I simply state:
"Send me the absolute largest image(s) you have."
This, most of the time, gets me much better files. By specifically using the term "largest" it allows the client to interpret that how they wish -- whether they see "largest" as meaning biggest dimensions or most memory (MB) doesn't particularly matter. Either ...
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 ...
It's a never ending battle that you really won't ever win.
However I have found the simplest method is to begin by telling clients you can't use a screenshot for print. Don't sugar coat it. Don't apologize. Don't try to explain the technicalities (they likely won't understand anyway). Don't try to explain how to send an email attachment. Don't try to explain ...
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.
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 ...
NoHalo and LoHalo are the new GEGL samplers, developed by Nicolas Robidoux to reduce the blur in the resampled images.
NoHalo level 1 consists of one diagonal straightening subdivision followed by bilinear interpolation, as described in this paper:
Like many edge-enhancing methods, Nohalo has two main stages: first,
nonlinear interpolation is used to create ...
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.
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 ...
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)
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 ...
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 ...
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
For more information on the difference ...
There is nothing wrong. What you are describing is completely normal, and to be expected. Since you are relatively new to this, your confusion is understandable. The reason this happens is not obvious.
To begin with, JPEGs are not RAW images. JPEG is a format which has lossy compression. RAW images are unprocessed images from a camera, such as NEF, CR2, or ...
You can use Gimp to open the JPEGs and save them with less quality.
See in Make JPGs smaller.
You can make your jpegs smaller without changing the pixel width of
In the JPEG Save Dialog, you can opt for GIMP defaults which reduce
the size quite a bit, without hurting the visual quality in a way that
you can detect. This would be ...
If you really are sensitive to the quality then you should avoid JPEG. You already lost quality when the original image was saved as JPEG and nothing can bring this quality back. In general, you should avoid saving your documents out to JPEG unless you are shipping the images off somewhere in their final form.
It's hard to say whether the quality suffers ...
The "original size" you are seeing isn't a JPEG, it'll be either a PSD or a TIFF. Photoshop isn't looking at the original file, it's looking at the image that's currently open in the application, and that's an uncompressed image.
The reason why you're seeing a larger file size when you try to save a new JPEG version is that the JPEG you're working with is ...