Thread: What size files (pixels) does everyone work in? I need help picking mine...

1 mile = 5280 feet
at 1 pixel = 1'; 1 tree = 20 pixels; 1 mile =5280 pixels; 4 mile diameter village = 21,120 pixels; 10 mile walk = 52,800 pixels; 100 mile region= 528,000 pixels
at 1 pixel = 10'; 1 tree = 2 pixels; 1 mile =528 pixels; 4 mile diameter village = 2120 pixels; 10 mile walk = 5280 pixels; 100 mile region= 52,800 pixels
at 1 pixel = 100'; 5 trees = 1 pixels; 1 mile =53 pixels; 4 mile diameter village = 212 pixels; 10 mile walk = 528 pixels; 100 mile region= 5,280 pixels
A 1x1 meter drawing at 300 DPI = 11,700 x 11,700 pixels

So a map that shows trees and individual buildings will need to fall in the 1 pixel = 1' to 10' range ... limiting the map area to a single village or town.
A map at 1 pixel = 100' will reduce a 1 mile across village or town to about 53 pixels across and a 1 meter map area of about 20 days (200 miles) to walk across.

Depending on your needs, I might suggest an overall map at 1 pixel = 100' (about 100 miles or 10 days walk) with smaller inset maps along the sides, top, bottom or all of the above with individual villages (trees and houses) at 1 pixel = 1 foot to 1 pixel = 3 feet. Obviously, the smaller your overall map area, the larger the village maps can be.

I typically work at up to 7200 x 10800 pixels for finished drawings (24" x 36" Architectural sheets at 300 DPI) ... less a 150 pixel white border to keep the plotter happy.
I strongly advise checking with your intended print shop about what sheet sizes they can handle, that and your budget will set a total size for your image.

Wow @atpollard, I can't believe I didn't ever consider inset maps around the edges! That's absolutely perfect for my needs! Thank you so much for the idea. I am happy breaking towns into separate map files to provide higher details.
As I am moving country I have no opportunity to check with any print shop, I figured the best I can do is search around when ready to print and try to adapt to the chosen store's methods. Budget won't really be a problem, as I have been writing for the last 10+ years it is a serious hobby of mine, and thus I am willing to spend money on something that I've invested so much time in (thinking of max $1000 depending upon what's produced - quality, size, etc).
As far as my research has gone, I've since then determined that the image needs to be in 300dpi. In your experience is there any other factors that I will need to consider/implement into my Photoshop document?

I've done a bit more research, and thought that perhaps my notes might help others... A tree canopy will range generally from 2m to 20m, varying depending upon the species. This does not include gigantic species such as giant red wood forests. That means most tree canopies can range from 6 feet to 65 feet. Keep in mind that it isn't uncommon for a tree canopy to fall outside of that range (these measurements are from today's society with trees typically found in and around suburbia), and can quite potentially grow larger over a longer period of time if left unhindered.
Building off of @atpollard's little "table", and assuming that a standard tree (having had chance to grow unhindered) is 60 feet:
1 mile = 5280 feet
at 1 pixel = 1 foot; 1 tree = 60 pixels; 1 mile =5280 pixels; 4 mile diameter village = 21,120 pixels; 10 mile walk = 52,800 pixels; 100 mile region= 528,000 pixels
at 1 pixel = 10 feet; 1 tree = 6 pixels; 1 mile =528 pixels; 4 mile diameter village = 2120 pixels; 10 mile walk = 5280 pixels; 100 mile region= 52,800 pixels
at 1 pixel = 60 feet; 1 tree = 1 pixel; 1 mile = 87 pixels; 4 mile diameter village = 350 pixels; 10 mile walk = 870 pixels; 100 mile region = 8700 pixels
at 1 pixel = 100'; 2 trees = 1 pixels; 1 mile =53 pixels; 4 mile diameter village = 212 pixels; 10 mile walk = 528 pixels; 100 mile region= 5,280 pixels

Either way, if you are doing a complete contient type map, it will practically impossible to get trees (assuming you can see each canopy) to match the scale of the rest of the map.

I rarely make maps at the "entire world" scale. Most of my maps have been of a continent at the largest, and a castle at the smallest, with regions about the size of a country being about average. My average map is done at 1600 x 1400 pixels. Enough to blow up and show detail, but still be able to at least get an idea of most things when viewed in a smaller size.

If you are working on a continent scale or larger, you just won't be able to reliably have superb detail about everything. At least without an incredibly massive file size. You won't see individual trees at scale. You can see forests, and you can give them a somewhat abstracted texture that represents "there are a lot of trees here" but you won't get individuals. You won't want to try to label every town. Probably just capitols and important ports. Things like that.

I would suggest looking at Earth maps for reference. If you look at Google Maps, for instance, or a shot from low orbit, the continent of the USA has very little detail. Only the very largest rivers show up at that scale, and lakes the size of the Great Lakes. Forests are smears of green. Mountains might have some relief/bumpiness (I haven't looked at one of these in awhile) but in general, a map that size done to scale has very little detail.

Now, for a fantasy map of a continent, the general convention has been to provide more detail than a real-world photographic or atlas-style map. But I would still keep in mind that a large-scale, continental map is going to have a lot less detail than a regional, country, or area map would have.

wisemoon