Photoshop image resize problems. PLEASE HELP!

Discussion in 'Mac Apps and Mac App Store' started by BEET, Sep 1, 2004.

  1. BEET macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Location:
    Guernsey, Channel Islands
    #1
    Ok here goes...

    I'm trying to design an album cover for a friend's band using photoshop. I have a couple of other types of design software like fireworks and adobe indesign, but have got even less of a clue how to use them.

    So far I've managed to set the canvas to cd cover size, reduced the size of some photo images and pasted them onto the front cover, however the picture quality has greatly reduced.

    Can anyone tell me what method I should use to reduce the size of the images. I've already tried the 'free transform' (too pixelated), 'resize image' (still too pixelated, and will only let me reduce the sizes proportionaly). The 'save for web' option seems to retain the best quality, although it only allows me to reduce the picture size with the pixels being the unit of measurement, which makes it impossible for me to guess what size to set the image to, as the cd cover canvas is mesured in mm.

    I think that maybe 'free transform ' could be the way to go, is there a way of retaining the picture quality??

    If anyone has managed to battle their way through this message, I'd be extremely grateful for any help.

    cheers, BEET
     
  2. decksnap macrumors 68040

    decksnap

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    #2
    You shouldn't be losing picture quality using 'Free Transform' or 'Edit>Image Size', provided you are scaling down. You will lose quality 'saving for web', since the goal of saving for web iis to reduce file size, (and it outputs at 72 dpi). Is it possible everything looks odd because you are at an odd zoom level? 'In-between' zooom levels may make the image look too 'crispy'. Try viewing it at 100% or 50% to get the best idea.

    However, the fact that you are having these problems makes me wonder what your source images are like for quality.

    I would make a CD-case/cover (whatever) blank canvas at 300 dpi. (This is the dpi you need for print) Then open and drag and drop other images onto your working canvas. This will force them to their correct size on the 300 dpi canvas, and you can use free transform to scale them down as necessary from this point.
     
  3. aus_dave macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #3
    What size and quality are the original images you are trying to resize? If you are working with low to medium quality JPEGs you will find it hard to get acceptable results.

    You also need to check your image resolution (Image -> Image size). A resolution of 300 pixels/inch is a rough standard for print work, 72 pixels/inch for web images. In your case you want 300.

    Depending on what text etc. goes on the album cover Illustrator may be a better choice for a design tool.
     
  4. BEET thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Location:
    Guernsey, Channel Islands
    #4
    The source images are very clear, high rez photos. I'll try setting the original canvas to 300 dpi and dropping the images onto the canvas that way, although that is kinda what I tried in the first place, except I can't remember what dpi I set it to.
    What colour setting do you think I should set, CMYK?

    thanks for the help.
     
  5. decksnap macrumors 68040

    decksnap

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    #5
    NO- don't set the original images to 300 dpi- this doesn't work unless then re-key the pixel dimensions after the fact. Just make a working canvas for yourself at 300 dpi- and drag other images into their own layers on your working space.

    CMYK is the setting for printing things, RGB is the setting for on-screen (and web). Make sure you are in CMYK before you send you final files to print.
     
  6. decksnap macrumors 68040

    decksnap

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    #6
    Whoops- you said original canvas, not original photos- My B!
     
  7. rainman::|:| macrumors 603

    rainman::|:|

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2002
    Location:
    iowa
    #7
    Yes the resolution is the culprit here-- once you go to 300dpi, you'll be fine. I really don't understand why Photoshop defaults to 72, considering it's primarily a prepress app... or is it a web app now? :confused: At any rate, this confuses even a lot of graphics designers(!) at work, and we wind up with materials that look like **** because they forgot to up the dpi.

    paul
     
  8. aus_dave macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #8
    I don't understand it either, but I guess you could always 'hack' the preferences so that new screen images default to 300 ppi as well as print (Preferences -> Units & Rulers).
     
  9. neilrobinson macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2004
    Location:
    Perth, WA, Australia
    #9
    one thing on dont understand is the 300dpi standard,

    -unless your band is selling around the 1500 cds mark the job is not for offset print (which requires a min dpi of 275ish).

    most home printers a good resolution is about 150dpi ish, the image is a good size for most computers and you get good results (most people cant tell between 100 and 300 dpi on a cheapish home printer)

    at work we run 3x HP5000PS & 1x HP5500 with all files at between 100-150dpi. the results always look great for close up work (we have done testing and there is no visible difference between 150&300)

    really the 150dpi is good for most of your home stuff and 99% of short run colour that you take to your local printer, it makes their life quicker and easier (like me, i really hate it when billboards come in at 300dpi when all is required is 50dpi only 250meg ish instead of around the 5-6gig mark)

    any thoughts?

    neil
     
  10. decksnap macrumors 68040

    decksnap

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    #10
    Why, are you looking for disagreements?

    I would agree about billboards, (although even for a billboard 50dpi seems a bit low) because nobody sees them close up.

    However, for home printing, it depends on the printer- a crappy printer won't be able to render enough detail to show you a difference between 200 and 300 dpi, but better home printers surely will. I think 150 dpi is pushing it as far as low quality is concerned.

    All you can do is deal with what you have- if you have high enough quality files, there's no reason not to do it right and make it 300 dpi. It's not like the size of a CD cover file is going to be hard to deal with.
     
  11. neilrobinson macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2004
    Location:
    Perth, WA, Australia
    #11
    sorry for being sharp... maybe thoughts would be a better word... long day... to much to drink

    yeah i kinda agree with the quality of printer... better printer = better results

    for billboards we use scitex vision S3+ (3.5m 4 colour) and a XLJET + (2.4m 8 colour) they are great printers (expensive). the processed (ripped) files are only 50dpi, not much use anything over that res (it just gets chucked out by the rip software). the results are great for billboards and banners. the XLJET is quite often used for point of sale quailty kinda stuff. it looks really good.

    btw we have done billboards at 1dpi before (the file came on a floopy disc) and once you where 10 meters away it was great... one good thing about billboards... you can get away with allsorts of stuff.
     
  12. decksnap macrumors 68040

    decksnap

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    #12
    Good to know- I learned the billboard stuff the hard way you might say. Opening files over a Gb is a BEAR, and converting/editing at that size suuuuuuuuuuuuucks.
     
  13. neilrobinson macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2004
    Location:
    Perth, WA, Australia
    #13
    yeah...

    especially on a G4 400 gigabyte files are slow (my home computer and work computer are very simular), anyone want to donate a fast upgrade card or even better a g5? a nice 2.5gig would be fine.

    please :D
     

Share This Page