Convert Image from 72 DPI to 300 DPI

"Toronto Web Pro" wrote in
news::

I hope this helps someone.

I’m hoping no one submitting graphics to any of my publications tries this.

Toronto Web Pro wrote:

I hope this helps someone.

Won’t help the printing office, that’s for sure.
—
Peter

Eric Gill wrote:

"Toronto Web Pro" wrote in
news::

I hope this helps someone.

I’m hoping no one submitting graphics to any of my publications tries this.

If that is the case how would you like to see it done. Pls share some of your knowledge with us.
J.

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 11:35:30 +0200, ""
wrote:

Eric Gill wrote:

"Toronto Web Pro" wrote in
news::

I hope this helps someone.

I’m hoping no one submitting graphics to any of my publications tries this.

If that is the case how would you like to see it done. Pls share some of your knowledge with us.

no method i have ever seen, and i’ve seen several, ever produced satisfactory results. I’ve never seen an image at 72 get "converted" to 300 and not look like a pile of pixelated shit.

Your mileage may vary.

I’ve heard stories about Fractal whatever it is but I’ve never seen it. That might work.

Eric Gill wrote:

I hope this helps someone.

I’m hoping no one submitting graphics to any of my publications tries

this.

The responses are not anything less than expected. It’s a newsgroup afterall — full of cynical people. 😉

Anyway, if it works — you wouldn’t know, now would you? And it works for me. There might be a "slight" difference in quality but the naked eye can’t notice it and no jaggies are produced. Try it first before you put it down!

It works in the printing service bureau I use, so I’m really not sure what to tell you other than try it for yourself.

Again, this method isn’t about increasing the size of the orginal image — it’s about converting the dpi and no, there are no jaggies.

The traditional way. 🙂 Which means, it can’t be done! hehe

But did you try my solution? And no, there is no pile of pixelated crap that comes out. *grin*

It’s really a simple solution.

Toronto Web Pro wrote:

But did you try my solution? And no, there is no pile of pixelated crap that comes out. *grin*

It’s really a simple solution.

Funny to see somebody calling himself pro come up with such a "solution"…

Stephan

Just tried it with your instructions and I reluctantly have to say that I wasn’t to impressed. While it come close it is all to blurry to use. I’ll mess with it more later.

"Toronto Web Pro" wrote in message

But did you try my solution? And no, there is no pile of pixelated crap that comes out. *grin*

It’s really a simple solution.

In article ,
"Toronto Web Pro" wrote:

1. Launch Photoshop
2. Open up the image
3. Select the rectangular marquee tool
4. Edit copy or copy merged
5. Create a new document
6. Change the resolution to 300 dpi
7. Click OK
8. Paste the image to the untitled document
9. Voila, it’s now 300 dpi
10. Now sometimes the image will not fill the new document, so what you do is…
11. Use the transform in either Photoshop or Word to max out the size to the original.

There is no differnce between doing this and setting the resolution to 300 pixels per inch using the "Image Size" command with "Resample Image" turned off. The image is now 300 pixels per inch, but its physical print size in inches is smaller.

1. Save the image as a .jpg – not Web graphic – by doing this you keep the 300 dpi

Saving as JPEG degrades the quality of the image. JPEG uses"lossy" compression.

2. Launch Microsoft Word
3. Insert the picture from file
4. Increase the magnification to 300%

There is no differnce between doing this and using Image Size with "Resample Image" turned off and setting the image resolution to 100 pixels per inch. If you take a 300 pixel per inch image, and you blow it up by 300%, it prints at 100 pixels per inch.

—
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

In article ,
"Toronto Web Pro" wrote:

But did you try my solution? And no, there is no pile of pixelated crap that comes out. *grin*

It’s really a simple solution.

It’s simple, but it produces results dot-for-dot and pixel-for-pixel identical simply to converting the image to 100 pixels per inch without resampling and then printing from Photoshop. Microsoft Word does not do any magic when you enlarge an image; it simply reduces the image’s resolution in pixels per inch.

