@c.pfaffenbichler I was in the middle of posting the pngs as you suggested but then saw that my files exceed the filesize limit allowed to upload on here so I'd have to upload them to Google Drive first. Before I did that, I wanted to address Fahad first as he was suggesting something to me which I had stated that I had already done in the orignal post. While I appreciate your quick response, you didn't give me much time after replying to Fahad to adress your points.
Here is the 10800 square px png.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19C471nWaL_uwExXeBc14GohAnu9yeHpt/view?usp=sharing
Here is the 10000 square px png.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11Byckzr61RV5pDKyW4jq4yf7xCwUaEI2/view?usp=sharing
As for why I use png, sometimes that file format is required for where I'm posting it. At other times a jpg is required for where I want to post it and so I try to have both png and jpg versions of my art.
On another note, I find it a bit amusing that you're questioning why I'd be using pngs, only because before I started using photoshop I was trying to stick to jpgs as much as possible (except when I needed transparency), but was having some quality issues because the software I was using doesn't compress jpgs as well as photoshop and when I was trying to troubleshoot that issue, I had several people telling me I should be using pngs whenever possible instead for better quality. Those people were fully aware of how large the files I'm working with are. For a bit of context I am wanting to keep the quality of my files up as much as possible for stock and print on demand sites. When I'm just posting them on social media, I scale the images down a lot more and still mostly stick to jpg.
jpg employs lossy compression so it is to be avoided (until the very final output at least).
That some stock sites seem to prefer it is their choice and certainly not owed to quality considerations per se …
Photoshop’s Save As-png has problems of its own – those pngs assume the Working Space when opened.
So Color Management nonsense …
tif and psd are perfectly fine file formats for distributing images.
Why do you provide 3x3 tiles?
They seem to be perfectly repeating in the 10800x10800 image so the repetition doesn’t seem to offer meaningful advantages. (In the 10000x10000 image that is naturally not the case anymore because 10000/3 is not an integer.)
The image has a lot of detail (the »stardust«) so the miniscule downsampling leading to a decrease of uniform areas and »worse« compression does not seem completely inexplicable, though not necessarily expected.
But after some testing I have to conclude that it is not the actual cause of the unexpected size-differences here.
The two problems seem to be
• that you downsample to 10000x10000 insted of 9999x9999
• that you downsample a 3x3 tiled image instead of downsampling the original tile (as a flattened image) and then recreating the 3x3 tiles at the new size.
WIth downsampling to 9999x9999 I get a png of 88MB, with downsampling the pattern-tile (3600x3600) to 3333x3333 and creating a new 3x3 arrangement of 9999x9999 I get a png of 46,2MB.
AdChoices