This is Interesting: Free Magazines for Graphics designers and webmasters
Home > Archive > Adobe Illustrator > September 2004 > Jagged edges?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
|
| I have a client's logo that is a .jpg and it looks fine in all my other
graphics programs. When I open or place it in Illustrator so I can add
text, the edges are jagged and I have a slight shadow behind some parts.
I am using Illustrator 8.0 and I am fairly new to this program. Also, I
can't find where to change this graphic between RGB and CMYK.
Thanks in advance for any help,
Pam
| |
|
| in article Pi50d.11651$w%6.10845@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net, Pam at
pl@ix.netcom.com wrote on 09/09/2004 4:03 PM:
> I have a client's logo that is a .jpg and it looks fine in all my other
> graphics programs. When I open or place it in Illustrator so I can add
> text, the edges are jagged and I have a slight shadow behind some parts.
>
> I am using Illustrator 8.0 and I am fairly new to this program. Also, I
> can't find where to change this graphic between RGB and CMYK.
>
> Thanks in advance for any help,
> Pam
>
>
How much are you being paid?
And the reason someone should help you with your project for free is...?
| |
|
| "dave" <dyarnall@chump.net> wrote in message
news:BD6630C0.124DBB%dyarnall@chump.net...
> in article Pi50d.11651$w%6.10845@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net, Pam at
> pl@ix.netcom.com wrote on 09/09/2004 4:03 PM:
>
>
> How much are you being paid?
>
> And the reason someone should help you with your project for free is...?
>
Excuse me, but I thought the purpose of these newsgroups was to help each
other and share our knowledge. I answer questions when I can in other
groups and never ask for compensation. If you must know I am not being paid
anything for this job. I told one of our regular clients I would help him
out with this job since I am new to this program.
Your answer above infers that everyone asking questions in this and all
other groups are just people using all these programs for their personal
use? That is absurd, to say the least. We are all here trying to learn a
bit, make the creative process easier and more productive and share a bit of
our knowledge with others - and most of us are working for a living!
Pam
| |
| arrooke 2004-09-09, 11:14 pm |
|
> I have a client's logo that is a .jpg and it looks fine in all my other
> graphics programs. When I open or place it in Illustrator so I can add
> text, the edges are jagged and I have a slight shadow behind some parts.
>
> I am using Illustrator 8.0 and I am fairly new to this program. Also, I
> can't find where to change this graphic between RGB and CMYK.
>
> Thanks in advance for any help,
> Pam
>
Hi Pam,
Couple things you could try to start with. Can you check what the resolution
is on the JPG? If it's less than, say 150 ppi, you could have a problem
because the resolution is to low to print sharp. If it's above that you can
likely work with it.
First I would recommend saving it as an EPS and working with that. Try
printing the JPG (or EPS). If it looks good in print, don't worry about what
it looks like on screen.
If it prints lousy, you may have to re-make the image. Of course a lot
depends on what the image is and whether you are able to re-create it.
Keith.
| |
|
| Keith,
I have tried saving it a couple of different ways, and it still looks the
same. How do I check to see what kind of resolution a .jpg has?
Thanks for your help,
Pam
"arrooke" <zarrookez@zsympaticoz.cza> wrote in message
news:hC60d.28833$lP4.1807285@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
>
> Hi Pam,
>
> Couple things you could try to start with. Can you check what the
resolution
> is on the JPG? If it's less than, say 150 ppi, you could have a problem
> because the resolution is to low to print sharp. If it's above that you
can
> likely work with it.
> First I would recommend saving it as an EPS and working with that. Try
> printing the JPG (or EPS). If it looks good in print, don't worry about
what
> it looks like on screen.
> If it prints lousy, you may have to re-make the image. Of course a lot
> depends on what the image is and whether you are able to re-create it.
>
> Keith.
>
>
| |
| TheOne 2004-09-09, 11:14 pm |
| in article KB50d.2284$xA1.310@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net, Pam at
pl@ix.netcom.com wrote on 09/09/2004 4:23 PM:
> Excuse me, but I thought the purpose of these newsgroups was to help each
> other and share our knowledge.
How you choose to see this -- or any newsgroup -- is up to you, but your
opinion of how YOU are going to use the newsgroup does not restrict how
other people use the newsgroup.
If someone wants to charge for his help, they are perfectly within their
rights to do so.
You are able to give your help away for free, if you choose.
The two options are able to be in the same newsgroup. Your choice does not
stop someone else from doing as they wish, and their choices don't stop you.
> I answer questions when I can ...
So what? Why is that important to anyone but YOU?
> If you must know I am not being paid
> anything for this job.
That is your choice. Why must someone else be limited by your choice?
> Your answer above infers that everyone...
It does not "infer" anything of the sort.
> We are all here...
You are not in a position to say what "we are all here" to do or not do.
You have a lot to learn about Usenet.
| |
| arrooke 2004-09-09, 11:14 pm |
|
> Keith,
> I have tried saving it a couple of different ways, and it still looks the
> same. How do I check to see what kind of resolution a .jpg has?
> Thanks for your help,
> Pam
>
If you have Photoshop: Image > Image Size
Most Image viewers will give you image size. I use IrfanView, which will
tell you under the: Image > Resize/Resample menu. Others are usually
similar.
If it's pixilated when you print it, you may as well give up, or re-do it.
Keith.
| |
| iehsmith 2004-09-09, 11:14 pm |
| On 9/9/04 9:16 PM, Pam uttered:
> Keith,
> I have tried saving it a couple of different ways, and it still looks the
> same. How do I check to see what kind of resolution a .jpg has?
> Thanks for your help,
> Pam
Pam,
What other programs do you have? Photoshop, PaintShop Pro....?
