|
|
2004-02-10 19:21:00 |
resolution of photos in newsletter
|
|
Doug Ingram
Jaguar Car Club of Victoria *
forum user since
2003-08-08
|
I am editing the newsletter for the new Jaguar Car Club of Victoria, not yet a JCNA affiliate, although our application is currently being processed.
I create the newsletter in MS Publisher 2003, a program which I like, but still don't know much about. In the first effort, I imported photos "just as they are" i.e. taken at high resolution with a Canon G3 in jpeg format. The file size of one particular photo was 1.12 mb. With lots of photos in the document, the Publisher file ended up being 33.0 mb. To make the photo fit, I reduced it greatly in Publisher.
I thought I should try to get the Publisher file down to a smaller size, so with the second issue, I used Adobe Photoshop to adjust the photo downwards to the sizes I needed, then imported the smaller files into the document. As an example, the photo that was 1.12 mb became 26.8 kb. Doing this with every photo resulted in the Publisher document being much, much smaller this time at 3.50 mb.
The problem is that the photos are now not printing clearly, they are showing what I believe is termed "pixelation". My printer says that I should provide photos at 300 dpi. When I open the photos I mention above in Photoshop, both indicate 72 pixels per inch, but the large file prints extremely clearly, the small one does not.
What is the relationship between dpi and pixels per inch?
Can anyone suggest what I should be doing with the photos to keep the document file size reasonable, but still maintian good print quality?
And, why did the first newsletter (which was a 33.0 mb file) turn out to be a 9.29 mb pdf file, while the second newsletter (which was a 3.5 mb file) turn out to be a 5.66 mb pdf file. What goes on in the creation of the pdf that makes it smaller in one case, but bigger in the other?
Any help or advice approciated.
Doug Ingram
Jaguar Car Club of Victoria
Victoria BC Canada
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004-02-10 23:12:41 |
Re.: resolution of photos in newsletter
|
|
Pascal Gademer
South Florida Jaguar Club *
forum user since
2002-10-27
|
doug
until december Iwas doing the NL for our club and also using Publisher, although 2000 not 2003.
on average, our 20 page NL, woudl result in a file that was between 150 and 200 MB ... then converted to PDF, about 6 to 8 meg.
I used a lot of pictures, I'd say 30 an issue. I use a couple of good ole canon F1s and get the film processed on CD by the lab, image width about 1600 pixels. I would use the images as is and re scale them down in publisher. this is what yielded the best results. to save a bit of space, you can compress the images first, up to about 40% but not resize them.
To limit file size, make sure some of the digital data associated iwth each image isn't saved. a great image utility, easy to use, small, free and that allows batch processing ( resizing, compressing or renaming a bunch of images at the same time) is www.irfanview.com
if you resize the images down before importing them in Pub, like down to 800 pixel wide, you loose in quality. I woudl use my original file for the full size cover shot and quality was excellent.
bottom line, for best qulity, keep your images original, if your camera gives out really big file, you can resize them a bit, but keep it aroudn 1600 pixel wide... I nver bothered loking at dpis... :-)
the only drawback with large publisher file is your computer might slow down, althoug in my case, 150 to 200 mb files on an older Pentium 400Mhz it wasn't bad. I would supply the file on CD to our printer, so size wasn't an issue.
I've never quite understood what makes PDF files smaller (or larger...)
you can see various issues of our NL in PDF at www.southfloridajaguarclub.org
hope this helps
Pascal Gademer
South Florida Jaguar Club
72 E-type 2+2
00 XKR Coupe
99 XJR |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004-02-11 02:08:50 |
Re.: resolution of photos in newsletter
|
|
Doug Ingram
Jaguar Car Club of Victoria *
forum user since
2003-08-08
|
Thanks, Pascal, for all this information. Looking again at the two sies of the photos I mentioned, the larger is more thn 2200 pixels wide, while the smaller is less than 300. I assume this means I have reduced the resolution more than 7 times, which results in the poor quality.
As for the Publisher file size, I think you are right - it really doesn't make that much difference, other than a little longer to load, etc, but I am using a Pentium IV 2.8 ghz system, so....
If the pdf file comes out roughly the same size regardless of the Publisher file size, then I'll opt for the better quality.
For the next issue, I'll take your advice and resize the photos to around 1600 pixels wide.
I have looked at several of your newsletters, and am impressed. I have printed out a few of them, and have used them to get ideas about layout, etc.
Thanks again,
Doug |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004-02-11 09:03:19 |
Re.: resolution of photos in newsletter
|
|
Pascal Gademer
South Florida Jaguar Club *
forum user since
2002-10-27
|
Doug
thks about the NL... I had to pass it on to someone else, running the JCNA website is too time consuming, I couldn't handle both anymore.
300 wide is way too small for print. if you use irfan view as mentioned, you can just batch resize all your pics of the camera into a separate directory to use for your newsletter. before returning to film, I used a Sony digital and image size was about 1200 wide. that was fine too. anything smaller looks awful.
the PDF is supposed to convert graphgics to a lower res. soI do not ting the original image size in pub will make a difference. using many watermark backgroud does though.
Pascal Gademer
South Florida Jaguar Club
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|