| 1:31 pm on Oct 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I have no needs for Photoshop |
This is where you might need the needs of photoshop - I'm not sure with other graphic apps but in PS you get all the text-options you require, like sharpen, crisp etc..
I currently have found (what I think) is the best font to achive this without the need for graphics apps. Using verdana on any high size with the font set to bold gives gret results for sharp looking text. Almost like its an image not text..
| 2:03 pm on Oct 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I will try with Verdana
Just done it using Verdana bold 48
on a light BG
plus using "sharpen" from Jasq that has most of PS features.
Results are way better than what I got before
not 100% ok; but getting there!
[edited by: henry0 at 2:18 pm (utc) on Oct. 5, 2005]
| 2:08 pm on Oct 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Use the antialias feature to get smooth edges on large text.
| 2:38 pm on Oct 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
In order to use the antialias tool
I need to work inside a selection
I do not find another way to activate the antlialias
| 2:53 pm on Oct 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I know nothing of those apps you mentioned. But if any software you use allows for setting the resolution of the resulting image then you'd want to shoot for the highest levels from say 200-300 so's to avoid that pixellation.
| 3:26 pm on Oct 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|In order to use the antialias tool I need to work inside a selection correct? I do not find another way to activate the antlialias |
I guess it depends on the program. Try the help files. In the program I use, a simple check box activates antialiasing.
| 3:45 pm on Oct 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
OK done :)
So for Jasq users
1)create a new img at the higher resolution possible
2)find and check Antilalias in the text box dialog.
3) if needed use "Sharpen"
And then the results looks very clean
| 3:43 pm on Oct 6, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Mostly correct... but not about the resolution, though it is quite the dastardly subject, so the confusion is understandable.
"Resolution", as referred to by imaging/photo apps like JASC or Photoshop, is meant for sending files to print. The purpose of increasing image resolution is to provide more "dots per inch" of image information to the sheet of paper going through a printer. The more dots you can cram in an inch on a sheet of paper, the more detailed the image looks. However, your computer monitor (which has pixels instead of dots) can not cram more pixels on an inch of itself. The monitor has a fixed amount of pixels.
These image/photo apps make up for that issue by increasing the actual pixel dimensions of your image... let's say you wanted to create a 100x100 pixel square image for your website. With a "72dpi" resolution (standard screen resolution), your image would indeed be 100x100 pixels.
However, if you bumped up the resolution to, say, "300dpi", you'd see that your image has now changed dimensions... it's more like 400x400 pixels now. This works out fine in the end when you're printing, because the printer goes by the actual inch/cm dimensions of your image, and cares not for the pixels (it will however place "300 dots" of ink on every inch of its paper, making the image the same size as you originally specified, only more detailed)... but if you're creating an image for the web, you would end up with a 400x400 image instead of a 100x100.
Even if you changed the resolution to 300dpi and THEN changed the pixel dimensions themselves back down to 100x100, your image would not look any better than the original 72dpi version; again, your monitor cannot add pixels in between other pixels. It will render the same quality 100x100 image, whether you have it at 72dpi or 7200dpi.
In short- image resolution means absolutely nothing to PC monitors; don't change the resolution of the image unless you're making print graphics. The other advice given is all you need- use actual art programs to make large graphic text (like the Photoshop you supposedly don't have a need for), and if there are style options like "Crisp" or "Sharp", make sure you specify which one you want.
| 5:03 pm on Oct 6, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Thanks for the tuto
Indeed you are right on the money!
Let's go back to Photoshop for a minute
I am mostly a coder (PHP and MySQL)
And do not have the artistic talent required to create graphics
Once every blue moon I have a need to do a little something or to understand for example: What was the reason behind my incapacity to generate a smooth line in my logo (until this forum helped me, which I am grateful)
So why will I pay hundreds of $ for a program that I will primarily under use and that I will not have time to try mastering.
Most of the time for my projects I team up with members of my alliance.
Just for clarification purposes in the light of my comments there is no "supposedly no need" but a weighted decision
| 7:35 pm on Oct 6, 2005 (gmt 0)|
No hard feelings... I certainly wasn't suggesting that you go out and buy Photoshop... you usually don't have to go too far to find a copy somewhere...
BTW, there is Photoshop Elements, which at $79 will take care of any and everything someone like you (a web graphics only chap) would want in such a program. So you could always pick that up instead.
| 10:19 pm on Oct 6, 2005 (gmt 0)|
IMVVHO, if someone already has PSP (I'm assuming that's what "jasc" is referring to), they don't need to also get PS. PSP is a lot less expensive than PS, but it's a "real" graphics program that can do pretty much what PS can, except possibly for interfacing with a commercial printing operation ("pretty much" disclaimer because there are probably some things PS can do that I don't know about). Like any program, the user doesn't always know everything it can do.
If someone using PSP wanted to add another graphics program, I'd think it'd make more sense to get a vector-based program than it would to add PS. JMHO.
| 8:57 pm on Oct 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I will investigate what Photoshop element accomplishes.