I don't know about AI 8, but in AI 9 you can place your image on a page,
then go under File: Document Info: Embedded Image. This will tell you the
Resolution and other information. It won't tell you the original image color
mode though as it sort of translates the image to whatever mode your
document is in.
I like knowing exactly what I've got to begin with, so I would open it in
Photoshop and look under Image:Mode to check the color and Image Size to
check the resolution.
Oh, and if you come to feel the need for a kinder, gentle newsgroup; the
adobe forums can be accessed through NNTP after you register. Those groups
are administered. I enjoy most of the participants here though, and
sometimes even the occasional argument, just to break the monotony;) Then,
there's always killfile:)
Keith,
In Illy, if you place an image that's large in dimension but is low
resolution and you scale it down, doesn't Illy (can't think of the term)...
but the ppi goes up when the dimensions are scaled down... right?
inez
| |
|
| Keith, thanks for your help. It's not pixilated when it prints, so maybe it
might work.
Pam
"arrooke" <zarrookez@zsympaticoz.cza> wrote in message
news:pV70d.40689$Nd6.1124421@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
>
the[color=darkred]
> If you have Photoshop: Image > Image Size
> Most Image viewers will give you image size. I use IrfanView, which will
> tell you under the: Image > Resize/Resample menu. Others are usually
> similar.
> If it's pixilated when you print it, you may as well give up, or re-do it.
> Keith.
>
>
| |
|
| I don't want this cause any problems here, but all I was trying to do today
was to get a little help with a program I am just starting to work with. I
thought that was what these groups were for. If that's not the purpose, then
I don't know what it is. I don't know what has changed here, but one request
below was met with the response to read the manual. If the manual explained
everything, then we wouldn't need groups like this one. Sorry if I was
doing what everyone else was.
I don't think I have a lot to learn about Usenet. I think my first response
was correct - we are all here to help and learn from each other. And I
don't need to learn anything at all from someone who calls themselves
TheOne. I know this will probably elicit another rude response, but I can
only be responsible for my own comments, which I think have been put forth
in a respectful way.
"TheOne" <TheOne@One.com> wrote in message
news:BD665041.124F0D%TheOne@One.com...
> in article KB50d.2284$xA1.310@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net, Pam at
> pl@ix.netcom.com wrote on 09/09/2004 4:23 PM:
>
>
each[color=darkred]
>
> How you choose to see this -- or any newsgroup -- is up to you, but your
> opinion of how YOU are going to use the newsgroup does not restrict how
> other people use the newsgroup.
>
> If someone wants to charge for his help, they are perfectly within their
> rights to do so.
>
> You are able to give your help away for free, if you choose.
>
> The two options are able to be in the same newsgroup. Your choice does
not
> stop someone else from doing as they wish, and their choices don't stop
you.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> So what? Why is that important to anyone but YOU?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> That is your choice. Why must someone else be limited by your choice?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> It does not "infer" anything of the sort.
>
>
>
>
>
> You are not in a position to say what "we are all here" to do or not do.
>
>
> You have a lot to learn about Usenet.
>
>
>
| |
|
| Inez, thanks for the comments. I do have PhotoShop, so I will try looking
at the graphic there first. I have checked out the other forum, too.
Pam
"iehsmith" <inezhsmithspammenot@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:BD667885.260D6%inezhsmithspammenot@earthlink.net...
> On 9/9/04 9:16 PM, Pam uttered:
>
the[color=darkred]
>
>
> Pam,
>
> What other programs do you have? Photoshop, PaintShop Pro....?
> I don't know about AI 8, but in AI 9 you can place your image on a page,
> then go under File: Document Info: Embedded Image. This will tell you the
> Resolution and other information. It won't tell you the original image
color
> mode though as it sort of translates the image to whatever mode your
> document is in.
>
> I like knowing exactly what I've got to begin with, so I would open it in
> Photoshop and look under Image:Mode to check the color and Image Size to
> check the resolution.
>
> Oh, and if you come to feel the need for a kinder, gentle newsgroup; the
> adobe forums can be accessed through NNTP after you register. Those groups
> are administered. I enjoy most of the participants here though, and
> sometimes even the occasional argument, just to break the monotony;) Then,
> there's always killfile:)
>
>
> Keith,
>
> In Illy, if you place an image that's large in dimension but is low
> resolution and you scale it down, doesn't Illy (can't think of the
term)...
> but the ppi goes up when the dimensions are scaled down... right?
>
> inez
>
| |
| arrooke 2004-09-10, 4:14 am |
|
> Pam,
>
> What other programs do you have? Photoshop, PaintShop Pro....?
> I don't know about AI 8, but in AI 9 you can place your image on a page,
> then go under File: Document Info: Embedded Image. This will tell you the
> Resolution and other information. It won't tell you the original image
color
> mode though as it sort of translates the image to whatever mode your
> document is in.
>
> I like knowing exactly what I've got to begin with, so I would open it in
> Photoshop and look under Image:Mode to check the color and Image Size to
> check the resolution.
>
> Oh, and if you come to feel the need for a kinder, gentle newsgroup; the
> adobe forums can be accessed through NNTP after you register. Those groups
> are administered. I enjoy most of the participants here though, and
> sometimes even the occasional argument, just to break the monotony;) Then,
> there's always killfile:)
>
>
> Keith,
>
> In Illy, if you place an image that's large in dimension but is low
> resolution and you scale it down, doesn't Illy (can't think of the
term)...
> but the ppi goes up when the dimensions are scaled down... right?
>
> inez
>
Hi Inez,
I'm not sure. Theroretically I suppose it would, or could. But I'm thinking
that in Photoshop it doesn't, unless you deselect resample image.
OK. Now you've made me drag out my hard copy manual. It was on the bottom of
the pile. I hope you're pleased with yourself.
First I stumbled across what could be the obvious and simplest solution to
Pam's problem. It could be that she has her monitor at too high a
magnification.
