# photoshop...(969DPI), convert to 300DPI)



## ashbradshaw (Oct 13, 2008)

working with CS2, witch i prefer.

working on a logo with solid black background and a green logo (#8bc63f), 3x3 inch.

i've uploaded to a company that are going to produce it as a promotion sticker.

they have sent me a email back with some error's i need to correct, such as:

my image quality is (96DPI) and they have asked me to convert it to (300DPI) I'm in the process of using the photoshop help tool to find out about (DPI),

but no joy,


----------



## Natobasso (Oct 14, 2008)

Go to Image/Image Size in the menu bar. Choose 300dpi, but be aware the size of your image changes in direct proportion (it will get smaller). Make sure you resize it to fit your layout file (hopefully you've placed this graphic in InDesign) to 100% to save RIPing time on your printer's end.

I imagine you got your image from the web or screen shot, hence the 96dpi? Make sure your image is also CMYK as opposed to RGB.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Oct 14, 2008)

Yuck... going from 96dpi to 300dpi is going to make the finished product look like crap (pixelated, etc.).

You may be better off recreating the logo or artwork at 300dpi to begin with, or using a vector illustration program instead (resolution-independent for the most part).

A rule of thumb with dpi (dots per inch) is that you can only "go down".  If you increase the resolution of an image (like going from 96 to 300), then PhotoShop has to "make up" pixels to fill in all the areas that weren't defined before... with 96 dpi, every horizontal inch is made up of 96 dots.  Increasing this to 300 means every horizontal inch now has 300 dots, and PhotoShop has to "guess" what colors to color the leftover 204 (300 - 96) dots that it must insert into every inch.

If you do choose to simply increase the resolution from 96 to 300, be sure to view the image in PhotoShop at 100% (look at the titlebar of the image window to see what zoom level you're currently at).  Viewing it at 100% will give you a more accurate representation of what the final product will look like (even though it may appear bigger on your screen at 100% than it will actually print).  If you see "jaggies" or pixelation of the image (pixelation = looks like small blocks make up your image, and curves and what-not aren't "smooth"), then be aware that that will be what it looks like when it's printed.


----------



## Natobasso (Oct 14, 2008)

ElDiabloConCaca said:


> Yuck... going from 96dpi to 300dpi is going to make the finished product look like crap (pixelated, etc.).
> 
> You may be better off recreating the logo or artwork at 300dpi to begin with, or using a vector illustration program instead (resolution-independent for the most part).



Not true. If the image is of large size, but 96dpi, you still have room to go up to 300dpi, and reduce the image in physical size, with NO quality loss.

What is the exact size of the image?


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Oct 14, 2008)

Very true.  I was making my comments under the assumption that the original image was at a certain size at 96dpi, and the converted image would be the same size at 300dpi -- in which case, pixelation would most definitely occur.

Changing the physical size of the image was not mentioned -- only changing the resolution.  If the original was 4-inch by 4-inch at 96dpi, and you changed it to 300dpi (yielding a 1.28-inch by 1.28-inch image) and sent it back to the printer to be printed at the original specification of 4-inch by 4-inch, then changing the resolution effectively did nothing because now the image must be scaled back up to the 4-inch square specification, negating the benefits of increasing the resolution to 300dpi while reducing physical size to 1.28-inch square.

So, ashbradshaw, there are a few components of information we'll need before we can definitively tell you if changing the resolution of the image without pixelation is possible:

1) What are the exact physical dimensions of the original, 96dpi image (in inches, cm, mm or whatever)?
2) What are the exact physical dimensions of the final product going to be (what size is the printed piece going to be)?


----------



## Natobasso (Oct 14, 2008)

You mentioned the sizing issue, so I thought I'd clarify.  Look forward to seeing the answers to 1) and 2).


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Oct 14, 2008)

Natobasso said:


> You mentioned the sizing issue, so I thought I'd clarify.  Look forward to seeing the answers to 1) and 2).


Ah, I see...  my point is that changing an image's resolution while not resampling it (ie, reducing or increasing the size inversely to the resolution) basically does absolutely nothing to the image.  There are still x-number of dots making up the image, and the image itself would occupy the exact same number of bytes as well as have exactly the same amount of "detail".

If I were to print an image at 1.28-inches square, it wouldn't matter if I had a 96-dpi image at 4-inches square or a 300dpi image at 1.28-inches square -- they would both print in exactly the same quality, since the act of scaling down the 96dpi image to print at a lower size effectively increases the dpi of the image.  In this case, I highly doubt any "good" printer would return the 96dpi 4-inch square image back to the client and request that the client increase the resolution to 300dpi... I'd be highly wary of the printer's expertise, skills and printing knowledge if they did so.


----------



## Natobasso (Oct 14, 2008)

Right, that's what I said.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Oct 14, 2008)

Weird... I remember saying that, too.  And if you read this thread in reverse, I _actually say it before you!_ 

Let's hope he gets back with some answers soon so we can continue proving one another right.


----------



## Natobasso (Oct 14, 2008)

You said two different things. My post is before yours. FTW!


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Oct 14, 2008)

Natobasso said:


> You said two different things. My post is before yours. FTW!


I've said the same thing -- increase resolution = crappier quality.  Increase resolution _and_ decrease physical size proportionately = no change in quality.  "Increasing resolution" alone cannot be interpreted to mean a change in resolution _and_ physical size.  If you go from 4-inch @ 96dpi to 1.28-inch at 300dpi, you have not increased the resolution.

I know your post is before mine.  That's why I facetiously said:


> And if you read this thread *in reverse*...


----------



## Natobasso (Oct 14, 2008)

(groan)


----------



## ashbradshaw (Oct 20, 2008)

hello guys, thanks for your posts...

one more thing..

i'm starting working with cs3 Ai
and i want to move my photoshop brushers over..!
what Ai sub folder do i place them in..


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Oct 20, 2008)

You can't just "move" them over -- you must convert the brushes:

http://vector-art.blogspot.com/2008/04/convert-brushes-from-photoshop-to.html


----------

