| 11:51 am on Aug 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I would ask for 300dpi so I can crop and archive the pictures (never know when you might need them for print). If you just want some web picts then I would just get 72 dpi if they need no modification.
| 11:59 am on Aug 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
As korkus said, 72 dpi is basically enough for the web. The problem is you often want to be able to resize the pic, so the more the better. If you want to modify anything though, you'd better ask for a file format like eps.
| 2:02 pm on Aug 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I was pretty certain it was 72dpi but I didn't want my client to think I was a total graphics incompetent!
| 3:23 pm on Aug 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
If they are only going to do them once I would start higher, perhaps 300dpi as Korkus says, that way you dont need a deep-blue super computer to do some of the graphics work. It is easy to come down resolution, but if you start at 72dpi if you need to resize you may get that blocky pixelation effect.
| 3:55 pm on Aug 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Actually, if you're dealing with web graphics, the resolution is strictly speaking irrelevant, because you're dealing with actual pixels, not CSS reference pixels or inches or centimetres. On a web page, a 300x200 pixel image will be the same size whether it was scanned in at 72dpi or 300dpi.
That said, people who are used to print don't understand that concept particularly well. For them, "high resolution" means "smaller physical size or larger file size, but higher quality".
You will almost certainly not get the images the size you want them to end up us, and, as has been pointed out, it's far better to downsize than to enlarge. So tell them "300dpi" and they'll be happy.
| 4:35 pm on Aug 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Just stick with 72 dpi, and you should ask for the actual photoshop file, or whatever program they used to make it...
Or ask for a seperate high res copy in a tiff format
| 4:46 pm on Aug 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Well, I've asked them for both, this is out of my hands now, if they supply rubbish, I can't do much about it...
It's for an 'advertising campaign award' so I guess the pics are coming from the agency (Ugh! I hate agencies!)
Whatever will be, will be...
Thanks for all the kind help guys....
| 5:33 pm on Aug 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
If you're getting this from an ad agency- be sure to ask that it is in RGB format (not CMYK) and the file format is compatible with your system. If you are on a PC and they send MAC files, they generally forget such formalities like extensions appended to the image names, so you play the shell game figuring out just what the heck they sent you. So, if you are on a PC - please remind them of this.
<rant>It's unprofessional and rude to dump whatever came off their Mac into your lap, assuming so, IF you happen to work in a PC environment. I've worn tired of nearly every ad agency I've dealt with automatically assuming the entire 'serious' graphics world revolves around a Macintosh. 'Cuz it doesn't.</rant>
Higher resolution and large sizes (height and width) is better for clarity as an original to work from. As rewboss said, you'll be saving your images for the web based on pixel size, not dpi. But it's nice to have a big, clear, crisp, uncompressed original to work from instead of some cr*ppy, fuzzy little .jpeg you have to "make do" with.
| 10:48 pm on Aug 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I would prefer you to get the picture in their native format or at its highest dpi (300dpi is a good start) ... remember that editing and processing the pictures for the web using graphics software for the web would make it at 72dpi. And as idiotgirl stated, have it in the RGB format for CMYK is for print and our computer monitor is in RGB. =)
| 11:03 pm on Aug 20, 2002 (gmt 0)|
If you are on a PC and they send MAC files, they generally forget such formalities like extensions appended to the image names, so you play the shell game figuring out just what the heck they sent you.
Sorry you're used to dealing with such dips, but it's not because they're Mac users, it's because they're nincompoops. (...besides no simple graphic file is going to be as much of a headache as when some clueless dork sends a PowerPoint file thinking "since it's got pictures AND text, it's all you'll need" to create print/web promotional materials...)
If Nick's lucky enough to be dealing with a competent agency, it won't matter what platform they use, because (much like html) major graphics formats are non-platform specific... and any resonably professional Mac user will either hand out files in a platform-neutral (or Windows) format, knowing Windows users need the help, and Mac users can open them either way, (hehe) or they will ask what your file format requirements are.
Your file format requirements (IMO) should always be (at minimum) 300 ppi lossless format files (like bmps or tifs). I'd prefer getting 600ppi, personally... even for web work. The more resolution you have to start, the more room you have to tinker before you screw something up. ;)
| 6:37 am on Aug 21, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|besides no simple graphic file is going to be as much of a headache as when some clueless dork sends a PowerPoint file thinking "since it's got pictures AND text, it's all you'll need" to create print/web promotional materials.. |
Well, I've got agencies sending me Mac QuarkXpress files (I use PC and have no Quark), thinking pretty much the same thing, like here you have the text AND the images... Oh, and sometimes they don't include the images as separate files...
Hate agencies, and Mac users ;)
| 3:15 pm on Aug 21, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I have fun trying to take images for print off of word documents.
| 4:55 pm on Aug 21, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Hate agencies, and Mac users
S'okay Sinner, I'm sure we all hate you too. :)
Anyone who doesn't ask for file requirements before sending source material out is a nincompoop, platform is irrelevant. Anyone who doesn't give file requirements when requesting source material is, OTOH, asking for it. ;) Nick_W has the right idea... make sure of what you need, and make sure to ask for it explicitly.
| 2:08 am on Aug 23, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I do a lot of work with resort and holiday accommodation properties where quality of picture is important and there is usually a lot of them, so page load time is a major factor as well.... its all about trying for a balance. Most pics end up around 250-275 pixels wide.
What works for me is to scan as jpg at quite high resolution (450dpi) to ensure the photo is sharp with good colour. I detest sh***y greyed out blurry edged images which scream "cheap and nasty" at the viewer.
After cropping the 450dpi images, I resample them down to around 250-275 pixels wide, then use a jpg cruncher to get an acceptable file size.
The image quality usually remains quite good, certainly much better that starting out with a low res capture. I experimented quite a bit trying various permutations and this is what works best for me.