Pam, if you're still with us. Be sure you are viewing your image in
Illustrator at 100%, otherwise it is bound to look pixilated. That was so
easy Inez should have thought of it!
So far as resampling. Like most manuals, it didn't really answer the
question. Not on the pages I looked at. However I got the impression that
Illustrator, being a vector program, doesn't do anything to alter
resolution. Therefore a 72 ppi image will remain at 72 ppi. If you scale the
image smaller, you should in theory gain more detail.
If it's a really intricate image, this might not be all good news. But if
it's your basic shitty image, it can't hurt. You'd be ending up with more
ppi in a given area. However the ppi would not be detail quality ppi. It
would be more akin to interpolated ppi.
Got that straight?!
Pam, if I were you I would still re-save that JPG as EPS and work with it.
EPS will retain any quality you have better than JPG will. It will also hold
your colours better for final output to print.
Unless of course, it's for internet use. In which case keep the JPG.
Keith.
| |
| arrooke 2004-09-10, 4:14 am |
| As a general rule of thumb; the amount of rude comments coming from someone
is inversely proportional to the amount of knowledge the person has on a
subject.
Kind of like a weightlifters' muscles in proportion to the size of their
brain.
Keith.
| |
| iehsmith 2004-09-10, 4:14 am |
| On 9/9/04 10:52 PM, arrooke uttered:
> Hi Inez,
> I'm not sure. Theroretically I suppose it would, or could. But I'm thinking
> that in Photoshop it doesn't, unless you deselect resample image.
Yes, I've frequently done this in PS with resampling unticked.
> OK. Now you've made me drag out my hard copy manual. It was on the bottom of
> the pile. I hope you're pleased with yourself.
Extremely:D
> First I stumbled across what could be the obvious and simplest solution to
> Pam's problem. It could be that she has her monitor at too high a
> magnification.
> Pam, if you're still with us. Be sure you are viewing your image in
> Illustrator at 100%, otherwise it is bound to look pixilated. That was so
> easy Inez should have thought of it!
OMG! I missed the obvious??? :P
> So far as resampling. Like most manuals, it didn't really answer the
> question. Not on the pages I looked at. However I got the impression that
> Illustrator, being a vector program, doesn't do anything to alter
> resolution. Therefore a 72 ppi image will remain at 72 ppi. If you scale the
> image smaller, you should in theory gain more detail.
> If it's a really intricate image, this might not be all good news. But if
> it's your basic shitty image, it can't hurt. You'd be ending up with more
> ppi in a given area. However the ppi would not be detail quality ppi. It
> would be more akin to interpolated ppi.
> Got that straight?!
Got it! Actually, in the meantime I tested it with the Document Info window
open. Sure 'nough shows the res go up as the scale goes down. Wouldn't want
to use that as a method unless forced by time constraints though. Pretty
sure it works that way in Quark and InDesign too.
Ashamed so many clients think you can use their web logos for print; or
worse, a fax.
Thank you Keith:)
inez
| |
| TheOne 2004-09-10, 4:14 am |
| in article %k80d.11796$w%6.5064@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net, Pam at
pl@ix.netcom.com wrote on 09/09/2004 7:30 PM:
> I don't want this cause any problems here...
Do you actually think you have the power to "cause" anything to happen in a
newsgroup? You really are confused about how newsgroups work.
> I thought that was what these groups were for.
Little news for you, each person decides how they will use the newsgroup.
There is no one purpose for a newsgroup. There is no "one way" that the
newsgroup has to be used. Maybe you had not figured that out yet.
> If that's not the purpose...
There is no "THE" purpose concerning a newsgroup.
> Sorry if I was
> doing what everyone else was.
You are not "sorry" at all, so there is no need to lie.
>
> I don't think I have a lot to learn about Usenet.
You're funny.
> I think my first response
> was correct - we are all here to help and learn from each other.
You are not in a position to say what "we all are here for".
> And I
> don't need to learn anything at all from someone who calls themselves
> TheOne.
You are already in the process of learning.
> I know this will probably elicit another rude response...
How "rude" you think my responses are is totally up to you.
> I can
> only be responsible for my own comments...
Good. I am glad you are aware that I am not responsible for your comments.
I suggest that you not continue writing to me. You seem to be bothered by
my attitude, so it is probably best that you just move on.
| |
| TheOne 2004-09-10, 4:14 am |
| in article ON80d.29819$lP4.1874733@news20.bellglobal.com, arrooke at
zarrookez@zsympaticoz.cza wrote on 09/09/2004 8:01 PM:
> As a general rule of thumb; the amount of rude comments coming from someone
> is inversely proportional to the amount of knowledge the person has on a
> subject.
Thus we have your following rude comment.
> Kind of like a weightlifters' muscles in proportion to the size of
> their brain.
hahahahaha.
You're funny too.
| |
|
| Keith & Inez,
Thanks so much for the follow up on this. The obvious problem Keith pointed
out was part of it. The client sent this to me and it opened in Illustrator
at 110% and I didn't notice that at all. The other problem is that the
graphic is only 72dpi - the client is going to get me the original graphics
file tomorrow and I should have better luck with that. I have version 8.0
so I don't have the Document Info window that Inez is talking about, will
have to see about upgrading, too.
Pam
"iehsmith" <inezhsmithspammenot@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:BD6699C3.261D0%inezhsmithspammenot@earthlink.net...
> On 9/9/04 10:52 PM, arrooke uttered:
>
thinking[color=darkred]
>
> Yes, I've frequently done this in PS with resampling unticked.
