Re: [AGA SC] New AGA Pamphlet

[Erik Olson <erik@thekrib.com>]

Aaah, not again with the whole dpi thing...shades of Mary McCaw era.  OK, 
one more time:

Always ignore DPI on any raw images, just look for ones with highest
numbers of pixels.  Remember that the "dpi" field is just a tag on the
image in order to convert between its actual resolution (pixels) and
printing size.  In Photoshop, you can change the dpi in the "Image Size"  
menu all you want without changing the actual image itself (when the
"Rescale Image" checkbox is left unchecked).  A 300 dpi 1"x1" image
becomes a 150 dpi 2"x2" image.  Or even a 75 dpi 4"x4".  It's the same
image.  Scanners usually set the dpi based on the original scan, so if it 
was a 4x5" print at 300 dpi, then these are the values in the image.  When 
I scan a negative, it's 4000 dpi, but the image size is about 1x1.5 
inches.  Digital camera images often set the dpi flag arbitrarily, so it 
might be 300, 72, whatever.

If someone gives you me a raw image, the first thing I do is go into that
menu (making sure the "rescale" box is unchecked), and change the dpi to
300.  This gives me an idea of how big the image can be printed.

I don't have the disks with me, so I can't say about Kenneth Cheng's
picture, but I do remember it being very good resolution, enough to use as
the cover art for the CD.  Hofteizer's was not that great, but should be
fine as an insert.  Now, if you're saying the cover was "72 dpi reduced
75%"... this either means you made it 3/4 the original size, meaning it's
now about 96 dpi, or you're saying it's 1/4 the original size, or 288 dpi.  
If it's the former, then I definitely would give it a 2-3 pixel blur to
get out the pixelation.  I just despise those pixellated images... oh they
drive me nuts when I see one in a pro magazine.

I found the text hard to read against the background on my screen too.  
Often this doesn't translate into print well, so I would go with how it 
looks on paper.

  - Erik

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004, Cheryl Rogers wrote:

> 
> 
> S. Hieber wrote:
> > It's beautiful. 
> > 
> > I have three questions -- none of them biggies:
> > 
> > The 1st page seems a bit hard to read on my computer. Will
> > it be easier to read on paper?
> 
> I didn't find it difficult to read, but I can fade/blur the background 
> photo more.
> 
> 
> > 
> > Should the reference to  "article by Takashi Amano" be
> > "series of aquascaping articles by Takashi Amano"?
> 
> Ok.
> 
> > 
> > Is that the best tank pic we have; the one we want to use
> > for the next couple of years?
> 
> It's the one that I found right before I ran out of patience looking. 
> :-) It's a large enough photo to cover the page. It is 72 dpi, reduced 
> about 75%, so it will be pixilated. I can blur it so you don't notice 
> it, but I don't know what else to do. All the contest photos that were 
> large enough were 72 dpi.
> 
> Erik?
> 
> Cheryl
> 
> 

-- 
Erik Olson
erik at thekrib dot com

  ------------------
  To unsubscribe from this list, e-mail majordomo@thekrib.com
  with "unsubscribe aga-sc" in the body of the message.
  Old messages are available at http://lists.thekrib.com/aga-sc
  When asked, log in as username is "aga-sc", and password "incorp".