tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5541500.post7576720579833926154..comments2024-03-29T07:31:49.016+09:00Comments on BigHominid's Hairy Chasms: designer-related woesKevin Kimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01328790917314282058noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5541500.post-47256704833810361152016-03-11T10:41:33.134+09:002016-03-11T10:41:33.134+09:00If I may play devil's (or designer's, I gu...If I may play devil's (or designer's, I guess) advocate for a bit more...<br /><br />When you say that you have "reformatted" 72-dpi images to 300 dpi, what you've actually done is <i>resampled</i> them. That is, you've changed the number of pixels in the image, in this case adding more pixels (more than four times more, in fact). These pixels are interpolated by the software, which means that you are reducing the quality of the image. This is not noticeable on the screen because a) the software is pretty good at interpolating the new pixels, and b) screen resolution is still only 72 dpi, so you can't really see the difference. But were you to print that out, the difference would be noticeable. The quality difference between the 72-dpi image and the resampled 300-dpi version would be roughly the same as the difference between an original image and that image increased in area by four times (so, double the height and width).<br /><br />(I'm assuming here that when you say you have resized such resampled images with little loss in image quality, you're talking about what is displayed on the screen, not what ends up being printed.)<br /><br />In other words, a low-quality image is always going to be a low-quality image no matter what you do to it. If your software is good enough, you can certainly make improvements, but it will never become a high-quality image. I think the problem here is that print designers generally think in much higher resolution and only use the screen as an approximation. So you may be thinking that it looks fine on the screen, and even in print it may look OK, but the designer may be unwilling to leave image quality up to software interpolation, and the images that she is getting are not up to her standards.<br /><br />Which goes back to my original point, and what I think the true problem is: Designers have very clear standards and guidelines regarding the resolution of images, etc. The fact that these were not communicated to you shows a lack of professionalism (or at least thoroughness and/or experience) on the part of the design team. I know you're convinced that the images are good enough and are trying to defend that here, but I think you might be fighting the wrong battle. Rather than spending your time trying to show what can be done with those specific images, I think it would be more fruitful to just ask the design team specifically what they need and then give that to them. Like you said in the post, this woman has done great work with other graphical elements; I find it hard to believe that she would suddenly become lackadaisical in this one aspect.<br /><br />Again, I'm not saying you were in the wrong here--it was definitely the design team's responsibility to convey their standards to you, and they failed to do that. That's the real problem here.<br /><br />(Of course, it's completely possible that the design team will do a horrible job of conveying their standards even if you do ask. Designers (and anyone, really) can be great at what they do but horrible at communication and interpersonal relations.) Charleshttp://www.liminality.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5541500.post-70322478288185691202016-03-10T23:58:52.015+09:002016-03-10T23:58:52.015+09:00C,
I based my calculations on screen resolution b...C,<br /><br />I based my calculations on screen resolution because I'm pretty sure that that's the resolution of the typical Shutterstock photo, i.e., that's the resolution that I had to work with. I could be wrong; I'd need to check. In fact, if I'm wrong and the Shutterstock dpi turns out to be 300, then double-shame on the designer for acting helpless: you can stretch a 300-dpi image to 150% of its original size without truly ruining the quality of the image—an issue that matters even less if the image is there to serve as some sort of backdrop.<br /><br />Just as an aside, I've taken 72-dpi images, reformatted them to 300 dpi, and resized them with little loss in image quality. Raising the dpi makes a low-quality image more scalable.Kevin Kimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01328790917314282058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5541500.post-39215540120691543832016-03-10T22:50:42.957+09:002016-03-10T22:50:42.957+09:00I'm a little confused here. In your footnote y...I'm a little confused here. In your footnote you do acknowledge the difference between screen resolution and print resolution, but you base your calculations on the screen resolution of the images. At the minimum print resolution (300 dpi), a 1000 pixel wide image would be around 85 mm wide, or roughly 40% of the width of an A4 page. If they're going for 600 dpi (which is entirely possible), then those images would be around 42 mm wide, which is rather tiny (although not quite postage stamp size). Or am I misunderstanding you?<br /><br />Whatever the case, the designer/printer should have given you specific instructions in advance as to what they needed in terms of images. Sounds pretty sloppy to me.Charleshttp://www.liminality.orgnoreply@blogger.com