Advice Needed: Resolution for Commissions

[amocin.livejournal.com]

I cant find anybody who would give me an answer on this.. But what resolution of images seem best to give a commissioner?

I have a laptop that I work off of, and I understand that the resolution of my screen tends to make everything way bigger, even most websites dont fit properly on my screen.. Its not bad its just a slight difference.. Anyhow, I tend to draw on my screen at the same size I would if it were paper. Where I can see most every detail when fully zoomed out/original size. I noticed that other artists tend to draw like... two or three times the size that I do but I always felt that was a personal prefrence thing.. Until recently.

I  have heard a few concerns that my art tends to be on the small size, and I dont want to give my customers any less than they deserve. So what resolutions would be best for commissions? Flat colored commissions? Fully colored and detailed commissions? Whats the average expectation?

Comments

[gatekat.livejournal.com]

The size you work in: the original file. Or at least the original size. If you watermark, just insist that they post the watermarked version you use.

Why wouldn't you want to give them the original size? It seems odd to me to treat digital commissions differently from traditional ones.

[tylociraptor.livejournal.com]

The main reason I can see for not wanting to give out the original size is something that has come up here before- often times, especially finicky customers can see "flaws" in the original size that are so insignificant that they do not feature in the actual display size of the image. I've seen people complain about pixel sized blank spots that aren't even recognizable in the posted version.

[gatekat.livejournal.com]

I can see it if that was visible in the print/upload version, but otherwise? Doesn't make any sense to me. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised it happens given this place is needed.

[amocin.livejournal.com]

I am giving them the original size, the problem is that they wanted it bigger.. And I dont know what size is good.. I tend to draw my images at 800x1000

[okojosan.livejournal.com]

If you're working at 72ppi then that comes out to 2.6 x 3.3 inches, and that's fairly small.

[everainsley]

Once upon a time, posting a 600x800 image was fine... but screen resolutions were a lot smaller back then. Not to mention, most people were only on dial-up connections, and large images were much harder to load (some folks would break large images into small pieces and put them in a table so they would load faster). With the shift having gone to most people having some kind of high speed connection now, the size you work at is what I'm noticing a lot of people post their web sizes at.

Triple the working size, at the very least. Think of your workspace as an 11x14 inch sheet of paper, and work at at least 300dpi. Then scale down to your current working size from there.

If you're doing quick sketchy doodles, you can get away with smaller, just let your customers know.

[slinkslowdown.livejournal.com]

Icons are also okay at a smaller size, IMO.

[everainsley]

Oh, yeah! I forgot to mention those... But definetly! Basically, anything that might not be printed, imo.

[utunu.livejournal.com]

I commission quite a lot of artwork, and since I usually get it professionally printed afterwards so I can hang it up, I look for resolutions on the order of what most folks have mentioned in this thread. I've actually chosen NOT to commission artists based on working resolution because of this, even if they have lovely art - or, only getting something for which the printability is less important (an icon or something). One artist I had gotten a lovely icon in the past from; they had opened for a larger commission (8"x12" or so), and I was going to pounce on it before I realized that they stated 100dpi. :(

[gatekat.livejournal.com]

if it were paper
Unless stated otherwise, that's assumed to be 8in by 11in (and at 300 dpi).
AKA 2400 by 3300.

So you're drawing really, really small for calling it "paper sized" and it really needs to be stated in your TOS as they tend not to be printable don't don't show well on larger monitors. These days a lot of folks will assume that you're just stingy on what you post for free, not that you actually work in that size.

Most seem to post between 1200x1650 and 900x1200, depending on the site and image.

[amocin.livejournal.com]

I meant that as in, my screen is my piece of paper, where I can see everything at 100% on my screen.. no zooming.

[okojosan.livejournal.com]

I personally work at 300ppi, usually 11x14", or 2250 x 3000 pixels, pretty big. You can always reduce down; sizing up would be a problem unless you're working with vectors.

The reason I work at 300ppi/dpi is so if I ever decide to print a book of my work, it will print well at that size. 300dpi/600dpi being printing standards.

