Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

Community > The Pub
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Myyco.com Shop: Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1
Calling all GIMP & Photoshop masters
    #14899947 -

I have a logo I made that I'm gonna get printed as stickers but the company says this...

Quote:
We recommend that you adjust the resolution to 300 DPI and re-upload your image




How do I make my logo 300 DPI  ?  I use GIMP and the file is saved as a .PNG

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Calling all GIMP & Photoshop masters [Re: nice1]
    #14899961 -

How large is it going to print (i.e. what's the size of the sticker?) If you have the dimensions in inches, then multiply by 300, and you have the required size of the picture in pixels.

E.g, you want to print 2" x 8" stickers, at 300dpi, this requires a file of 600 x 2400 pixels.

If the original file you have now is too small (i.e. too low resolution), expect some major work to be needed to scale it up - read: the logo might have to be retraced completely in a higher resolution, or, preferably, as a vector image.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Calling all GIMP & Photoshop masters [Re: nice1]
    #14899966 -

Im new to this. but i i might be able to help


click the image bar on the top of the editing box, then click scale image, then mess with your res there




Idk if that helped much:tongue:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Calling all GIMP & Photoshop masters [Re: Locky]
    #14899967 -

Locky said:
click the image bar on the top of the editing box, then click scale image, then mess with your res there



That will scale up the image, but the resolution may still be inadequate. Can't make up pixels that aren't there.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Calling all GIMP & Photoshop masters [Re: koraks]
    #14899975 -

>image (on top bar)
>image size
> now, look at the options under size. you also have resolution. make sure the drop down is set to pixels/inch, then change it to 300.
>if you're really picky, set the resample option to Bicubic Smoother (best for enlargement)

wait, you're in gimp. that's for photoshop. i imagine it's similar, gimp ripped off most of its menus from adobe.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Calling all GIMP & Photoshop masters [Re: koraks]
    #14899981 -

Ahh I see.

Well if anything it would be scaling it down slightly.  I want small stickers and the picture file is physically slightly larger so in theory there would be no noticable visual  quality loss on the final print?  As they are fairly close to intended size anyway :shrug:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Calling all GIMP & Photoshop masters [Re: nice1]
    #14899984 -

This is all guesswork. Please provide us with two bits of information: the physical dimensions (inches) of the printed stickers, and the dimensions (in pixels) of the digital file.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Calling all GIMP & Photoshop masters [Re: nice1]
    #14899998 -

nice1 said:
Ahh I see.

Well if anything it would be scaling it down slightly.  I want small stickers and the picture file is physically slightly larger so in theory there would be no noticable visual  quality loss on the final print?  As they are fairly close to intended size anyway :shrug:


gotcha. well the reason i use the enlargement setting is that even if you're keeping the image the same size, you're exponentially increasing the amount of pixels. i'm not sure if that's gospel, just what i do :shrug: with small stickers you probably won't see a difference.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Calling all GIMP & Photoshop masters [Re: koraks]
    #14900015 -

koraks said:
This is all guesswork. Please provide us with two bits of information: the physical dimensions (inches) of the printed stickers, and the dimensions (in pixels) of the digital file.


what do you mean? when you scale an image with 1000 pixels, you make the image larger, but it still has 1000 pixels. the size of each pixel has just been expanded. this will leave you with jagged edges.

when you resample and up your resolution to 300, the image stays the same size, but your pixel count goes waaaay up. you have a lot more information stored in the same amount of space, and generally a much clearer picture when printed. the bicubic smooth method of resampling is once of the ways your computer can decide to generate these new pixels so that they form the smoothest image possible. basically what it boils down to, is the computer takes multiple resamples, say first at 150dpi then 200 etc. that reduces the chance of an error and makes it more precise than just doing a whole big calculation to get 300dpi at once.

all you need to do nice1 is find where you change the resolution and switch it to 300.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Calling all GIMP & Photoshop masters [Re: JT]
    #14900041 -

The DPI information in a digital image is in fact meaningless; DPI is a term that only makes sense once a digital image is actually being printed.

