Re: [AGA SC] New AGA Pamphlet

[Erik Olson <erik@thekrib.com>]

Interesting... definitely reads a little easier on the screen for me than 
the first one.  Did you lighten the background a bit?

  - Erik

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004, Cheryl Rogers wrote:

> How about this one? (Eye doctor: Which is better, one or two?)
> 
> http://www.rightstuffwebsites.com/AGABrochure25.pdf
> 
> Cheryl
> 
> Erik Olson wrote:
> 
> > 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".