Unless your client wants to print out the artwork, you don't need to give them a 300ppi file, and you definitely don't want to upload 300ppi files to sites like FA or DA.

It sounds like your monitor is low resolution so everything seems bigger. I have a similar monitor, it's old but still has good color. It has the weird resolution of 1280 x 768. I think a lot of monitors are going more for 1920 x 1080 these days.

[wyla.livejournal.com]

I usually give clients both the full size png (usually something like 2800 x 3850px @ 350dpi) and a smaller version where the longest edge is 1200px so that FA doesn't butcher their upload.

[raiden-gekkou.livejournal.com]

Turns out that you can get around FA's resizing by re-uploading the image.

[wyla.livejournal.com]

You can! I'm just not a fan of doing so; I *hate* having to scroll around an image that someone has re-uploaded to be huge and 1280px feels just fine to me haha.

[greenreaper.livejournal.com]

That seems like more of a site issue to me. Some don't have that issue, because they display resized versions as well as offering the originals for download and/or have the browser size them instead.

FA is finally getting on this train - their beta skin does such resizing. They still haven't raised their file size/dimension limits, officially, but that's probably because they're worried about disk space and/or bandwidth.

[mortymaxwell.livejournal.com]

For commissions, 2800 x 3850.

And gonna go along with Gatekat, I'm confused by artists who prefer not to give out high res. ^^; I thought it was pretty standard to give clients 300 DPI files and a low res, web-safe version? I don't understand why an artist wouldn't want to give a client a high res file...


P.S. Slightly off topic... is it becoming more common practice for artists to give clients low resolution versions and charge them extra for high res files? I was looking for commissions on DA and saw this in someone's TOS. Their clients have to pay commercial usage prices if they want a high res for personal use.

"A clean, full-resolution image and/or full .psd file is/are available for commercial usage with the purchase of a license."

[gatekat.livejournal.com]

That's not very normal in my experience, but it fairly common to send both high and low res versions since watermarking became a more common practice. It's less about the low resolution than having the watermark there and not requiring the client to do any work to have a posting version.

[sirmeo.livejournal.com]

I've sometimes asked extra for higher resolution simply because some commission types (like speedpaints) I worked with smaller resolutions, and if someone REALLY wanted a larger version, it meant altering my working method and was extra work, so I asked for extra. I've since stopped doing speedpaints as commissions because I've changed my working methods though.

That being said some artists might not give full resolution because they're worried about art theft, don't trust the commissioners or simply because they feel that if something is meant strictly for web viewing, full/print resolution is not something the commissioner "needs".

[mortymaxwell.livejournal.com]

Here's my reply to all of this...

1. I think an artist is free to work in whatever size and resolution they want, but if it is going to be super small, they should state it in their terms of service so no one is disappointed. I also think artists should state if they are not going to provide high res images.

2. I disagree with the business practice I've seen where some artists will spring 72 DPI images on their clients, and then go, "Oh, you'll have to pay a licensing fee if you want to have the 300 DPI version I also have."

3. I think it is fair for an artist to charge more if a client makes a request like, "Can you make an A3 image for me instead of an A4 image?" More work is involved.

4. It is disheartening to see some artists are reluctant to provide 300 DPI because they have had to deal with nit picky clients who freaked out over pixels. It also makes me sad to hear some artists say they might not want to provide a high res if they don't trust a client. Ideally, commissions should be an awesome experience for both artist and client.

[sirmeo.livejournal.com]

Well, in the example you provided the artist DOES mention beforehand that getting the full resolution costs extra? I mean the reason you know about it is because the artist's TOS states so, so I don't find that a problem, personally?

I mean I understand disappointment if you wanted to commission art and for whatever reason need a higher resolution piece, and the artist doesn't give that out, but I also understand the artist's reason for being hesitant to give out full print files.

