[jasonN]

Hey, I was just wondering what res ppl work in. I know ppl like Mr Mullins work in super high res. But what about the rest of you?
I want to work in a high res and then size down, but my system is too slow for it (p233).

Oh and does anyone know what res Dhab works in?

Oh and I noticed Scoop has a system simialr to mine (i remebered reading it in a previous post), does photoshop run slow on your comp Scoop?

Well, hope u ppl can enlighten me

[Sumaleth]

I work at x4 the size of the intended final image. The reason being that an image in photoshop zoomed back to 25% actually looks almost identical to the same image -scaled- to the same size, so it allows me to fairly accurately preview the final image without needing to constantly scale the image.

(a 25% zoom is actually a little be sharper than a 25% scale, so when I have completely finished the image and scaled it to it's final size I usually have to run a slight Unsharp Mask over it)

Rowan

--
Sumaleth http://impact.frag.com

[Funfetus]

I generally work in the highest resolution I can comfortably work in without my system slowing down too much. This is so that I can make a nice, sharp print if I ever feel like it. it's also easier to do detail on a huge pic. I then resize to whatever seems like a reasonable size.

------------------
Funfetus
iCE VGA Division
http://www.funhousedigital.com

[Lemur-X]

3000 by 3000. But my web-server got fired by me, so no new stuff until they get their shit together, or I find someone else.

-- Lemur-X

[Leo]

Well, CPU speed isn't the main factor only, it's also important how many RAM have your system. Bah, move to a Loki's website to read PS tips <- i've found some of them extremly useful and i've tuned my garbage into a nice workstantion. Last time i've worked with a 2000x2500 rez. And gotcha 40Mb of workfile plus 120Mb of swapfile...
If you think that your system is too slow for hirez, than you may use some of Craig's tricks... as my english is sucked, it's will be better for you to read 'how i work' section on his site.
/Leo

------------------
IN ART WE TRUST

[jasonN]

Okay, thanks for the tips, I'll check out the sites too.

My comp has 64 megs of Ram, but I don't think that's enough because ps does slow down.

Well? Any more replies? Keep em coming!

[n8]

i until lately worked at the original size of the pic...but ive just started one big thing...i used to have the same specs as ur machine jasoN...but wasnt really into cgi back then...i still only got a 300 not with 94mg ram....it runs ok...just get another 32 and u should be ok with the ram ..??..i think...although lots is better

[Binke]

Hm..
iv found that if I have my screen resolution at 1280x1024 desktop resolutoon and paint a picture, at say 1024x768 pixels..
it looks a bit strange, when I look at the picture in 1024x768 desktop res. It looks a bit stretched. Anyone else had this problem?

[LuCiD]

yeah thats normal , its sorta like the difference between normal and wide screen tv

[derPunkt]

I always work in the resolution which is intended for the picture. If I need a pic like 512x512 I start in it. It gives me more control over pixels, and I can have sharp highlights if I use pencil tool
But thats me =))
dP

[Loki]

It really depends on what you're working for. When I work on a matte or illustration, I usually work quite hires - that can com up to 6000 pixels, especially when there's a pan involved.
For images that are used in a 3D program (to put a camera move on it, using it as a texturemap) there's a simple rule:
Whatever resolution the image/texturemap appears in the final rendered image - the sourcematerial should be twice the res. So, if you have a buildingfront that will show up 800 wide in your render, make it at least 1600.
But anticipate cameramoves beforehand - so when you get closer you'll have to be even higher.
Reason for that are the texmap-procedures the 3D-renderer is going through to put your texturemap on the geometry ...

As for screen-gfx - I usually paint them in original res, because it's WYSIWYG.

Machinewise I have to say that the minimum would be around a 100/128MB to work more hires. Also, I use PS 4.01, since, as some of you already mentioned on this forum - 5.0/5.5 is a slow monster.

[Muzman]

I also use 3000x3000 or higher (and after Suma mentioned it I noticed I usually scale down to 25% too. interesting)
And I usually have a couple o' dozen layers working in the pic as well.
Couldn't really do all that without my p2 400, 256megs of RAm and a gig of swapdisk space.
Still, you wouldn't know I have all that power behind me half the time. hehe

[jasonN]

Sheesh! It's upgrade time for me

Muzman, a gig of swap space! Ah! I've only got about 100 meg left on my HDD...oh dear. No wonder ps crashes!

Well, thanx again everyone for sharing, I appreciate it

[BooMSticK]

I usually scale my pictures to at least 300 dpi if its for print, which means if its a size A4 piece it would be around 2500*3500. If its just for screen I will do it in 100% or maybe 200% depending on how much detail is needed.

As for Photoshop 5+ being slow you just might want to upgrade your computer to a dual processor system as Photoshop takes advantage of such and is optimized for it. oh yeah. And get LOTS of RAM and a very fast harddrive for swapping - preferable UltraSCSI2 or LVD disks. Quite expensive but the cool thing about SCSI-disks are that they are not cpu dependent. And transferrates around 80 megs/sek is almost like flying...

- Tha BooMer

[BooMSticK]

I usually scale my pictures to at least 300 dpi if its for print, which means if its a size A4 piece it would be around 2500*3500. If its just for screen I will do it in 100% or maybe 200% depending on how much detail is needed.

As for Photoshop 5+ being slow you just might want to upgrade your computer to a dual processor system as Photoshop takes advantage of such and is optimized for it. oh yeah. And get LOTS of RAM and a very fast harddrive for swapping - preferable UltraSCSI2 or LVD disks. Quite expensive but the cool thing about SCSI-disks are that they are not cpu dependent. And transferrates around 80 megs/sek is almost like flying...

- Tha BooMer

sorry if this message is posted twize but apparently I still have problems with posting....

[B]

lately i've been working @ 3500x4000 my screen isn't square, so i don't force it to be . and 300dpi,. it runs pretty smoothly on the PII-233,. 192 megs of ram, and a 3 gig swap file right now i'm working non a little image of Mini-Me,. but i can't get the damn hands right,. i'll upload i when i get home, though.