>
bottom of[color=darkred]
>
> Extremely:D
>
to[color=darkred]
so[color=darkred]
>
> OMG! I missed the obvious??? :P
>
that[color=darkred]
the[color=darkred]
if[color=darkred]
more[color=darkred]
>
> Got it! Actually, in the meantime I tested it with the Document Info
window
> open. Sure 'nough shows the res go up as the scale goes down. Wouldn't
want
> to use that as a method unless forced by time constraints though. Pretty
> sure it works that way in Quark and InDesign too.
>
> Ashamed so many clients think you can use their web logos for print; or
> worse, a fax.
>
> Thank you Keith:)
> inez
>
| |
| TheOne 2004-09-10, 4:14 am |
| in article gpa0d.2503$xA1.658@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net, Pam at
pl@ix.netcom.com wrote on 09/09/2004 9:51 PM:
> The client sent this to me and it opened in Illustrator
> at 110% and I didn't notice that at all.
hahahahaha.
Are you sure you had your computer plugged in and you were not looking at a
crayon drawing taped to the screen?
| |
| Orchid 2004-09-10, 7:14 am |
| Pam <pl@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> I have a client's logo that is a .jpg and it looks fine in all my other
> graphics programs. When I open or place it in Illustrator so I can add
> text, the edges are jagged and I have a slight shadow behind some parts.
>
> I am using Illustrator 8.0 and I am fairly new to this program. Also, I
> can't find where to change this graphic between RGB and CMYK.
I haven't used Illustrator 8.0 for quite awhile but it may have
something akin to Pagemaker's options for a different quality previews
of an image to save memory. This is a long shot but you might want to
check the preferences or view menu to see if there is an option for a
higher or lower quality preview.
As others have mentioned, since it prints fine, how it looks on screen
doesn't really matter.
Orchid
| |
| arrooke 2004-09-10, 7:14 am |
|
>
> Ashamed so many clients think you can use their web logos for print; or
> worse, a fax.
>
I used to work at a place that would fax proofs. Despite that I might have
has a PDF proof ready to go. They would actually print the PDF and fax it.
Old habits die hard.
Even more illogical would be that people would sign off on it and fax it
back, by which time you couldn't even read half of it.
Keith
| |
| arrooke 2004-09-10, 7:14 am |
|
> Keith & Inez,
> Thanks so much for the follow up on this. The obvious problem Keith
pointed
> out was part of it. The client sent this to me and it opened in
Illustrator
> at 110% and I didn't notice that at all. The other problem is that the
> graphic is only 72dpi - the client is going to get me the original
graphics
> file tomorrow and I should have better luck with that. I have version 8.0
> so I don't have the Document Info window that Inez is talking about, will
> have to see about upgrading, too.
> Pam
>
That's good! Sounds like you're fixed & ready to move on. You have Photoshop
so you can check out your images there. Version 10 is a worthwhile upgrade
though - or CS (11).
K.
| |
| arrooke 2004-09-10, 7:14 am |
| > > The client sent this to me and it opened in Illustrator
>
>
> hahahahaha.
>
> Are you sure you had your computer plugged in and you were not looking at
a
> crayon drawing taped to the screen?
>
I've seen some peoples screens, who might be better off looking at a crayon
drawing. Kind of makes you wonder what people are seeing when you send them
a proof.
K.
| |
| arrooke 2004-09-10, 7:14 am |
| > As others have mentioned, since it prints fine, how it looks on screen
> doesn't really matter.
>
> Orchid
I wonder how much this would confuse most clients. You know, the ones who
say . . ."but it looks good on my monitor. . .".
K.
| |
| iehsmith 2004-09-10, 12:14 pm |
| On 9/10/04 5:31 AM, arrooke uttered:
> I used to work at a place that would fax proofs. Despite that I might have
> has a PDF proof ready to go. They would actually print the PDF and fax it.
> Old habits die hard.
> Even more illogical would be that people would sign off on it and fax it
> back, by which time you couldn't even read half of it.
> Keith
Yup. That was the normal procedure at the newspaper for proofing ads. But
then, the way they had us do ads, they were just as well faxed:\
I do worry about what clients see on screen, whether it's PDF or web image.
inez
| |
| Stuart 2004-09-10, 7:14 pm |
| Pam wrote:
> I have a client's logo that is a .jpg and it looks fine in all my other
> graphics programs. When I open or place it in Illustrator so I can add
> text, the edges are jagged and I have a slight shadow behind some parts.
You should not be using a jpeg format for logos. Data is removed from a
jpeg every time it is saved and cannot be recovered, so your image
slowly deteriorates with every save. Jpeg should only be used when a
file needs to be small and of a passable quality (web and transferring
via email). Your jpeg may look okay when printed on an inkjet printer
but a professional printer will show up the poor quality.
> I am using Illustrator 8.0 and I am fairly new to this program. Also, I
> can't find where to change this graphic between RGB and CMYK.
This is something you can do in Photoshop or any other raster package,
not something that Illustrator is there to do.
> Thanks in advance for any help,
> Pam
You need to ask for a vector version of the file or recreate it in
Illustrator in vector form, preferably in CMYK.
Stuart
| |
| Hecate 2004-09-10, 11:14 pm |
| On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 05:43:14 -0400, "arrooke"
<zarrookez@zsympaticoz.cza> wrote:
>
>I wonder how much this would confuse most clients. You know, the ones who
>say . . ."but it looks good on my monitor. . .".
>K.
>
That would be the 22" CRT the Director has set at 800x600...? ;-)
--
Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui
| |
|
| Don't think I've ever heard such an amount of pompous spouting of
self-important drivel, masquerading as an zen-like open-ended
interpretation. Someone asks for some help, and you try to belittle them
with lack of knowledge of newsgroup etiquette? Why? How will that help YOU?