—
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

"There is no differnce between doing this and setting the resolution

to

300 pixels per inch using the "Image Size" command with "Resample Image"
turned off. The image is now 300 pixels per inch, but its physical

print

size in inches is smaller. "

So when the physical print size looks smaller, use the transform tool to enlarge it back up to its original size — no more but it can be less.

1. Save the image as a .jpg – not Web graphic – by doing this you keep the 300 dpi

Saving as JPEG degrades the quality of the image. JPEG uses"lossy" compression.

I understand what you are saying but I’m trying to explain this in a way that most people, i.e. non professionals, will understand it. The bottom line is that it will print as 300 dpi. Really. Try it.

And that means… 🙂

Why is it funny? I’m a professional Web designer, not a professional Graphic Designer. 🙂

Cool. When I do it, it doesn’t blur at all. The point IS to mess with it and find something that works for you because there are a number of ways of tackling the problem.

Maybe you can show a before and after screenshot?

And thanks. Thanks for trying first without dismissing it altogether. That’s a sign of a well adjusted person. *grin*

"Toronto Web Pro" wrote in message

Cool. When I do it, it doesn’t blur at all. The point IS to mess with it and find something that works for you because there are a number of ways of tackling the problem.

Maybe you can show a before and after screenshot?

And thanks. Thanks for trying first without dismissing it altogether. That’s a sign of a well adjusted person.

If I have time I’ll try it again and post it, not sure when though.

Scruff wrote:

If I have time I’ll try it again and post it, not sure when though.

I hear you. I’m in the same boat or I would put a tut together. If you ever want to email me off-Usenet to figure it out for yourself, please feel free to do so. Just find my Web site (pretty simple to do). 🙂

"Toronto Web Pro" wrote in
news::

Eric Gill wrote:

I hope this helps someone.

I’m hoping no one submitting graphics to any of my publications tries

this.

The responses are not anything less than expected. It’s a newsgroup afterall — full of cynical people. 😉

If "cynical," you mean "imaging professional with fourteen years of experience," you’d finally be right.

Anyway, if it works — you wouldn’t know, now would you?

Yes, I certainly would.

And it works for me.

Oh, I’m sure.

There might be a "slight" difference in quality but the naked eye can’t notice it and no jaggies are produced. Try it first before you put it down!

I see it "tried" on a regular basis by any number of neophytes, and radical upsamplig and jpeg compression, especially throwing Word in the mix, mangles graphics no matter how many yahoos try it.

"" wrote in
news::

Eric Gill wrote:

"Toronto Web Pro" wrote in
news::

I hope this helps someone.

I’m hoping no one submitting graphics to any of my publications tries this.

If that is the case how would you like to see it done.

Simple.

You don’t.

Upsampling, especially combined with jpeg compression, is going to whack images.

No matter how unnecesarily convoluted you make the process.

Pls share some
of your knowledge with us.

The concept isn’t rocket science, bud – and you’ll find this subject revisited countless times on the web and usenet.

In article ,
"Toronto Web Pro" wrote:

So when the physical print size looks smaller, use the transform tool to enlarge it back up to its original size — no more but it can be less.

This interpolates the image. The result is pixel for pixel identical to interpolating with the Image Size command; this does not in any way magically improve the image’s quality.

I understand what you are saying but I’m trying to explain this in a way that most people, i.e. non professionals, will understand it. The bottom line is that it will print as 300 dpi. Really. Try it.

Yes. it will be 300 pixels per inch, just as it would be if you used the Image Size command to make it 300 pixels per inch.

However, it will look like crap. There is no way, no technique to take an image and increase the number of pixels and have the result contain image information that is not in the original. All the techniques in this thread, all the workarounds, do the same thing–they interpolate up to 300 pixels per inch, using the same algorithm that the Image Size command does. They give the same results that the Image Size command would give.