There are, sadly, many commissioners who end up sharing the print file against the artist's wishes.
In a sense I find it "fair" that full resolution might cost extra, because not everyone needs one, and that way only the people who really want one needs to pay the higher price as opposed to the artist raising their commission prices for everyone. But I also understand why someone would be turned off by this, and those people definitely have their right to take their business elsewhere and be disappointed.
I'm neither "for" or "against" this practice, because I understand both sides of this.

I, personally, don't mind sharing the full res file, and I think majority of artist's don't mind either? Only rarely do I see people asking for extra for full res files, and I've honestly never seen an artist NOT mention that you only get 500x500 pixel file if that's the only thing you get (icons and such excluded, in those a small file is pretty much expected) -- I'm not saying it never happens, and if it does happen, it's bad business practice, definitely, but I see artist being upfront about file sizes than hiding them.

[mortymaxwell.livejournal.com]

You are correct. =) I don't find it a problem that the artist whose terms of service I quoted stated upfront they have conditions for giving out high res files. I find it disappointing they have this practice. I wouldn't choose to do business with them, but I commend them for being direct about it.

It is artists who don't state what their art is like, then go, "Please pay extra for the high res file" that I find concerning. I know of at least 2 artists who don't state they don't like to provide high res, and that makes me uncomfortable and wary of them. I think not stating this surprising policy is a bad business practice.

My question about not understanding artist being reluctant to give out high res files was more an expression of surprise, since I'm seeing this practice more often. =)

[thaily.livejournal.com]

>2. I disagree with the business practice I've seen where some artists will spring 72 DPI images on their clients, and then go, "Oh, you'll have to pay a licensing fee if you want to have the 300 DPI version I also have."

It's because of the potential for misuse of hi-rez print-quality files. People can redistribute the hi-rez file to others who might try to sell prints, or print it on shirts etc. etc.

Once you give away the print-quality file, there's not much you can do to prevent abuse, and you might have to hire a lawyer to stop them, if the perpetrators are even in a country that abides by DMCA/EUCD laws. Most artists won't have that kind of money, so.

It's entirely reasonable to ask for more money for the abuse-sensitive file resolution.

[mortymaxwell.livejournal.com]

Hey, I think you misunderstood what I said. =)

I believe an artist can choose to work in whatever resolution and canvas they want.

If they want to charge extra for 300 DPI high res files or not provide high res, that's their call.

I feel though they should state in their terms of service if they are going to have this business practice. I don't think it is cool to blindside a client by information like that out and then after the deal is completed, go, oh, hey, you only get a 72 DPI file.

I think it is important for clients and artists to have good communication with each other. =)

[blekarotva.livejournal.com]

I work with thee different sizes - I start at 5000px or more for a scene (such a big files allows me for finer sketch lines without getting pixelated), then downsize it to 3000px 300dpi resolution for the commissioner (this way I always keep the "original" file and the commissioners gets a file ready for printing, and a smaller 1200-1600px 72dpi file for online posting.

If the commission is a sketch (flat colored/cleshading without a background) I work on 3000px because there're no details I need to zoom in to work on (mostly lines).

I like to work big because at the moment of downsizing the details look neat and clear and the sketch/paint strokes feel a lot smoother than at lower resolutions. I have a 22-23 inches screen so it's pretty easy to work with large files that easily fit the size I draw on paper, and it helps to have to rarely zoom-in except for finer details.

[fralea comms (from livejournal.com)]

If 800x1000 is comfortable for you, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. You should probably clarify it somewhere in your commission info or TOS the average size you work at though, so this sort of thing doesn't happen after you already finish the work.

Personally I work at ~3000px one side at 300ppi. I have it in my TOS (as well as the highest my computer can handle) and it usually doesn't come up, but occasionally a client will want a higher resolution, so I charge extra. You could do something similar.

For sketches I usually don't work that big, but in the reasons I do work at that size are that its easier for me to shade and draw finer details, and I uses brushes with a texture in them that look best on a bigger canvas. I don't normally work in lineart, but when I do, a larger canvas means I don't have to be as exacting or worry about pixelization. I rarely actually paint at 100% zoom, I do most of the painting zoomed out. However not everyone's technique or what their computer can handle is the same.