Pam, if you want to email me with a little more detail, I'd be happy to
help. That is, after all, what newsgroups are for ;-)
Everyone needs a little help sometimes: anyone who says otherwise is
fooling themselves...
| |
| MinorityOpinion 2004-09-13, 7:14 pm |
| On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 13:13:21 -0700, Turts wrote
(in article <Bbn1d.370$MZ1.360@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net> ):
> I'd be happy to
> help. That is, after all, what newsgroups are for ...
You only get to decide for yourself how you will use the newsgroup. I
choose to use the newsgroup to play with goofy people ... people just like
you.
Want to play more?
| |
| arrooke 2004-09-14, 12:14 pm |
|
>
> Ashamed so many clients think you can use their web logos for print; or
> worse, a fax.
>
I used to work at a place that would fax proofs. Despite that I might have
has a PDF proof ready to go. They would actually print the PDF and fax it.
Old habits die hard.
Even more illogical would be that people would sign off on it and fax it
back, by which time you couldn't even read half of it.
Keith
| |
| michael 2004-09-15, 4:14 am |
| > > In Illy, if you place an image that's large in dimension but is low
> term)...
>
> Hi Inez,
> I'm not sure. Theroretically I suppose it would, or could. But I'm
thinking
> that in Photoshop it doesn't, unless you deselect resample image.
> So far as resampling. Like most manuals, it didn't really answer the
> question. Not on the pages I looked at. However I got the impression that
> Illustrator, being a vector program, doesn't do anything to alter
> resolution. Therefore a 72 ppi image will remain at 72 ppi. If you scale
the
> image smaller, you should in theory gain more detail.
> If it's a really intricate image, this might not be all good news. But if
> it's your basic shitty image, it can't hurt. You'd be ending up with more
> ppi in a given area. However the ppi would not be detail quality ppi. It
> would be more akin to interpolated ppi.
If you shrink the image in Illy, it will print with a higher resolution
though technically the resolution will stay the same. In Photoshop you have
to make sure you are resizing it with the option to resample off to get the
best results (unless you are trying to make it bigger then...well, good
luck).
The best thing is to let Photoshop do the resolution sizing. Open the
image, go to image size, click off resample and type in 300 for the
resolution, that will tell you how big the size can be at that resolution.
Hope that makes sense.
mb
| |
|
| in article Pi50d.11651$w%6.10845@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net, Pam at
pl@ix.netcom.com wrote on 09/09/2004 4:03 PM:
> I have a client's logo that is a .jpg and it looks fine in all my other
> graphics programs. When I open or place it in Illustrator so I can add
> text, the edges are jagged and I have a slight shadow behind some parts.
>
> I am using Illustrator 8.0 and I am fairly new to this program. Also, I
> can't find where to change this graphic between RGB and CMYK.
>
> Thanks in advance for any help,
> Pam
>
>
How much are you being paid?
And the reason someone should help you with your project for free is...?
| |
|
| "dave" <dyarnall@chump.net> wrote in message
news:BD6630C0.124DBB%dyarnall@chump.net...
> in article Pi50d.11651$w%6.10845@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net, Pam at
> pl@ix.netcom.com wrote on 09/09/2004 4:03 PM:
>
>
> How much are you being paid?
>
> And the reason someone should help you with your project for free is...?
>
Excuse me, but I thought the purpose of these newsgroups was to help each
other and share our knowledge. I answer questions when I can in other
groups and never ask for compensation. If you must know I am not being paid
anything for this job. I told one of our regular clients I would help him
out with this job since I am new to this program.
Your answer above infers that everyone asking questions in this and all
other groups are just people using all these programs for their personal
use? That is absurd, to say the least. We are all here trying to learn a
bit, make the creative process easier and more productive and share a bit of
our knowledge with others - and most of us are working for a living!
Pam
| |
| arrooke 2004-09-15, 12:14 pm |
|
> I have a client's logo that is a .jpg and it looks fine in all my other
> graphics programs. When I open or place it in Illustrator so I can add
> text, the edges are jagged and I have a slight shadow behind some parts.
>
> I am using Illustrator 8.0 and I am fairly new to this program. Also, I
> can't find where to change this graphic between RGB and CMYK.
>
> Thanks in advance for any help,
> Pam
>
Hi Pam,
Couple things you could try to start with. Can you check what the resolution
is on the JPG? If it's less than, say 150 ppi, you could have a problem
because the resolution is to low to print sharp. If it's above that you can
likely work with it.
First I would recommend saving it as an EPS and working with that. Try
printing the JPG (or EPS). If it looks good in print, don't worry about what
it looks like on screen.
If it prints lousy, you may have to re-make the image. Of course a lot
depends on what the image is and whether you are able to re-create it.
Keith.
| |
|
| Keith,
I have tried saving it a couple of different ways, and it still looks the
same. How do I check to see what kind of resolution a .jpg has?
Thanks for your help,
Pam
"arrooke" <zarrookez@zsympaticoz.cza> wrote in message
news:hC60d.28833$lP4.1807285@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
>
> Hi Pam,
>
> Couple things you could try to start with. Can you check what the
resolution
> is on the JPG? If it's less than, say 150 ppi, you could have a problem
> because the resolution is to low to print sharp. If it's above that you
can
> likely work with it.
> First I would recommend saving it as an EPS and working with that. Try
> printing the JPG (or EPS). If it looks good in print, don't worry about
what
> it looks like on screen.
> If it prints lousy, you may have to re-make the image. Of course a lot
> depends on what the image is and whether you are able to re-create it.
>
> Keith.
>
>
| |
| TheOne 2004-09-15, 12:14 pm |
| in article KB50d.2284$xA1.310@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net, Pam at
pl@ix.netcom.com wrote on 09/09/2004 4:23 PM:
> Excuse me, but I thought the purpose of these newsgroups was to help each
> other and share our knowledge.
How you choose to see this -- or any newsgroup -- is up to you, but your
opinion of how YOU are going to use the newsgroup does not restrict how
other people use the newsgroup.