Sorry, but there is nothing that can make a low-resolution image ito a high-resolution image and have the results look like they would if one simply starts with a high-resolution image to begin with.

—
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

On 8 Apr 2005 15:49:51 -0700, "Toronto Web Pro" wrote:

Why is it funny? I’m a professional Web designer, not a professional Graphic Designer. 🙂

That explains a lot…

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On 8 Apr 2005 15:48:20 -0700, "Toronto Web Pro" wrote:

I understand what you are saying but I’m trying to explain this in a way that most people, i.e. non professionals, will understand it. The bottom line is that it will print as 300 dpi. Really. Try it.

Your last sentence should, of course, read "it will print as crap at 300dpi".

I bet you think you can buy the software they use on CSI…

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Tacit wrote:

In article ,
"Toronto Web Pro" wrote:

So when the physical print size looks smaller, use the transform tool to enlarge it back up to its original size — no more but it can be less.

This interpolates the image. The result is pixel for pixel identical to interpolating with the Image Size command; this does not in any way magically improve the image’s quality.

I understand what you are saying but I’m trying to explain this in a way that most people, i.e. non professionals, will understand it. The bottom line is that it will print as 300 dpi. Really. Try it.

Yes. it will be 300 pixels per inch, just as it would be if you used the Image Size command to make it 300 pixels per inch.

However, it will look like crap. There is no way, no technique to take an image and increase the number of pixels and have the result contain image information that is not in the original. All the techniques in this thread, all the workarounds, do the same thing–they interpolate up to 300 pixels per inch, using the same algorithm that the Image Size command does. They give the same results that the Image Size command would give.

Sorry, but there is nothing that can make a low-resolution image ito a high-resolution image and have the results look like they would if one simply starts with a high-resolution image to begin with.
—

Does anybody understand why I enjoy this thread? Read the OP. It is a down to earth comedian show. Not meant for you
Tacit. You said the right things.

Mr. Toronto Web Pro…..please understand, web is one thing, print is another. You can change your little pic to
13,567,895 dots per inch. It will not change anything. Print it and you will be flabbergasted.

—
Peter

"Hecate" wrote in message

On 8 Apr 2005 15:48:20 -0700, "Toronto Web Pro" wrote:
I bet you think you can buy the software they use on CSI…

CSI, AHAHAA!!

Hecate wrote:

On 8 Apr 2005 15:49:51 -0700, "Toronto Web Pro" wrote:

Why is it funny? I’m a professional Web designer, not a professional Graphic Designer. 🙂

That explains a lot…

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Be nice Hecate, a designer is a designer, be it graphic or web. A pro is a pro, and we all know what pro’s do.

🙂

Hecate wrote:

On 8 Apr 2005 15:48:20 -0700, "Toronto Web Pro" wrote:

I understand what you are saying but I’m trying to explain this in a way that most people, i.e. non professionals, will understand it. The bottom line is that it will print as 300 dpi. Really. Try it.

Your last sentence should, of course, read "it will print as crap at 300dpi".

I bet you think you can buy the software they use on CSI…
—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

What…you mean you can’t!! Damn, I was about to buy a pirated copy of that from a man in a dark suit.

"Brian" wrote in message

Hecate wrote:

On 8 Apr 2005 15:48:20 -0700, "Toronto Web Pro" wrote:

I understand what you are saying but I’m trying to explain this in a way that most people, i.e. non professionals, will understand it. The bottom line is that it will print as 300 dpi. Really. Try it.

Your last sentence should, of course, read "it will print as crap at 300dpi".

I bet you think you can buy the software they use on CSI…
Hecate – The Real One
Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

What…you mean you can’t!! Damn, I was about to buy a pirated copy of that from a man in a dark suit.

CSI

Did you see last nights episode. Woman walking through a scene from overhead Security Camera. "Look Shadows on Ground. She must have seen him" "I wonder if we can spot him in the reflections from her eyeball" Computer Screen Zooms in on her eye. "There is something there! Can you enlarge it" Slightly fuzzy shot of a striped shirt.

