|
Post by BlueAndGold on Oct 25, 2021 16:58:24 GMT
I am stepping out of my comfort zone (again) and starting a 6x9 project using full-bleed color photos on many of the pages. Many of these photos are detailed scans from slides which I converted to 300 PPI as per Lulu suggestions.
The problem I am running into is that as I add these photos to my MSWord document, the document rapidly increases in file size into the 100's of megabytes, which is untenable, of course.
I suspect I need to go back to my original photos, reduce them in pixel count to something on the order of say, 1875 pixels wide (6.25 inches X 300 PPI), then reset them to 300 PPI again. Right?
My fear is that I will lose resolution on the photos.
Can someone give me a sanity check and/or steer me right please?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2021 17:38:31 GMT
I am stepping out of my comfort zone (again) and starting a 6x9 project using full-bleed color photos on many of the pages. Many of these photos are detailed scans from slides which I converted to 300 PPI as per Lulu suggestions.
The problem I am running into is that as I add these photos to my MSWord document, the document rapidly increases in file size into the 100's of megabytes, which is untenable, of course.
I suspect I need to go back to my original photos, reduce them in pixel count to something on the order of say, 1875 pixels wide (6.25 inches X 300 PPI), then reset them to 300 PPI again. Right?
My fear is that I will lose resolution on the photos.
Can someone give me a sanity check and/or steer me right please?
Go into advanced options (I think it is) and change resolution there. If you just want to change the size and not the resolution, right click on the image and resize. Even if I'm missing the point and your problem is something else, you can fix it within Word. It took me forever to figure this out. Click around, Google.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2021 17:40:01 GMT
I am stepping out of my comfort zone (again) and starting a 6x9 project using full-bleed color photos on many of the pages. Many of these photos are detailed scans from slides which I converted to 300 PPI as per Lulu suggestions.
The problem I am running into is that as I add these photos to my MSWord document, the document rapidly increases in file size into the 100's of megabytes, which is untenable, of course.
I suspect I need to go back to my original photos, reduce them in pixel count to something on the order of say, 1875 pixels wide (6.25 inches X 300 PPI), then reset them to 300 PPI again. Right?
My fear is that I will lose resolution on the photos.
Can someone give me a sanity check and/or steer me right please?
Ok, the PPI threw me off. It's the same as DPI, is it not? Then my advice is correct.
|
|
|
Post by BlueAndGold on Oct 25, 2021 18:04:45 GMT
Thanks, but resizing in Word is not the issue. As you mentioned, it's a simple click and drag thing. My issue is the original file sizes of the photos, which were scanned for maximum detail, so each photo ranges in size from 6 to 27 Megabytes. (Yes, too big.) Reducing the dimensions of the photos in either inches or pixels will reduce the file sizes but I'm not sure of ill effects when it comes time to print. If I reduce the pixel count of the stored photos too far then resolution will be lost, so I made the assumption of: 6.25 inches times 300 pixels = 1875 width to preserve resolution when printed. This still results in monstrous file sizes though. I seem to be missing something here.
BTW, Yes, there is difference between DPI and PPI. Here is the explanation taken from Lulu's Book Creation Guide:
Photo and Graphic Resolution Pixels per inch (PPI) is used to describe the pixel density of a screen (computer monitor, smartphone, etc.). Dots per inch (DPI) refers to the print resolution of an image by counting the number of dots per printed inch. The more dot’s the higher the quality of the print (more sharpness and detail). Most print-ready file formats know how to handle the conversion between the PPI and DPI. PDFs allow you to have print-ready files with multiple PPI values, but it’s a good idea to consider the desired results before inserting just any image size. 72 PPI is the standard resolution for most screens. This may be adequate for digital images, but text and details of the graphic could end up looking distorted or fuzzy in print. As a general rule, we recommend a minimum of 150 PPI for simple graphics, and 300 PPI for complex or detailed graphics.
|
|
|
Post by BlueAndGold on Oct 25, 2021 18:44:42 GMT
OK, maybe I'm over-thinking this.
I arbitrarily changed some photo sizes to 1024 pixels wide and patched them into the document instead of the original HUGE photos. I see very little difference even when blown up 200% on my 23" monitor. I can only believe that they will look fine when reduced to a 6-inch wide printed page.
Grayscale pictures print fine. Surely color will too?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2021 20:06:50 GMT
Thanks, but resizing in Word is not the issue. As you mentioned, it's a simple click and drag thing. My issue is the original file sizes of the photos, which were scanned for maximum detail, so each photo ranges in size from 6 to 27 Megabytes. (Yes, too big.) Reducing the dimensions of the photos in either inches or pixels will reduce the file sizes but I'm not sure of ill effects when it comes time to print. If I reduce the pixel count of the stored photos too far then resolution will be lost, so I made the assumption of: 6.25 inches times 300 pixels = 1875 width to preserve resolution when printed. This still results in monstrous file sizes though. I seem to be missing something here.
BTW, Yes, there is difference between DPI and PPI. Here is the explanation taken from Lulu's Book Creation Guide:
Photo and Graphic Resolution Pixels per inch (PPI) is used to describe the pixel density of a screen (computer monitor, smartphone, etc.). Dots per inch (DPI) refers to the print resolution of an image by counting the number of dots per printed inch. The more dot’s the higher the quality of the print (more sharpness and detail). Most print-ready file formats know how to handle the conversion between the PPI and DPI. PDFs allow you to have print-ready files with multiple PPI values, but it’s a good idea to consider the desired results before inserting just any image size. 72 PPI is the standard resolution for most screens. This may be adequate for digital images, but text and details of the graphic could end up looking distorted or fuzzy in print. As a general rule, we recommend a minimum of 150 PPI for simple graphics, and 300 PPI for complex or detailed graphics.