If someone wants to charge for his help, they are perfectly within their
rights to do so.
You are able to give your help away for free, if you choose.
The two options are able to be in the same newsgroup. Your choice does not
stop someone else from doing as they wish, and their choices don't stop you.
> I answer questions when I can ...
So what? Why is that important to anyone but YOU?
> If you must know I am not being paid
> anything for this job.
That is your choice. Why must someone else be limited by your choice?
> Your answer above infers that everyone...
It does not "infer" anything of the sort.
> We are all here...
You are not in a position to say what "we are all here" to do or not do.
You have a lot to learn about Usenet.
| |
| arrooke 2004-09-15, 12:14 pm |
|
> Keith,
> I have tried saving it a couple of different ways, and it still looks the
> same. How do I check to see what kind of resolution a .jpg has?
> Thanks for your help,
> Pam
>
If you have Photoshop: Image > Image Size
Most Image viewers will give you image size. I use IrfanView, which will
tell you under the: Image > Resize/Resample menu. Others are usually
similar.
If it's pixilated when you print it, you may as well give up, or re-do it.
Keith.
| |
| iehsmith 2004-09-15, 12:14 pm |
| On 9/9/04 9:16 PM, Pam uttered:
> Keith,
> I have tried saving it a couple of different ways, and it still looks the
> same. How do I check to see what kind of resolution a .jpg has?
> Thanks for your help,
> Pam
Pam,
What other programs do you have? Photoshop, PaintShop Pro....?
I don't know about AI 8, but in AI 9 you can place your image on a page,
then go under File: Document Info: Embedded Image. This will tell you the
Resolution and other information. It won't tell you the original image color
mode though as it sort of translates the image to whatever mode your
document is in.
I like knowing exactly what I've got to begin with, so I would open it in
Photoshop and look under Image:Mode to check the color and Image Size to
check the resolution.
Oh, and if you come to feel the need for a kinder, gentle newsgroup; the
adobe forums can be accessed through NNTP after you register. Those groups
are administered. I enjoy most of the participants here though, and
sometimes even the occasional argument, just to break the monotony;) Then,
there's always killfile:)
Keith,
In Illy, if you place an image that's large in dimension but is low
resolution and you scale it down, doesn't Illy (can't think of the term)...
but the ppi goes up when the dimensions are scaled down... right?
inez
| |
|
| Keith, thanks for your help. It's not pixilated when it prints, so maybe it
might work.
Pam
"arrooke" <zarrookez@zsympaticoz.cza> wrote in message
news:pV70d.40689$Nd6.1124421@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
>
the[color=darkred]
> If you have Photoshop: Image > Image Size
> Most Image viewers will give you image size. I use IrfanView, which will
> tell you under the: Image > Resize/Resample menu. Others are usually
> similar.
> If it's pixilated when you print it, you may as well give up, or re-do it.
> Keith.
>
>
| |
|
| I don't want this cause any problems here, but all I was trying to do today
was to get a little help with a program I am just starting to work with. I
thought that was what these groups were for. If that's not the purpose, then
I don't know what it is. I don't know what has changed here, but one request
below was met with the response to read the manual. If the manual explained
everything, then we wouldn't need groups like this one. Sorry if I was
doing what everyone else was.
I don't think I have a lot to learn about Usenet. I think my first response
was correct - we are all here to help and learn from each other. And I
don't need to learn anything at all from someone who calls themselves
TheOne. I know this will probably elicit another rude response, but I can
only be responsible for my own comments, which I think have been put forth
in a respectful way.
"TheOne" <TheOne@One.com> wrote in message
news:BD665041.124F0D%TheOne@One.com...
> in article KB50d.2284$xA1.310@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net, Pam at
> pl@ix.netcom.com wrote on 09/09/2004 4:23 PM:
>
>
each[color=darkred]
>
> How you choose to see this -- or any newsgroup -- is up to you, but your
> opinion of how YOU are going to use the newsgroup does not restrict how
> other people use the newsgroup.
>
> If someone wants to charge for his help, they are perfectly within their
> rights to do so.
>
> You are able to give your help away for free, if you choose.
>
> The two options are able to be in the same newsgroup. Your choice does
not
> stop someone else from doing as they wish, and their choices don't stop
you.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> So what? Why is that important to anyone but YOU?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> That is your choice. Why must someone else be limited by your choice?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> It does not "infer" anything of the sort.
>
>
>
>
>
> You are not in a position to say what "we are all here" to do or not do.
>
>
> You have a lot to learn about Usenet.
>
>
>
| |
|
| Inez, thanks for the comments. I do have PhotoShop, so I will try looking
at the graphic there first. I have checked out the other forum, too.
Pam
"iehsmith" <inezhsmithspammenot@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:BD667885.260D6%inezhsmithspammenot@earthlink.net...
> On 9/9/04 9:16 PM, Pam uttered:
>
the[color=darkred]
>
>
> Pam,
>
> What other programs do you have? Photoshop, PaintShop Pro....?
> I don't know about AI 8, but in AI 9 you can place your image on a page,
> then go under File: Document Info: Embedded Image. This will tell you the
> Resolution and other information. It won't tell you the original image
color
> mode though as it sort of translates the image to whatever mode your
> document is in.
>
> I like knowing exactly what I've got to begin with, so I would open it in
> Photoshop and look under Image:Mode to check the color and Image Size to
> check the resolution.
>
> Oh, and if you come to feel the need for a kinder, gentle newsgroup; the
> adobe forums can be accessed through NNTP after you register. Those groups
> are administered. I enjoy most of the participants here though, and
> sometimes even the occasional argument, just to break the monotony;) Then,
> there's always killfile:)
>
>
> Keith,
>
> In Illy, if you place an image that's large in dimension but is low
> resolution and you scale it down, doesn't Illy (can't think of the
term)...
