Preserved Topic: resolution 72 vs 300 (Page 1 of 1)

The friend i was helping with this chaotic logo talked to aprinter who wanted to know if I could remake it or change it to a resolution of 300 instead of 72. I've never changed resolution much yet what do you guys usually use as a resolution for your images. i would like to know what you would do different for web vs printed projects. This one is for a t-shirt samples at www.finlinson.com/ChaotiC.

you're gonna have a helluva time making those 300dpi and maintaining any sort of clarity. at best, load it into photoshop, image>image size it to 300dpi (while maintaining the print size [inches] instead of display size [pixels]). then run filter>noise>add noise (gaussian) with a setting of 30-40 (monochromatic) and then load up filter>blur>gaussian blur to a copy of the layer. set it to 2-3 pixels, and then run the great filter known as filter>sharpen>unsharp mask. play with those settings until you get the clearest images you can. it's not going to be easy. and pray your machine has good amounts of ram to handle 300dpi, because photoshop sucks up memory.

good luck.

(nickname=twItch)(realname=steve)(email=steve@th-inknet.com)(chatname=8520632)(minutiae= whatthefuck)

Generally if you are going to be creating a graphic for BOTH print and web, you create the print graphic first and size it down to web because resampling up always gives you crap. Even if you are creating for web, you may want to create it at a higher dpi in case you ever decide to use a web logo for a business card or some other such thing.

If my memory serves me correctly, things like magazines and your T-shirt require 300 dpi. Newsprint only needs 120, and our friend the web couldn't show more than 72 even if you wanted it to.

I would agree with twItch^.

You might however want to go to 600 dpi first, then do the noise, blur, and edits etc... Then scale it back down to your target res of 300dpi.

or try this, ruffly the same thing but requries less memory.

Another method useful method is to enlarge in steps. Start at 72 dpi then go to 150 dpi, then to 300dpi. This causes photoshops to interpolate twice which sometimes helps.

jstuartj

To determine the optimum resoulion for 4 color and grascale images (CYMK) for press you can use the simplified formula below.

Forumla: LPI of output device * 2.0 = Max useful image resolution.

ie. Offset press, plate made at 150lpi * 2 = 300 dpi

The value of 2.0 is of some debate. I have heard values from 1.8 - 2.5 depending on press type and output units etc.

1 bit Bitmapped graphics. Should be created a the DPI resolution of the output unit for best resoults. However I find that going over 800-1200dpi for a graphic at 100% is over kill. I all depends on how much detail you need from the image.

72, 144, 288, etc

Ok, OK. If you want to get picky about it.

jstuartj

Have any of you tried using Genuine Fractals standard or pro. for resizing images. I hear is does a decent job on some image types for enlargements?

I often get suplied images and logo's and to put it simply suck. Often created for use on there website and naturally they now want to use them in print. Llogo's I can easly recreate, but a shot of a stereo system is a little harder to redraw (not enough time to reshoot.) In most cases I am lucky and they are used reduced or less detailed and I can printing them as is with out too many complaints. But if genuine Fractals works even little bit for enlargment It might be worth a shot.

jstuartj



[This message has been edited by jstuartj (edited 01-20-2001).]

sounds as if I might be better off to just redo the entire image at 300 dpi. If i'd had a brain to begin with I would have tried that. It's not a complicated image I can remember most of the steps I took. I love all the input you guys are great. I don't know anywhere else i can get such quick commetns and help with my work.

I'm no expert on printing on textile (Doc is however); but I would be just astounded if 300 DPI was realistic. I mean, that's close to what you'd use for an annual report on fine paper. Can't imagine them using a line screen remotely close to that for silk screening (but again, I'm not familiar witht he process). I'd guess it would be closer to newsprint - something like an 85 line screen, for which 120-150 DPI would be adaquate. Has anyone checked this printer's competency? Maybe you're talking to a sales rep, not the printer? No offense to any sales types in the audience, but their technical background is often .... missing

And my current understanding of GF is that it's no magic bullet for sizing up, and often is inferior to PS. Depends a lot on the individual image, and how much data you started with. An 18 meg landscape might look better if resized with GF; a 72 DPI image is going to be tough no matter what. One trick I've heard is to do some unsharp mask to the image before sizing up in PS.

Ah, its like taking high quality pictures of fuzzy objects.

Screen printers are like everyone else, you get some crystal clear ones, you get fuzzy like a big hug. Also please note that what you are using to get to plate determines a lot with resolution capacity, like if you are going from old school laserwriter to halftone to silver master, you aren't going to get that great of quality, even if you working with high lpi/dpi counts every step of the process. However, if you are going straight to plate or an image setter and then to metal plates you will get great results even from wack originals.

Also, i've said it before, and i'll say it again, i've worked in print shops, and there is nothing better then having the client say, "how do you want me to do this." Unless your printer is a total schmuck he will throw out a list of exactly the best things to do, resolution, curves, file format, bleed, everything.

Most people get tshirts printed with cheesy screen transfer jobbies or at places that treat you like a head of cattle, definatly find a local screen printer that owns his own business, prices will be steeper, but quality should rock everyone else, and you will get to smack the owner around.

Also, you can do your own... if you just want to do like 2 color jobs or even 4 color, its not that hard to set up a screen press, just need a screen, squeegee, chemicals, inks... and its about as much fun as you can get, think of all the fun you will have printing stuff onto the back of your mother-in-laws head after you get done shaving said head and strapping her into press.....

*hands Optic extra medicine* your poor mother in law.. what has she ever done to you?.. (thinks rhetorically) lol

that visual is quite entertaining though !

~Vp~

~Steve probes cautiously~
Uh - I'm impressed, Optic! Tell us - what WAS the most interesting thing you managed to screen onto you mum-in-law's scalp after you shaved her dome?


More to the point - what line screen did you use?


[This message has been edited by Steve (edited 01-21-2001).]

OK, 85 lpi is probably about right for screen printing, which would make a target resolution of 170 dpi about right. Screen printing has aadvanced quite a bit in the last ten years, and some shops can print quite a bit higher, but they are rare, and the tendency towards "dot gain" gets greater the finer you go. (What happens is that the smallest, most subtle dots fill in right away, printing nothing, then the dats start printing at about 10-20%, then the midtones start to get muddy, printing bigger dots than they should, and then at about 85% they tend to simply turn into solid color.) Check with your printer, they know what they can and cannot do, and will typically be glad to give you the proper specs!

Hmm, resixing an image *bigger* is a big pain in the c*****n, you can't just create data from nowhere. The blands and gradients can be blurred and sharpened to smooth out any artifacts, but the dges! That's the kicker. If you've worked with masks or paths, you'll have a potentially nice version of the edges and such. When I made the images for my shirts bigger, I simply re-sized my working file up to the proper rez and then did the blur/sharpen bit to smooth the greadients. Then I went to the mask of my logo and did a blur and then an "adjust levels" to sharpen the edges, making sure it was a pixel or 3 smaller than the original! Now I could take an inverse of the selection and delete away all the rough pixels off of the dges. (I also had to redo some of the shadows, but shadows are easy!)

Worst case scenario? I've had to re-size my images up to where I want them (they looked really crappy now) and then used it as a template for me to re-create things from scratch on the layers above it, eventually deleting the original. Lots of work, but the end product can't be any better than the original. Good luck to you!

Your pal, -doc-

Pain in the Clin_ton? well, I had one time the cropping tool set to crop to 63x127 INCHES instead of PIXELS. even on a P1000 with 128 MB THAT's a pain in the Clin_ton.