Here's one way to simulate a bad scan of an old document. I'm using the GIMP here, but you should be able to do all these steps in Photoshop too.
Step 1: Start with a suitable-looking picture.
If you're trying to emulate an old hand-written document, remember not to be too precise. Hand-position lines, vary the font size (and/or use several fonts), ...
Here is a somewhat easy method to convert full size images to pixel graphics.
To begin, go to Image -> Image Size. Change the Resample method to Nearest Neighbor, this will keep the hard edges. You can zoom into the preview on the left to get a good idea of what your end result will look like. You can see I'm at 500% in this example. Next ...
When you are working with so few pixels you have to make every pixel count. I doubt an automated scaler will achieve that with satisfactory quality.
My advice would be to downscale to the size required as normal (or possibly using a nearest-neighbour option), then zoom in, turn on the grid and go over your image pixel by pixel cleaning it up. To enhance the ...
I'd use Illustrator for this. Creating the paths, setting the type, etc is all just easier in Illustrator than it is in Photoshop.
Just create your base shapes, combine them. Use Object > Expand to turn the strokes into shapes, then use Effect > Distort & Transform > Roughen to add some life to the straight shapes. And finally, if you want, add ...
that look like they are a result of a very bad scan
There's your answer.
Design your mark, then take it down to Kinkos. Find the crappiest photocopier, and make a copy. Then make a copy of the copy. Then maybe crumple/uncrumple the copy and make a copy of that. Continue until it looks the way you like it.
Then scan that back in.
Choice of the best compression method depends on your image content. If you're trying to save image with a lots of colors and smooth transitions between them, your choice would rather be JPEG. Otherwise, if you've got some lineart, text, image with a couple of colors you should try PNG instead.
Specific compression scheme, parameters, color reduction etc. ...
Whenever I work with other designers my number one priority is to make their life as easy as possible, and not just because I'm a nice guy ;)
I've already been paid for the work I did, so making their life harder by flattening the art-work wouldn't achieve anything except making them have a worse day.
I would also take the extra five ...
Here are some options:
Use another format other than JPEG (PNG or GIF); the results in terms of both file size and image quality will depend on the content of your image; each is better at certain kinds of content
Make the image smaller in terms of pixels - this will have a very significant effect and should definitely be considered if you have control over ...
If you need to scale images up at the ratio you're describing, it's practically necessary to work with vector images rather than raster images. The main difference is that raster images are made up of pixels, discrete dots of a fixed size, whereas vector images are described by geometric paths.
The essential point is that vector images can be scaled up ...
Here is an article on exactly your problem. Been having this problem as well. Hope this helps!
Facebook uses a low quality jpg compression so any solid colors end up looking heavily pixelated. Solution is to add images at double the size with noise.
This is a common misconception. Scalable does not mean infinitely scalable. Not all svg renderers and files are created equal
What vector graphics bring to the table is rasterizing on demand. This means that the application showing them can redo the art. This is wonderfull at big sizes but requires special attention when images are small. This is why fonts ...
Having the same problem with a white text on a solid red background. My solution was to replace the solid red by a gradient of to reds. Afterwards I also added a Noise filter (or grain filter (7) in the filter gallery) in Photoshop. The improvement was very noticeable and the result was perfect. In attachment you can see the original and the finished result.
InDesign will show a preview image of an ai file which will use less memory. The file will print fine. If you want to see a more accurate image, change the Display Performance (found in the View menu) from Typical to High Quality Display.
PNG files are lossless compressed bitmaped images. While they are
compressed, they can still attain large file sizes depending on the
type of image data saved. Similar to GIF files, they are best suited
for images with large areas of solid colours and defined boundaries
(such as logos). They also support transparencies and 24 or ...
When saving images as .jpeg you always lose information. The dialog basically asks you how much information you would like to lose in favor of smaller size on disk (1 = most loss, 100 = least loss). There is no way to tell what you originally selected and the only use would be to have a history of your workflow because this loss is irrecoverably applied to ...
To say it short: No.
Images in jpg format are not vector based images. Vector based images can be resized without to lose quality. Bitmap images contains colored pixed. If you try to double the size one pixel has to grow to 4 pixel with the same color. Result: If you want the image 3 times bigger you will see the original pixels in your image.
It depends ...
As stated you cannot increase the size of a .jpeg without loosing quality but there is a margin of tolerance that you can increase the size of a .jpeg before it is noticeable.
Take my hero for instance (original file):
If I import this image into Photoshop and go to Image > Image Size (Shortcut Ctrl+Alt+I for PC or option/alt+cmd+I for Mac)
At the risk of being frowned upon for not answering your question, I would say this: don't worry about file size. Instead, worry about load time. They're certainly directly correlated, but the difference is that load time is universally applicable. A 2MB file might load instantly on a powerful hosting site such as imgur but not on an inexpensive shared ...
If I were you I'd abandon the Idea. Hires handling is the least of your problems, because there is simply no support within E-Mails.
But the problems start earlier. Most email clients strip out images and add a button where the user can activate the images. All this fuss for just a logo is just too much of a hassle.
I would just write the sig with ...
Common sizes for desktop are 800x600, 1024x768, 1280x1024 and 1600x1200
HD usually means 1080p nowadays so that is 1920 x 1080.
Also, see this previous question
And this Google Browser size diagram may help
I think the animated gifs are a good beneficiary of flat design. If you have a limited number of colours, and you do not use gradients you don't need to use dithered patterns.
We are used to see this patterns becouse a lot of people use real video segments as avatars, etc. But in this case you have just some colours, lets say 20 and you have at your ...
There is no simple answer - each compression event dumps some data, it tends to dump less with subsequent saves as most of the disposable data has already been disposed of. Factors include the compression level, the size of the image, it's content, your personal threshold of "noticeable" and the quality of your monitor.
I've seen a video featuring this. I'm not sure what it was anymore, but check out these 3 videos (from YouTube and Vimeo):
(The images aren't hyperlinked. Instead, there are linked texts at the bottom of each.)
1-Jpeg degradation by Connecticut State Library
2-JPG artifact test 1000 saves by Martin Flucka
3-Generation Loss by hadto
This last one by hadto ...
The most precise way you will achieve a quality 32px² picture is really making it pixel by pixel. The very origins of pixel art came from the need to convey visual information in absurdly limited resolution space.
making it in illustrator and downscaling it may result in arbitrary antialiasing that may not look good, mainly in LED panels. the finest way to ...
You seem to have been given the raster version of the logo.
Tell them you need the vector version.
The most common type of vector file type for websites is .svg
Some other common vector file types are .ai, .eps
The most common raster file type for websites is .png
Some other common raster file types are .jpg, .tiff
It seems like you're noticing an RGB colour management issue.
PNGs saved from Photoshop can't have ICC Colour Profiles attached (the PNG format supports it, but PNGs with profiles are very rare).
If you'd like what's shown in the Windows photo viewer to match Photoshop, then you'll need to set up Photoshop in a way that it doesn't colour manage RGB images.
I would take a different approach to this, because the task is like wishing for the moon. There's no unicorn filter in Photoshop yet. (And I'm surprised nobody has so far pointed out that Photoshop's pixel limit for a PSD is 30,000 in either dimension, so 86,400 would only be achievable by slicing the image into separate files and enlarging those.)
Yes! You can do this from command line (using the Terminal app) with ImageMagick.
After you install ImageMagick, navigate to the directory where your picture is located and run the following command:
identify -verbose yourimage.jpg | grep -i quality
Where yourimage.jpg is the name of the image.
And you should get the value which indicates the image ...