The Camera was of course mounted on a wall above the doorway from which she was exiting, she did not look round, so not only must it have a resolution greater than the Hubble Telescope, it must have been working in "See Through Mode"

Roy G

It certainly is a comedian show and you and many othes are center stage.

I printed it, it worked. I’m not really concerned with the mathematical details because that’s not my thing. My thing is finding solutions. 🙂 So I’m really not sure what the problem is at this point.

Are you suggesting I not share information and knowledge? When it works?

And the question I still ask is: Have you tried it.

p.s Thank you for the "yahoo" mention — it truly IS a compliment. 🙂

Did you try it?

I’m starting to think that you guys don’t want to see it happen because it’s suppose to be impossible — well it’s not.

The only people who lose, are those not willing to try and experiment.

This thread is dead.

Again, did you try the method or are you just stuck in time?

Anyway, this is going around in circles.

My solution is now archived, which is what I wanted to have happen, so if someone is looking for a solution and are open minded enough, they will find one. And THAT’s important. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

My task is complete. 🙂

And the question I still ask is: Have you tried it?

p.s Thank you for the "yahoo" mention — it truly IS a compliment. 🙂

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 12:29:21 +1000, Brian
wrote:

Hecate wrote:

On 8 Apr 2005 15:49:51 -0700, "Toronto Web Pro" wrote:

Why is it funny? I’m a professional Web designer, not a professional Graphic Designer. 🙂

That explains a lot…

Be nice Hecate, a designer is a designer, be it graphic or web. A pro is a pro, and we all know what pro’s do.

🙂

If you think TWD knows what he’s talking about, then I wish you joy with your very pixellated images.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 13:04:10 GMT, "Roy"
wrote:

CSI

Did you see last nights episode. Woman walking through a scene from overhead Security Camera. "Look Shadows on Ground. She must have seen him" "I wonder if we can spot him in the reflections from her eyeball" Computer Screen Zooms in on her eye. "There is something there! Can you enlarge it" Slightly fuzzy shot of a striped shirt.

The Camera was of course mounted on a wall above the doorway from which she was exiting, she did not look round, so not only must it have a resolution greater than the Hubble Telescope, it must have been working in "See Through Mode"

Yes, saw it. My partner, who is a Software Engineer designing comms and imaging software for the military reckons they must have got that software from the aliens on the X Files 😉

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

In article ,
"Toronto Web Pro" wrote:

And the question I still ask is: Have you tried it?

Yes. The results, as I predicted, were the same as using the Photoshop Image Size command.

Since you seem happy with the results, i can only assume that you’re not a terribly critical viewer.

—
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

"Toronto Web Pro" wrote in
news::

And the question I still ask is: Have you tried it.

Actually, the real question is why you believe you’re the first person to use such a depressingly common method of mangling images.

Why is that?

p.s Thank you for the "yahoo" mention — it truly IS a compliment. 🙂

No, it’s not. I just didn’t feel like typing "egocentrical idiot who wants to pretend they are something special" at the time.

Hmph. I may have answered the first question already.

On 8 Apr 2005 10:41:42 -0700, "Toronto Web Pro" wrote:

But did you try my solution? And no, there is no pile of pixelated crap that comes out. *grin*

It’s really a simple solution.

of course it doesnt work. it might sort of "look ok" to you, on your screen, depending on what your definiton of "looks ok" is.. take that image to a big offset press and then see how good it looks.

On 8 Apr 2005 10:38:47 -0700, "Toronto Web Pro" wrote:

Eric Gill wrote:

I hope this helps someone.

I’m hoping no one submitting graphics to any of my publications tries

this.

The responses are not anything less than expected. It’s a newsgroup afterall — full of cynical people. 😉

who have all tried this method, and 500 similar ones, before you ever got here, and found they are all completely useless for offset press work. In my case, not good enough even for in-house inkjet printing.

