Login | Register
SearchMy Stuff
My ProfileMy PreferencesMy Mates RSS Feed
2
Reply to Topic
Author Discussion

xkrsupercharged

Original Poster:

1,228 posts

87 months

[news] 
Tuesday 3rd July 2012 quote quote all
I have an image I would like to use in a printed magazine and the publishers have said my image needs to be 300 DPI. Mine is 96 BPI.

The pic is owner by one of my suppliers who have authorised us to use the pic but they do not have a higher resolution image.

Can anyone on here help increase the DPI via a any kind of software - photoshop etc?

I have found this online but I dont have photoshop:

"Open your pic in photoshop and resample it at 300 dpi and at 200% its original size.
Then, scale it down manually from one of the corner handles. The end result should be quite crisp."

Any help appreciated smile

GetCarter

18,523 posts

159 months

[news] 
Tuesday 3rd July 2012 quote quote all
Well you can, but it will hold no more useful information than the 96 DPI file.

Simpo Two

58,241 posts

145 months

[news] 
Tuesday 3rd July 2012 quote quote all
I know this is an innocent question but I'm going to... no I'm not, I can handle it. Breathe.


Ask your printers to measure the JPG file with a ruler.


Printers think of everything in terms of potatoes. We think in terms of pixels. Your image is 96ppi. You can make it 300ppi, it will simply look smaller. What you might need to do to keep them happy is resize/interpolate, but it is not going to make any improvement to the quality of the image.


xkrsupercharged

Original Poster:

1,228 posts

87 months

[news] 
Tuesday 3rd July 2012 quote quote all
Thanks smile

As you can see I have no idea what they are on about. All I know is that they have told me that the pic as it stands cant be used as it needs to be a minimum of 300 DPI.

If used it won't print "clearly".

Any suggestions?

Simpo Two

58,241 posts

145 months

[news] 
Tuesday 3rd July 2012 quote quote all
xkrsupercharged said:
Any suggestions?
Open the image in PS and go Image > Image size. There you will see the resolution, and you can change it to anything you like. I just experimented by doubling one from 300 to 600 and unchecking 'constrain proportions'. The image got bigger - so maybe that will keep them happy?
Advertisement

RicksAlfas

5,969 posts

124 months

[news] 
Tuesday 3rd July 2012 quote quote all
What your printers are asking for is the image to be 300DPI at the dimensions you want it to be in the magazine.

If your picture is currently the dimensions you want it to be but is 96DPI, making it 300 DPI will make it much smaller. However if the picture dimensions are enormous you have a chance of being able to reduce the dimensions and increase the DPI. You could try downloading GIMP (!) if you don't have Photoshop.

xkrsupercharged

Original Poster:

1,228 posts

87 months

[news] 
Tuesday 3rd July 2012 quote quote all
Thanks all - it's sorted. The publication's artwork studio sorted it themselves in the end smile

Nick Grant

3,864 posts

115 months

[news] 
Tuesday 3rd July 2012 quote quote all
I can't believe printers are still coming out with this crap frown

Deluded

4,093 posts

71 months

[news] 
Tuesday 3rd July 2012 quote quote all
It's not crap. If they print at 300dpi then the ideal image needs to be sized to the correct dimentions taking this into account, to get the optimal quality.

All dpi/ppi means is that there are 300 printable dots/pixels per inch of paper. Just imagine that for every inch your desired size is, you will need 300pixels to fill it. So if you wanted to print a 6x4 photo on a printer that prints at 300dpi, to get the optimal quality, the image needs to be 1800x1200 pixels. Anything smaller and the printer will need to upscale the image, reducing quality. Anything bigger and it will have to downscale, loosing detail.

Edited by Deluded on Tuesday 3rd July 16:25

sickrabbit

246 posts

22 months

[news] 
Tuesday 3rd July 2012 quote quote all
Nick Grant said:
I can't believe printers are still coming out with this crap frown
Why not and why crap - should they just print anything you chuck at them just so that you can complain at the quality later claiming for refunds or demanding for it to be reprinted?

Simpo Two

58,241 posts

145 months

[news] 
Tuesday 3rd July 2012 quote quote all
It would be much easier/quicker for them simply to bung it in PS and convert it to exactly what they want, than bounce it back with tecchy stuff most people don't understand - which may or may not then be correct and will add hours if not days. By the time the printer has bounced it, chased it up, got it back, checked it, possibly still not right - he may as well have done it himself the way he likes it!

sickrabbit

246 posts

22 months

[news] 
Tuesday 3rd July 2012 quote quote all
Simpo Two said:
It would be much easier/quicker for them simply to bung it in PS and convert it to exactly what they want, than bounce it back with tecchy stuff most people don't understand - which may or may not then be correct and will add hours if not days. By the time the printer has bounced it, chased it up, got it back, checked it, possibly still not right - he may as well have done it himself the way he likes it!
For free?

agent006

11,131 posts

144 months

[news] 
Tuesday 3rd July 2012 quote quote all
Simpo Two said:
bounce it back with tecchy stuff most people don't understand
Arguably, if you're submitting copy direct to a print house then you should really make it your business to understand.