> but the ppi goes up when the dimensions are scaled down... right?
>
> inez
>
| |
| arrooke 2004-09-15, 7:14 pm |
|
> Pam,
>
> What other programs do you have? Photoshop, PaintShop Pro....?
> I don't know about AI 8, but in AI 9 you can place your image on a page,
> then go under File: Document Info: Embedded Image. This will tell you the
> Resolution and other information. It won't tell you the original image
color
> mode though as it sort of translates the image to whatever mode your
> document is in.
>
> I like knowing exactly what I've got to begin with, so I would open it in
> Photoshop and look under Image:Mode to check the color and Image Size to
> check the resolution.
>
> Oh, and if you come to feel the need for a kinder, gentle newsgroup; the
> adobe forums can be accessed through NNTP after you register. Those groups
> are administered. I enjoy most of the participants here though, and
> sometimes even the occasional argument, just to break the monotony;) Then,
> there's always killfile:)
>
>
> Keith,
>
> In Illy, if you place an image that's large in dimension but is low
> resolution and you scale it down, doesn't Illy (can't think of the
term)...
> but the ppi goes up when the dimensions are scaled down... right?
>
> inez
>
Hi Inez,
I'm not sure. Theroretically I suppose it would, or could. But I'm thinking
that in Photoshop it doesn't, unless you deselect resample image.
OK. Now you've made me drag out my hard copy manual. It was on the bottom of
the pile. I hope you're pleased with yourself.
First I stumbled across what could be the obvious and simplest solution to
Pam's problem. It could be that she has her monitor at too high a
magnification.
Pam, if you're still with us. Be sure you are viewing your image in
Illustrator at 100%, otherwise it is bound to look pixilated. That was so
easy Inez should have thought of it!
So far as resampling. Like most manuals, it didn't really answer the
question. Not on the pages I looked at. However I got the impression that
Illustrator, being a vector program, doesn't do anything to alter
resolution. Therefore a 72 ppi image will remain at 72 ppi. If you scale the
image smaller, you should in theory gain more detail.
If it's a really intricate image, this might not be all good news. But if
it's your basic shitty image, it can't hurt. You'd be ending up with more
ppi in a given area. However the ppi would not be detail quality ppi. It
would be more akin to interpolated ppi.
Got that straight?!
Pam, if I were you I would still re-save that JPG as EPS and work with it.
EPS will retain any quality you have better than JPG will. It will also hold
your colours better for final output to print.
Unless of course, it's for internet use. In which case keep the JPG.
Keith.
| |
| arrooke 2004-09-15, 7:14 pm |
| As a general rule of thumb; the amount of rude comments coming from someone
is inversely proportional to the amount of knowledge the person has on a
subject.
Kind of like a weightlifters' muscles in proportion to the size of their
brain.
Keith.
| |
| iehsmith 2004-09-15, 7:14 pm |
| On 9/9/04 10:52 PM, arrooke uttered:
> Hi Inez,
> I'm not sure. Theroretically I suppose it would, or could. But I'm thinking
> that in Photoshop it doesn't, unless you deselect resample image.
Yes, I've frequently done this in PS with resampling unticked.
> OK. Now you've made me drag out my hard copy manual. It was on the bottom of
> the pile. I hope you're pleased with yourself.
Extremely:D
> First I stumbled across what could be the obvious and simplest solution to
> Pam's problem. It could be that she has her monitor at too high a
> magnification.
> Pam, if you're still with us. Be sure you are viewing your image in
> Illustrator at 100%, otherwise it is bound to look pixilated. That was so
> easy Inez should have thought of it!
OMG! I missed the obvious??? :P
> So far as resampling. Like most manuals, it didn't really answer the
> question. Not on the pages I looked at. However I got the impression that
> Illustrator, being a vector program, doesn't do anything to alter
> resolution. Therefore a 72 ppi image will remain at 72 ppi. If you scale the
> image smaller, you should in theory gain more detail.
> If it's a really intricate image, this might not be all good news. But if
> it's your basic shitty image, it can't hurt. You'd be ending up with more
> ppi in a given area. However the ppi would not be detail quality ppi. It
> would be more akin to interpolated ppi.
> Got that straight?!
Got it! Actually, in the meantime I tested it with the Document Info window
open. Sure 'nough shows the res go up as the scale goes down. Wouldn't want
to use that as a method unless forced by time constraints though. Pretty
sure it works that way in Quark and InDesign too.
Ashamed so many clients think you can use their web logos for print; or
worse, a fax.
Thank you Keith:)
inez
| |
|
| Keith & Inez,
Thanks so much for the follow up on this. The obvious problem Keith pointed
out was part of it. The client sent this to me and it opened in Illustrator
at 110% and I didn't notice that at all. The other problem is that the
graphic is only 72dpi - the client is going to get me the original graphics
file tomorrow and I should have better luck with that. I have version 8.0
so I don't have the Document Info window that Inez is talking about, will
have to see about upgrading, too.
Pam
"iehsmith" <inezhsmithspammenot@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:BD6699C3.261D0%inezhsmithspammenot@earthlink.net...
> On 9/9/04 10:52 PM, arrooke uttered:
>
thinking[color=darkred]
>
> Yes, I've frequently done this in PS with resampling unticked.
>
bottom of[color=darkred]
>
> Extremely:D
>
to[color=darkred]
so[color=darkred]
>
> OMG! I missed the obvious??? :P
>
that[color=darkred]
the[color=darkred]
if[color=darkred]
more[color=darkred]
>
> Got it! Actually, in the meantime I tested it with the Document Info
window
> open. Sure 'nough shows the res go up as the scale goes down. Wouldn't
want
> to use that as a method unless forced by time constraints though. Pretty
> sure it works that way in Quark and InDesign too.