Brian wrote:

Hecate wrote:

On 8 Apr 2005 15:49:51 -0700, "Toronto Web Pro" wrote:

Why is it funny? I’m a professional Web designer, not a professional Graphic Designer. 🙂

That explains a lot…

—

Hecate – The Real One
Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Be nice Hecate, a designer is a designer, be it graphic or web. A pro is a pro, and we all know what pro’s do.

LOL, like the Photoshop users, pros and nationally associated! You get a sticker to put on your car and become an instant guru. 🙂

Stephan

Hecate wrote:

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 13:04:10 GMT, "Roy"
wrote:

CSI

Did you see last nights episode. Woman walking through a scene from overhead Security Camera. "Look Shadows on Ground. She must have seen him" "I wonder if we can spot him in the reflections from her eyeball" Computer Screen Zooms in on her eye. "There is something there! Can you enlarge it" Slightly fuzzy shot of a striped shirt.

The Camera was of course mounted on a wall above the doorway from which she was exiting, she did not look round, so not only must it have a resolution greater than the Hubble Telescope, it must have been working in "See Through Mode"

Yes, saw it. My partner, who is a Software Engineer designing comms and imaging software for the military reckons they must have got that software from the aliens on the X Files 😉

Nah, it is here on earth already, Toronto Web Pro is even giving it away for free!

Stephan

The results "should not" be the same as using the image command. Eh, it doesn’t really matter that it doesn’t work for you. It’s here for others to play with and it works for me. 😛

Toronto Web Pro wrote:

The results "should not" be the same as using the image command. Eh, it doesn’t really matter that it doesn’t work for you. It’s here for others to play with and it works for me. 😛

My mom prints pics of my kids I attach to emails.
She finds them splendid, she really does.
To me they look like a stretched pile of sorry pixels.
My mom and you seem to have the same taste.

Stephan

Toronto Web Pro wrote:

The results "should not" be the same as using the image command. Eh, it doesn’t really matter that it doesn’t work for you. It’s here for others to play with and it works for me. 😛

The results are exactly the same as using the image resizing dialog box when one unchecks "resample image".

I performed your technique and it does the exact same thing as the image resize box. That is, it reduces the printed size of the image. If you don’t believe me, do this:

1. Print your original 72 dpi image on a piece of paper.
2. Print your 300 dpi image created in the fashion you recommend.
3. Note how much smaller the 300 dpi image is.

This is nothing new in Photoshop. Your technique bypasses the image resizing dialog box and option to resample but does the same thing.

To further help you see, you can look at the image dimensions on your original 72 dpi image then look at the image dimensions in the 300 dpi version. In my test, the original 72 dpi image was about 5" x 6" inches when printed. The 300 dpi version was 1.1" x 1.2".

Whether one uses your technique or the image resizing command, both are doing the same thing – packing pixels tighter together when printed – sacrificing image size for increased resolution.

What is impossible without specialized software (like Genuine Fractals or whatever it’s called), is to get the image to print at it’s original dimensions at a higher resolution without a loss of quality.

I’m guessing the reason you think this is so dandy is that you’re not actually printing out the pictures which are shrinking to much smaller sizes but simply comparing them side-by-side on your computer screen at 100% magnification. If you only look at them on your screen, they look identical in Photoshop. However, since increasing resolution is only necessary for printing, the dimensions on screen are unimportant.

The fact that you insist this is some magic solution is why people are getting a bit annoyed. Novices can be mislead by such ineffective "tips" and should be questioned.

Orchid

It’s not about believing you (that’s not the way I think). It’s also not about whether your method is better or not. If you have another method, that’s great. I welcomed that. I posted mine, you post yours — whatever, right?

I’m not a Graphic Designer. 🙂 So that means, I won’t know all the techniques that you do. So just say, "hey there’s another way. Why do you or anyone else need to invalidate my post?" Strange I tell ya. 🙂

"I’m guessing" Wrong. I don’t go by what the screen shows when I’m making a print. That’s like flying by looking at the sky. 🙂

Also check the thread for my examples. I know what you are saying, I’m aware of how it prints at a smaller size if you don’t use the "transform key" or other method to enlarge it. I did do a tut because I didn’t have the time. You don’t know me, so please avoid assuming what I may or may not know.