In your examples (we're discussing one dimension here, obviously, there are two):
- a 100 px image scaled up towards 1000 px will still contain the same information. If it is printed at, say, 1" size, the first version will be 100dpi, the second one will be 1000dpi. They will both look like crap. I think we agree on this.
- if you take the same 100px image, intended to be printed at 1", and rescale it to 300dpi, it simply becomes 300px, but it'll still contain the same information. Depending on the method of rescaling or resampling, the edges will become either jagged or softened, but the actual information in the image is still the same. The prints will still look like crap, but you can choose between jagged or soft crap.
- if your original is in fact 1000px and you still want to print it on 1" @ 300dpi, you need to scale the image down to 300px. Assuming you resample it, this will soften the edges, which you can in this case recover sufficiently using an unsharp mask approach (of one of the smart sharpen approaches that offer better performance). Out of the three options, this is the only one that will result in decent image quality in print, since it's the only case in which you start with more digital information than you actually need.

To establish which scenario we're talking about here, I asked to provide the digital size in pixels and the required printed size in inches, so we can decide which approach will work best in this case.

Finally, in my experience, it's best to provide a printer with an image in its native resolution. The majority of the commercial printing is done @ 300dpi. In practice, I preferably start out with a digital file at least twice the resolution (so 600dpi, or 4 times the pixels I actually need), and in the final step of digital processing, I will scale down the image to the printer's native resolution and sharpen the image to make it look crisp.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Calling all GIMP & Photoshop masters [Re: koraks]
    #14900130 -

Quote:
The DPI information in a digital image is in fact meaningless; DPI is a term that only makes sense once a digital image is actually being printed.


yes, they're the same thing, just called dpi/ppi depending on the viewing medium

Quote:
In your examples (we're discussing one dimension here, obviously, there are two):
- a 100 px image scaled up towards 1000 px will still contain the same information. If it is printed at, say, 1" size, the first version will be 100dpi, the second one will be 1000dpi. They will both look like crap. I think we agree on this.


agreed. there was a typo with 1000 and 100 in my original post, left off a zero.
Quote:
- if you take the same 100px image, intended to be printed at 1", and rescale it to 300dpi, it simply becomes 300px, but it'll still contain the same information. Depending on the method of rescaling or resampling, the edges will become either jagged or softened, but the actual information in the image is still the same. The prints will still look like crap, but you can choose between jagged or soft crap.


yes. my assumption is that this was the case for him and that he had something around 72ppi (that's what mine defaults to) and would have to increase the resolution. it's not ideal.

Quote:
- if your original is in fact 1000px and you still want to print it on 1" @ 300dpi, you need to scale the image down to 300px. Assuming you resample it, this will soften the edges, which you can in this case recover sufficiently using an unsharp mask approach (of one of the smart sharpen approaches that offer better performance). Out of the three options, this is the only one that will result in decent image quality in print, since it's the only case in which you start with more digital information than you actually need.


yes
Quote:
To establish which scenario we're talking about here, I asked to provide the digital size in pixels and the required printed size in inches, so we can decide which approach will work best in this case.

Finally, in my experience, it's best to provide a printer with an image in its native resolution. The majority of the commercial printing is done @ 300dpi. In practice, I preferably start out with a digital file at least twice the resolution (so 600dpi, or 4 times the pixels I actually need), and in the final step of digital processing, I will scale down the image to the printer's native resolution and sharpen the image to make it look cr
isp.


oh yeah. i learned that the fun way back in high school at a journalism class deadline. nothin like realizing your picture is too blurry to publish for the cover story and you don't have any backups. that's when i learned to appreciate good cameras.


do you work in graphic design or is it just a hobby?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Calling all GIMP & Photoshop masters [Re: JT]
    #14900177 -

Quote:
my assumption is that this was the case for him and that he had something around 72ppi (that's what mine defaults to) and would have to increase the resolution. it's not ideal.


That was my assumption as well. An yes, it's pretty much a guarantee for disappointment.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Calling all GIMP & Photoshop masters [Re: nice1]
    #14900351 -

koraks said:
That will scale up the image, but the resolution may still be inadequate. Can't make up pixels that aren't there.


Yes you can. Depending on the image you could trace it in illustrator or paint in more detail.

nice1 said:
I have a logo I made that I'm gonna get printed as stickers but the company says this...