Davi

17,055 posts

100 months

[news] 
Tuesday 3rd July 2012 quote quote all
Nick Grant said:
I can't believe printers are still coming out with this crap frown
Problem isn't the printers, the problem is the people submitting stuff. Since the first day I started in graphics and print I've had people submit pictures that are unprintable at the required size. You can't upscale, so you have no choice but to either ask for a higher res copy or print below acceptable quality!

The reason they all say they need it 'at 300 dpi' is simply because if you say you need it at 300dpi at the final print size, you get a dumb look. If you ask for it to be x pixels by y pixels, you get a dumb look. If you ask for a higher resolution version, you get either a dumb look or the same image handed back that has had the physical dimensions of the same file changed. It gets boring. Very boring. Also very expensive if you try and build in the faff time yourself. Then you get people moaning about the price.

For some reason it's one of those area's where you're expected to give your time away for free?!

Edited by Davi on Tuesday 3rd July 19:08

Nick Grant

3,864 posts

115 months

[news] 
Tuesday 3rd July 2012 quote quote all
The specific crap I'm talking about is as the OP mentioned, I've seen other threads about and had personal experience with. All examples of printers who just ask for 300dpi with no reference to any other dimensions. There are people in the print trade who only know how to check a file is good for printing by opening it and checking the dpi in isolation. I sent a printer a 1x1 pixel image at 300dpi to prove a point and he still couldn't grasp the concept. It has come up before and will come up again I'm sure.

flat-planedCrank

3,600 posts

83 months

[news] 
Tuesday 3rd July 2012 quote quote all
Agreed, this does come up every few months...

People want (for eg.) 300dpi images because the 'quality is better' or some other reason.


"How big is that download?"
"20MB/s"
"Er what?"

Davi

17,055 posts

100 months

[news] 
Tuesday 3rd July 2012 quote quote all
Nick Grant said:
The specific crap I'm talking about is as the OP mentioned, I've seen other threads about and had personal experience with. All examples of printers who just ask for 300dpi with no reference to any other dimensions. There are people in the print trade who only know how to check a file is good for printing by opening it and checking the dpi in isolation. I sent a printer a 1x1 pixel image at 300dpi to prove a point and he still couldn't grasp the concept. It has come up before and will come up again I'm sure.
That's true enough, there are plenty that don't know why or what they should be asking for - as long as it's not confused with asking for something that's needed and being touted as a PITA for no reason!

Funny you should mention the 1px x 1 px, we've had to do similar in the past the other way round with 'togs and designers alike. Unfortunately it's an industry with little cross knowledge and lots of amateurs who own a computer.

Simpo Two

58,241 posts

145 months

[news] 
Tuesday 3rd July 2012 quote quote all
sickrabbit said:
For free?
If it was me, yes. I could always work the extra 60 seconds into the price, and then I wouldn't have to spend the next 8 days chasing up people to make them do stuff they don't know about and probably still getting it back wrong.

If you employ a professional to take photos for your magazine, then of course they should know exactly how to supply the images. But if you want lots of photos for free or pennies then you will be working with amateurs, as Davi says.

ATEOTD it's about getting the job done quickly and professionally. And then your magazine will look nice smile

DIW35

3,283 posts

80 months

[news] 
Tuesday 3rd July 2012 quote quote all
Publishers asking for image files at 300dpi is like a builder asking a builders merchant to supply him with enough tiles to tile a wall at 9 per sq/m. Without knowing how big the wall is, how the hell can the merchant know how many tiles to supply?

RicksAlfas

5,969 posts

124 months

[news] 
Wednesday 4th July 2012 quote quote all
DIW35 said:
Publishers asking for image files at 300dpi is like a builder asking a builders merchant to supply him with enough tiles to tile a wall at 9 per sq/m. Without knowing how big the wall is, how the hell can the merchant know how many tiles to supply?
Yes, you are correct and in the case of adverts for magazines it should be simple to specify "300DPI at finished size".

However in many cases of commercial print the customer supplies the artwork for the entire job - so they themselves are setting the dimensions of the images, not the printer. The printer will invariably have asked for PDF files, CYMK, 3mm bleed and 300 DPI. He will invariably receive a Word file, RGB, no bleed and 72 DPI. Really there isn't much choice but to refer it back to the customer and ask them to try again, or suggest that the artwork is handled professionally at £XYZ. It's not a 60 second magic fix as Simpo suggests, especially on a many page book.

It's a chicken and egg situation, but as Davi mentioned "everyone" is a computer expert these days and many are reluctant to pay for something they think they can do themselves. So, to get cheaper prices they tell the printer they will supply their own artwork, the printer knocks off the artwork element of his quote, the customer gets a crap job and blames the printer. To carry on DIW35's analogy it's like supplying your own tiles, the tiler suggest they aren't up to the job, but you tell him to get on with it, and come home to find the tiles crack first time the sun comes out.

I can understand you chaps get frustrated by the seemingly haphazard request for "300DPI" with no dimensions to back it up, but spare a thought for the printer who is not always dealing with people who know what they are on about.
smile
2
Reply to Topic