[eewitsanne.livejournal.com]

I work at 300dpi and blow the bigger side of the canvas up to 3000px, but will crop it bigger as needed. I basically work as big as my laptop can comfortably handle.

As a commissioner, getting the high res copy is probably my favorite part. I absolutely *love* to blow the file up to 100% and pore over every detail and brush stroke and really appreciate all the work that was done for me!!! Honestly, the bigger the better, but I usually expect something around that ~3000px size that I do myself. Whenever I get just a small file, it's honestly a little disappointing to me??? I tend to avoid artists who charge extra for a high res or state that they only work with small files, but that's just my personal preference. Idk there's just nothing like blowing up a *gigantic* file and seeing all that good stuff you can't fully appreciate from the web res.

[bornesb.livejournal.com]

I am not an artist, but as a customer I would like to know what I am getting ahead of time. So whatever size you work at, if you could list it somewhere in your commission info or TOS or something, I would REALLY appreciate it. =)

[mortymaxwell.livejournal.com]

As others have suggested, I think it is a good idea to mention what size your commissions are. I definitely want to know what I'm ordering, especially when I am buying gifts for someone.

[lamentobento.livejournal.com]

I work between 3000-6000 pixel on average. Print work can be larger than that depending on the expected format. I had some work files sent to me that were 10k+ and my previous work machine was chugging even loading these, but that's overblown if it won't wind up a giant print!!

I think the expectance for doing private commissions would be at least above 1000. Least people would expect to have something that'd fit their 1080p monitor that is! I've done icons in the 500x500 format and the sales went just fine while keeping people in the know that the final pictures are small.

There's generally no rule to sizes of privately commissioned digital art, but it would help tremendously to inform clients that you tend to draw on smaller resolutions in advance! It doesn't hurt as long as you make people aware.

[kalika-tybera.livejournal.com]

I work at 300dpi and I provide the customer with the original size (I call it the 'print' file) and a smaller resized version for sharing/posting online.

[exo-formicidae.livejournal.com]

I work in 3k-6k pixels with 300 dpi - but I always give the customer a scaled down version. Why? Because that is ridiculously huge for a "standard" image. Unless it's a large detailed scene ofc. Also I enjoy starting with a square box and then crop it into the shape and size that fits the sketch. But your standard image? Maybe around 1k 1.5k, but still with a 300dpi - I want the image to be printable, but not for the zoom to be able to "pick apart" my image.

I would just write in your ToS that your standard working size might be considered small by some standards - and if they need it to be bigger to tell you in advance, and then you can take it from there. No need to work in a size that is not comfortable for you

[bourbon. (from livejournal.com)]

I appear to be a bit in the minority here, but I work at 5500px and 300 DPI.

Larger resolutions really aide in adding more fine details and work than a smaller resolution might. In this day and age, there's no reason not to work as big as possible.

Hell, I'd work at 10,000px if Sai didn't bug out when make canvases past a certain size and amount of layers.

[blot.livejournal.com]

I personally work very small. Even though I do traditional artwork, my pictures are rarely bigger than 1/4th of my page. So it seems I'm kind of the odd one here. Up sizing stuff is... Not fun. I'd just state what ever size you work in, so people know ahead of time that they're not going to get anything higher rez than what you work at.

[amocin.livejournal.com]

Thank you everybody who responded, it seems I have been on the usually small side of resolution. Going forward I will try to up my resolution to something that is both comfortable for me and what my computer can take without causing issues, and adding to my TOS/Price guide a guide on the image sizes to be expected so that nobody is disappointing.

Thank you again. ^.^ This has been very enlightening.

(Edited for spelling.)

[celestinaketzia.livejournal.com]

700 x 700 for icons
1200 x 920 for sketch commissions

Those are about the only commissions I do now a days. I do tend to make my sketch commission bigger if there are more than two characters, or if my hands are giving me trouble that day.