But I’m glad you are clarifying that it IS possible to convert from 72-300 dpi (for lack of a better phrase… non G.D.’s understand this better) and although it prints at a smaller size it IS possible. What IS difficult (not impossible) is increasing it to the original size. I’m aware of the difficulties but still manage. Unfortunately I can’t go through all my methods. It’s a time factor.

Did I use the word: "MAGIC" or imply it was "MAGIC"? You guys are reading way too much into my words.

I appreciate the explanation as to why G.D.’s are getting annoyed but wouldn’t it be better to just explain what I’m talking about rather than cursing me out for showing my method?

….this is my post again below…

There are several ways to do this but unfortunately I only have time to explain one method.

If anyone wants to make a tutorial of this, it would be nice because I don’t have the time to do that either. If you need my help in figuring this out, just email me! 🙂

And if you come up with other ways and/or using other app’s – all the power to ya! If it doesn’t work for you, I don’t know what to say — it works for me, so I’m telling you about it!

Problem

You have an image that you created for the Web and its dpi is 72. You now want to print this out for a portfolio presentation. Here comes the pain: it needs to be 300 dpi.

Solution

1. Launch Photoshop

lmao… Did I SAY I was the first person? Wow, you guys have total ego problems.

Did I SAY I was "something special"? Damn, you guys need to get yourself into therapry — seriously.

So if you knew how to do it, then why didn’t YOU give it away for free?

correction, should be: So just say, "hey there’s another way." Why do you or anyone else need to invalidate my post? Strange I tell ya.

"I’m guessing" Wrong [guess]. I don’t go by what the screen shows when I’m
making a print. That’s like flying by looking at the sky. 🙂

Also check the thread for my examples.[Check in alt.design.graphics. I didn’t post it here, I actually thought I was in the other group — ugh!] I know what you are saying, I’m aware of how it prints at a smaller size if you don’t use the "transform key" or other method to enlarge it. I did[n’t] do a tut because I didn’t have the time.

—

errors are due to dyslexia and time challenged — sorry.

"Toronto Web Pro" wrote in message

(crossposted)

There are several ways to do this but unfortunately I only have time to explain one method.

If anyone wants to make a tutorial of this, it would be nice because I don’t have the time to do that either. If you need my help in figuring this out, just email me! 🙂

And if you come up with other ways and/or using other app’s – all the power to ya! If it doesn’t work for you, I don’t know what to say — it works for me, so I’m telling you about it!

Problem

You have an image that you created for the Web and its dpi is 72. You now want to print this out for a portfolio presentation. Here comes the pain: it needs to be 300 dpi.

Solution

1. Launch Photoshop
2. Open up the image
3. Select the rectangular marquee tool
4. Edit copy or copy merged
5. Create a new document
6. Change the resolution to 300 dpi
7. Click OK
8. Paste the image to the untitled document
9. Voila, it’s now 300 dpi
10. Now sometimes the image will not fill the new document, so what you do is…
11. Use the transform in either Photoshop or Word to max out the size to the original.

Don’t want to print it until you have proof?

1. Save the image as a .jpg – not Web graphic – by doing this you keep the 300 dpi
2. Launch Microsoft Word
3. Insert the picture from file
4. Increase the magnification to 300%

See any jaggies? No? Then it will print just like you see it, with no jaggies. With this method the image cannot increase beyond its original size without losing quality.

I hope this helps someone.

I have been following this thread and I have something to add. I would say this is the best way I have found to increase the printing of a small image at 72dpi on my home printer. It’s not the best but works well for me. I know this may not be to good for sending out.