Ok, I ignored all that and kept it simple. 300 dpi, 6.25x9.25,RGB for Lulu, CMYK for Ingram Spark. For clients' books as well. The images often had great detail. Lulu printing was above and beyond for colour books, didn't compare with CS back then.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2021 20:08:23 GMT
OK, maybe I'm over-thinking this. I arbitrarily changed some photo sizes to 1024 pixels wide and patched them into the document instead of the original HUGE photos. I see very little difference even when blown up 200% on my 23" monitor. I can only believe that they will look fine when reduced to a 6-inch wide printed page. Grayscale pictures print fine. Surely color will too? They will look great. A 6x9 book. is small.
|
|
|
Post by BlueAndGold on Oct 25, 2021 20:22:16 GMT
Thank you! I'll consider that my sanity check and relax about it.
|
|
|
Post by Retread-Retired-Cameron on Oct 25, 2021 20:25:28 GMT
If you range the DPI on images between 300 and 600 you can find the sweet spot for file size. I scanned some pictures and documents from WWII [8x10 size] at 2500 DPI per my oldest brother's request. I had to burn the images to a DVD because the collection was too big to fit a CD.
For printed books 600 DPI is about the top range for a wide variety of printers and anything higher will often look worse unless you're using some fairly thick specialty paper. Think bleed-through.
|
|
|
Post by BlueAndGold on Jul 2, 2022 15:28:03 GMT
After months of working on other things, it's time to turn my attention back to this color project. I received a prototype copy of this project from Lulu and discovered that many of these large photo files in the MSWord/PDF printed with a tiny grid of white dots (on approximately 1.5mm centers) that makes the photos almost appear as if they were printed on canvas rather than paper.
Most of these photo files were PNG's before being added to the MSWord document. The JPG files generally did better, without the grid. The JPG photo files are also much smaller. Hmmmmm... Has anyone had similar experiences with PNG versus JPG---> MSWord---> PDF---> Lulu print? I suppose I'll re-do the project using the smaller JPG photo files and print another prototype, but I am curious about other folks' experiences here. Surely I'm not alone.
|
|
|
Post by And Kevin 2024 on Jul 2, 2022 23:19:59 GMT
I only ever work with JPG, and in an antique art/photo prog (Paintshop pro 95, actually from 1995). Normally I work in 600dpi (and mainly for covers) and to a very large size so detail can be added more easily. Once happy, I reduce down to the actual physical size of the cover. It does remain at 600 dpi though, so is still a large file. But I always find it best to eventually make the illustrations to exactly fit the size they are meant for rather than resizing on a page or whatever. So original ratio is also important. Within the margins of an A4 for example. The previous answers about Word are correct as far as I recall. It does have default DPI and sizing for a page, which can be adjusted, even though the image will often remain at the original size, DPI and ratio within the files, well, file. This is often why docx file can be a lot larger than you expect. Anyhow, here's some stuff > www.guidingtech.com/24859/change-default-image-paste-insert-word/www.wikihow.com/Add-Images-to-a-Microsoft-Word-Document
|
|
|
Post by BlueAndGold on Jul 3, 2022 12:26:01 GMT
The question isn't about how to add photos, but rather what file types are handled well.
It appears that printers and/or PDF's don't handle large PNG's very well. JPG's seem to work a lot better.
Has anyone noticed this too? Or further identified the cause of the grid pattern?
|
|
|
Post by And Kevin 2024 on Jul 3, 2022 13:12:50 GMT
The original question was. But did I not also say I prefer jpgs?
|
|
|
Post by Retread-Retired-Cameron on Jul 4, 2022 18:53:21 GMT
The question isn't about how to add photos, but rather what file types are handled well. It appears that printers and/or PDF's don't handle large PNG's very well. JPG's seem to work a lot better. Has anyone noticed this too? Or further identified the cause of the grid pattern? On the grid pattern, it looks more like an issue with the individual print machine, possibly running low on ink, partially clogged ink jets, or both.
In terms of art PNG is better because: it allows transparencies, and you don't lose image quality.
In terms of printing, JPEG uses CMYK color format which many print machines use whereas PNG uses RGB which is used more with fine art. [Epson has a line of fine art printers using RGB you can use for archival prints].
You could try converting the images to JPEG and see if the print job turns out better, though if it turns out the same it's more likely an issue with the equipment.
|
|
|
Post by And Kevin 2024 on Jul 7, 2022 11:45:49 GMT
Transparencies can be a pest when used to print on already coloured backgrounds, as I once discovered with T-shirts. Not a problem with white pages, but on such, white is never printed anyway. There's no white ink in laser or bubblejet printers, however, the printing machine knows there's nothing at all in image's white areas so it prints nothing there at all.
As to image quality loss, I have Jpgs on my PC going back decades. No image loss. But a lot can depend on the level of compression. Compress too much and there can be eventual problems, often a sort of pixilation. Default seems best.
It can be a bit confusing when most printers are CMYK (with some having a 'photo black' also) when, for example, my art/photo app does not work in it. You just select a colour 'bit' that can go up to 'millions' of colours, and by mixing the inks as they spray that is what a laser or bubble jet delivers. The bottom line is, POD does not use old-school printing plates for different colours.
My art/photo prog does have a tool in for individual colour separation, though. I assume it's because it's an old prog. I tried it once. It turned a 16 'bit' 'millions of colours' image in to 25 images! Nearly gave my PC a nervous breakdown due to the MB size of each.
|
|