’re just play sketching or thumbnailing it helps keep things working smoothly and discourages you from getting caught up in detail. I often start an image at a lower res than needed so I can concentrate on the big shapes and composition before I scale up for detailed work.

Conversely - you might find you want to print an image in future, even if it’s not your intent when you create it. So, the higher the resolution you paint at, the more flexibility you will have.

You might want to work to print specs for that reason, in which case dpi is relevant to your workflow; but still not relevant to displaying your image digitally.

I hope that made some kind of sense. :man_shrugging:

1 Like

This is truly confusing. Let’s see if I get this right…

Ok, so (if you stretch this a bit) you could say dpi and ppi is the same thing? On a screen you call them pixels on a printer you call them dots (a screen shows the picture in pixels, a pinter prints the picture with dots).

So if you make your canvas 3000 px. You could also say that 3000 px is also 3000 dots. So this is what you got, 3000 px wide or say 3000 dots wide.

Or you could make your canvas 10x10 inches with the resolution 300dpi. For this you would need/have available 3000 px/dots to have 300 px/dots for every 1 of your inches.

(So if its for print don’t worry about pixels and visa versa).

I tried to break this down, don’t know how much clearer it got. If this is correct I don’t have to delete this post or maybe I should delete it anyway just give up :joy:.

I like the scale your picture up as you go and more details are added. I will try this. And I think working this way you maybe wont have to worry about the size at all as the size is determined by your details. It will be interesting to see what size the picture ends up…

Well… it’s a digital program, so you are always painting using pixels. When you set up a canvas using a format such a A4 for example, you set the desired print quality using dots per inch, then Krita calculates the total number of pixels (on a 1:1 basis) needed to meet that requirement.

The dpi number doesn’t change how the digital file is displayed on screen (with the exception of viewing a print preview), it only affects that initial calculation, and can be used later by a print function to correctly scale the image to the page.

You could change the dpi on an existing image to anything and it wouldn’t change the image as long as you’re not rescaling it (changing the pixel count).

The ppi rating of a screen will affect the size of an image displayed at a 1:1 ratio, but as there is a huge variance in screen sizes and resolutions - that’s not something you can control; there is no fixed standard, and images can be rescaled to any size by software. With a print, you have a known fixed quantity.

With regards to starting small and scaling up - just be aware that rescaling won’t add detail that isn’t there. Krita uses different algorithms to rescale images with varying results, and you might end up with artifacts or blurred areas if you’re not careful. It’s best to scale to your end resolution as early as possible to ensure your surface level of detail has the desired fidelity.

Yes but you need to re scale to change dpi? : )

hehe never mind… I get the pitfalls in scaling up as you go along, but it is still the ability to scale it up a bit I details isn’t coming up right… I learned a lot here and feel more comfortable to screw around a bit and figure out a good size to paint in.

thanks for the insights!

1 Like

No! :grin:

I checked the rescale dialogue (scale image to new size), and it has the option to ‘adjust print size separately’. If you have that checked you can change the dpi without changing the pixel dimensions i.e. the image does not re-scale, only the information describing the image print size/resolution (you can’t seem to de-couple the print dimensions from the dpi though).

It is a confusing subject for sure. I’ve had to think very carefully about how I’m wording things, and check online literature to reassure myself I’m not talking nonsense. I’m still not sure I’m using some terms entirely correctly - like using ‘resolution’ to describe pixel count of a screen; I think that might be incorrect, but it’s commonly used in that way. So… it’s easy to get muddled! :crazy_face:

Damn! :smile: hehe

It got clearer! A quick little search and I think the chances of right or wrongs of resolution has to stay a mystery, I mean i read they are not entirely sure about what the resolution of 35mm. film is and there is something called LPI and SPI too. As long as keep understanding each other I think we’ll be fine. :wink: hehe

1 Like

Film is a different issue as the clarity is limited by the physical structure of the film (and other variables such as lens quality) rather than a series of dots; So there is no resolution limit if you’re talking about number of pixels, but there will be limits to how much physical detail you can meaningfully extract and convert into digital format.

I guess you could say there is a digital equivalent pixel count at which point any increase would be meaningless for normal viewing. :thinking:

That’s not something I’ve looked at in any depth though - I’m just thinking out loud. You probably know more about it if you’ve been reading up on it! :wink:

:grin: I didn’t really, just registered there was something about it there, or the fact that someone could not agree… hehe. I actually always, not thinking about to often but wondered how much you could blow up those small squared pieces of film… They must hold an immense amount of details being that small? I don’t know if I’m going to start searching on this one. :face_with_raised_eyebrow: hehe