[neiramarina.livejournal.com]

I don't know if it's because I worked for the publishing industry prior to furry fandom, but I've always been kind of... shocked I guess? when an artist I commissioned gives me anything less than 300PPI, or anything that would print at less than 8.5x11. Not always that exact size, obviously, but that seems so standard, any computer should be able to handle that nowadays. My computer is pretty crappy by graphic design standards, but I always use 300 PPI resolution for smaller things like icons, and still provide originals at 2000px by 2000px with that PPI. For anything bigger, I go with 600 PPI and provide a web-friendly size and a full res version for printing, which more often than not is over 10000px on its largest side. Now granted I understand not everyone wants to go through that trouble but I'd never give a client anything under 2000px or less than 300 PPI. Even if paying $20 for an icon, in my opinion that is the least I can give my client. I am disappointed whenever I receive less from someone I commission, and often do not commission again for this reason.

[Edited for typo.]

[aerospiritual.livejournal.com]

honestly, I don't think it matters too much what resolution you work at, especially if you're letting the client know in the commission info or sommat beforehand what resolutions you generally work at. this also gives you the freedom to charge more for larger pieces when clients ask for them.

[greenreaper.livejournal.com]

It depends on the image. I mean, for this one (https://www.furaffinity.net/view/21105062/), you needed the full width, and to be honest it might have been easier to draw the smaller character here (https://www.furaffinity.net/view/21684031/) with a few more pixels to play with. But for this (https://www.furaffinity.net/view/21015340/), you know, maybe that's an ideal size.

If you're not doing a lot of super-detailed/realistic work with fine details (this one (https://www.furaffinity.net/view/21260949/) stands out as an exception), so it's not as big of an issue. But some images, by some artists, definitely benefit from a 2K or higher resolution - and I think you'll probably end up doing more work which can benefit from it over time.

It has to actually work with your hardware and the work you want to offer. And it may not be worth promising big images if it takes you twice as long - you might as well just give a slight price break and do two images in the same time.

The vast majority (~95%) of screens used by visitors to furry art sites are still 1920x1020 or smaller, although working with larger images can still be of use because they effectively gain fine detail when scaled down to fit. Here's a top-25 list from Inkbunny by popularity:

1920x1080 22.2%
1366x768 15.7%
360x640 12.3%
1600x900 5.3%
1536x864 3.2%
1440x900 3.1%
768x1024 2.5%
320x568 2.4%
1680x1050 2.4%
375x667 2.4%
1280x800 2.4%
1280x1024 1.9%
1280x720 1.7%
1360x768 1.7%
640x360 1.6%
1024x768 1.4%
412x732 1%
1920x1200 1%
2560x1440 0.9%
320x570 0.8%
320x534 0.8%
414x736 0.7%
320x480 0.6%
1024x600 0.5%
600x1024 0.3%

[thaily.livejournal.com]

I tend to give them 1200 px at the longest side; if people upload it to FA, FA won't have to resize it (1245 limit). FA resizing MANGLES the quality of images quite horribly, which I feel misrepresents the quality at which I deliver my commissions.

I include a 2400 px copy which I clearly label is for -private- use; private enjoyment, desktop wallpaper, making their own print if they want it on their wall etc.

[chronidu.livejournal.com]

Ever since I saw my old art on a friends 3000+ px monitor, I've tried to keep my art STARTING at 2000px 300 DPI for smaller sketches/icons/etc and go up from there.

I also tend to include a version at least half the size of the original image, if not the full size depending on the commission. Since a lot of what I do is sketches/inks, its not uncommon for my commissioners to want to color it themselves, which I'm totally fine with.

I'd never heard of people denying a larger version out of fear of it not looking clean? That is def a new one on me, but then again AB has taught me that yes, there are def commissioners who would not understand and complain about that haha.

But yeah, I would say it being larger (especially with typical screen sizes today) is pretty important. That said, if you want to remain smaller, I'd just make sure that information was available to your commissioner before hand.

[digibat.livejournal.com]

I start my pics by opening A4 preset on 300dpi, around 2480 x 3508 pixels
i sketch on that then crop the document to correspond the area sketch takes and work from there.
So far it has worked fine.