Quote:
We recommend that you adjust the resolution to 300 DPI and re-upload your image




How do I make my logo 300 DPI  ?  I use GIMP and the file is saved as a .PNG


You don't know enough about graphic design to create a logo. Pay an artist if you really need a logo, but are you really concerned about brand identity? You don't need a logo if the sign in front of your shop says what you're selling inside the shop.

If it's for a band or something like that, just don't even try. Bands don't need logos.


--------------------
Open mind, open heart, open book.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Calling all GIMP & Photoshop masters [Re: healing]
    #14900372 -

healing said:
koraks said:
That will scale up the image, but the resolution may still be inadequate. Can't make up pixels that aren't there.


Yes you can. Depending on the image you could trace it in illustrator or paint in more detail.


That's what I said in my first post. But suggesting to use paint for this purpose...errr....well. Not really the first thing I'd think of, to be honest.

healing said:
If it's for a band or something like that, just don't even try. Bands don't need logos.


Obviously. I mean, nobody could actually link any particular graphics to bands like Pink Floyd, the Grateful Dead and Metallica, right?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Calling all GIMP & Photoshop masters [Re: koraks]
    #14900458 -

koraks said:
healing said:
koraks said:
That will scale up the image, but the resolution may still be inadequate. Can't make up pixels that aren't there.


Yes you can. Depending on the image you could trace it in illustrator or paint in more detail.


That's what I said in my first post. But suggesting to use paint for this purpose...errr....well. Not really the first thing I'd think of, to be honest.

healing said:
If it's for a band or something like that, just don't even try. Bands don't need logos.


Obviously. I mean, nobody could actually link any particular graphics to bands like Pink Floyd, the Grateful Dead and Metallica, right?


Digital painting, of course.

Recognizable imagery is not necessary for creating music. Just because it worked for some bands doesn't mean it will work for yours. Especially if you design some shitty logo of your own. Its tacky and childish to associate your band with a logo. And yes, the Greatful Dead, Pink Floyd, and Metallica all have superfluous, tacky logos.


--------------------
Open mind, open heart, open book.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Calling all GIMP & Photoshop masters [Re: healing]
    #14900478 -

what else are you gonna put on the band merch you milk your fans from?

Creating your own logo is awesome. Then it has some meaning for you, it's part of your identity. Although, consulting a graphic artist wouldn't be a bad idea either...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Calling all GIMP & Photoshop masters [Re: JT]
    #14901134 -

JT said:
what else are you gonna put on the band merch you milk your fans from?

Creating your own logo is awesome. Then it has some meaning for you, it's part of your identity. Although, consulting a graphic artist wouldn't be a bad idea either...


Logo design is the most difficult thing a graphic artist can do. It's very expensive and usually comes with, at the very least, some suggestions on how you should design your internal documents and the documents seen by the consumer.

You can't just pirate photoshop and make a logo of the first random idea that pops into your head, no matter how talented you are. It takes research and preparation. You don't just draw something with a dull pencil and put it all over your merchandise. That's what shitty local bands do.

If you respect the music you make, you don't want to degrade it by trying to represent it visually and failing completely.


--------------------
Open mind, open heart, open book.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1

Myyco.com Shop: Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale

Community > The Pub
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* photoshop 7 highoman 1,892 14 02/11/03 09:01 PM
by boO
* Anyone use Adobe Photoshop?
( 1 2 all )		 SoDak_Stranger 3,422 28 07/27/04 06:17 AM
by Samuel
* Photoshop 5.0
( 1 2 all )		 funkymonk 2,168 24 09/04/04 02:39 PM
by funkymonk
* colorizing in gimp
( 1 2 all )		 Cannabischarlie 2,547 26 07/31/08 04:36 PM
by The_Ghost
* damn laptop pixel burnt out!
( 1 2 all )		 Smallworlds 3,706 26 05/03/15 02:25 PM
by psi
* Buddy Holly: Master Dreamcrafter, Rock-n-Roll Messiah I_Fart_Blue 1,879 6 04/30/03 05:20 PM
by I_Fart_Blue
* A call for your help
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )		 beejay 6,521 118 02/17/05 08:00 PM
by beejay
* A pixel.... Captain Loafy McPoopdick 1,009 10 04/13/05 05:00 PM
by Todcasil

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Entire Staff
1,095 topic views. 2 members, 7,055 guests and 239 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.043 seconds spending 0.017 seconds on 16 queries.