>
> Ashamed so many clients think you can use their web logos for print; or
> worse, a fax.
>
> Thank you Keith:)
> inez
>
| |
| TheOne 2004-09-15, 7:14 pm |
| in article %k80d.11796$w%6.5064@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net, Pam at
pl@ix.netcom.com wrote on 09/09/2004 7:30 PM:
> I don't want this cause any problems here...
Do you actually think you have the power to "cause" anything to happen in a
newsgroup? You really are confused about how newsgroups work.
> I thought that was what these groups were for.
Little news for you, each person decides how they will use the newsgroup.
There is no one purpose for a newsgroup. There is no "one way" that the
newsgroup has to be used. Maybe you had not figured that out yet.
> If that's not the purpose...
There is no "THE" purpose concerning a newsgroup.
> Sorry if I was
> doing what everyone else was.
You are not "sorry" at all, so there is no need to lie.
>
> I don't think I have a lot to learn about Usenet.
You're funny.
> I think my first response
> was correct - we are all here to help and learn from each other.
You are not in a position to say what "we all are here for".
> And I
> don't need to learn anything at all from someone who calls themselves
> TheOne.
You are already in the process of learning.
> I know this will probably elicit another rude response...
How "rude" you think my responses are is totally up to you.
> I can
> only be responsible for my own comments...
Good. I am glad you are aware that I am not responsible for your comments.
I suggest that you not continue writing to me. You seem to be bothered by
my attitude, so it is probably best that you just move on.
| |
| TheOne 2004-09-15, 7:14 pm |
| in article ON80d.29819$lP4.1874733@news20.bellglobal.com, arrooke at
zarrookez@zsympaticoz.cza wrote on 09/09/2004 8:01 PM:
> As a general rule of thumb; the amount of rude comments coming from someone
> is inversely proportional to the amount of knowledge the person has on a
> subject.
Thus we have your following rude comment.
> Kind of like a weightlifters' muscles in proportion to the size of
> their brain.
hahahahaha.
You're funny too.
| |
| TheOne 2004-09-15, 7:14 pm |
| in article gpa0d.2503$xA1.658@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net, Pam at
pl@ix.netcom.com wrote on 09/09/2004 9:51 PM:
> The client sent this to me and it opened in Illustrator
> at 110% and I didn't notice that at all.
hahahahaha.
Are you sure you had your computer plugged in and you were not looking at a
crayon drawing taped to the screen?
| |
| Orchid 2004-09-15, 11:14 pm |
| Pam <pl@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> I have a client's logo that is a .jpg and it looks fine in all my other
> graphics programs. When I open or place it in Illustrator so I can add
> text, the edges are jagged and I have a slight shadow behind some parts.
>
> I am using Illustrator 8.0 and I am fairly new to this program. Also, I
> can't find where to change this graphic between RGB and CMYK.
I haven't used Illustrator 8.0 for quite awhile but it may have
something akin to Pagemaker's options for a different quality previews
of an image to save memory. This is a long shot but you might want to
check the preferences or view menu to see if there is an option for a
higher or lower quality preview.
As others have mentioned, since it prints fine, how it looks on screen
doesn't really matter.
Orchid
| |
| arrooke 2004-09-16, 4:14 am |
|
> Keith & Inez,
> Thanks so much for the follow up on this. The obvious problem Keith
pointed
> out was part of it. The client sent this to me and it opened in
Illustrator
> at 110% and I didn't notice that at all. The other problem is that the
> graphic is only 72dpi - the client is going to get me the original
graphics
> file tomorrow and I should have better luck with that. I have version 8.0
> so I don't have the Document Info window that Inez is talking about, will
> have to see about upgrading, too.
> Pam
>
That's good! Sounds like you're fixed & ready to move on. You have Photoshop
so you can check out your images there. Version 10 is a worthwhile upgrade
though - or CS (11).
K.
| |
| arrooke 2004-09-16, 4:14 am |
| > > The client sent this to me and it opened in Illustrator
>
>
> hahahahaha.
>
> Are you sure you had your computer plugged in and you were not looking at
a
> crayon drawing taped to the screen?
>
I've seen some peoples screens, who might be better off looking at a crayon
drawing. Kind of makes you wonder what people are seeing when you send them
a proof.
K.
| |
| arrooke 2004-09-16, 4:14 am |
| > As others have mentioned, since it prints fine, how it looks on screen
> doesn't really matter.
>
> Orchid
I wonder how much this would confuse most clients. You know, the ones who
say . . ."but it looks good on my monitor. . .".
K.
| |
| iehsmith 2004-09-16, 12:14 pm |
| On 9/10/04 5:31 AM, arrooke uttered:
> I used to work at a place that would fax proofs. Despite that I might have
> has a PDF proof ready to go. They would actually print the PDF and fax it.
> Old habits die hard.
> Even more illogical would be that people would sign off on it and fax it
> back, by which time you couldn't even read half of it.
> Keith
Yup. That was the normal procedure at the newspaper for proofing ads. But
then, the way they had us do ads, they were just as well faxed:\
I do worry about what clients see on screen, whether it's PDF or web image.
inez
| |
| Turts 2004-09-17, 12:14 pm |
| Don't think I've ever heard such an amount of pompous spouting of
self-important drivel, masquerading as an zen-like open-ended
interpretation. Someone asks for some help, and you try to belittle them
with lack of knowledge of newsgroup etiquette? Why? How will that help YOU?
Pam, if you want to email me with a little more detail, I'd be happy to
help. That is, after all, what newsgroups are for ;-)
Everyone needs a little help sometimes: anyone who says otherwise is
fooling themselves...
|
|
|
| | Copyright 2003 - 2008 forum4designers.com Software forum Computer Hardware reviews |
|