Photoshop 5.5 ya ya I know upgrade… but for what I do it works fine 🙂 load image in PS if its been compressed well I don’t have to tell you how it will look.
I give it a blur once or twice until I see the pixels clear up at 100%. I then use the sharpen filter once or twice if it’s not what I need. I save the file as a Tiff
Open CorelDraw 8 and import the image.
I stretch it to fit the page for a full page print.
CorelDraw my default prints at 300dpi
It prints a not to bad picture on just regular paper. If I use photo paper it’s much better.
So there are ways to do this depending on the use of the picture. This works for me and I do it a lot.
Have a good day,
Gary

Excellent Gary. Thanks for this tip. I will try it later. Cheers! 🙂

Toronto Web Pro wrote:

So if you knew how to do it, then why didn’t YOU give it away for free?

You never give up do you?
Almost every day someone tells you you are wrong but you insist. You are a true Don Quichotte de la Mancha. Probably even as blind as the original!

Stephan

Toronto Web Pro wrote:

Excellent Gary. Thanks for this tip. I will try it later. Cheers! 🙂

Hes, truly fantastic!
Here is another one for you:
1) Take your car and a plasma cutter.
2) Cut car in in 3 inches slices
3) Position slices 3 inches apart
4) Join slices with duck tape
Here we go, now you have a limousine!

Stephan

Toronto Web Pro wrote:

Again, did you try the method or are you just stuck in time?
Anyway, this is going around in circles.

My solution is now archived, which is what I wanted to have happen, so if someone is looking for a solution and are open minded enough, they will find one. And THAT’s important. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

My task is complete. 🙂

Just to make sure this gets archived in the same places: Toronto’s "magic solution" is pure non sense.

Stephan

"Toronto Web Pro" wrote in
news::

lmao… Did I SAY I was the first person? Wow, you guys have total ego problems.

No, we’ve already established you’re the ego maniac.

Did I SAY I was "something special"?

Finish the sentence:

"Actions speak louder than ______."

Damn, you guys need to get
yourself into therapry — seriously.

I do believe that’s a mirror you’re looking into, kiddo.

And a few English classes while you’re at it.

In article ,
"Toronto Web Pro" wrote:

Problem

You have an image that you created for the Web and its dpi is 72. You now want to print this out for a portfolio presentation. Here comes the pain: it needs to be 300 dpi.

Solution

1. Launch Photoshop

2. Accept that nothing–no technique, no program, no algorithm, no filter, no plug-in, nothing–can turn a low-res image into a high-res image without severely degrading its quality.

3. Re-create the image at a higher resolution.

4. In the future, build your images to the highest resolution you may ever need them.

—
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

For God’s sakes, GIVE IT A REST ALREADY!!! You are BORing……..

"Toronto Web Pro" wrote in message

It’s not about believing you (that’s not the way I think). It’s also not about whether your method is better or not. If you have another method, that’s great. I welcomed that. I posted mine, you post yours — whatever, right?

I’m not a Graphic Designer. 🙂 So that means, I won’t know all the techniques that you do. So just say, "hey there’s another way. Why do you or anyone else need to invalidate my post?" Strange I tell ya. 🙂

"I’m guessing" Wrong. I don’t go by what the screen shows when I’m making a print. That’s like flying by looking at the sky. 🙂
Also check the thread for my examples. I know what you are saying, I’m aware of how it prints at a smaller size if you don’t use the "transform key" or other method to enlarge it. I did do a tut because I didn’t have the time. You don’t know me, so please avoid assuming what I may or may not know.

But I’m glad you are clarifying that it IS possible to convert from 72-300 dpi (for lack of a better phrase… non G.D.’s understand this better) and although it prints at a smaller size it IS possible. What IS difficult (not impossible) is increasing it to the original size. I’m aware of the difficulties but still manage. Unfortunately I can’t go through all my methods. It’s a time factor.

Did I use the word: "MAGIC" or imply it was "MAGIC"? You guys are reading way too much into my words.

I appreciate the explanation as to why G.D.’s are getting annoyed but wouldn’t it be better to just explain what I’m talking about rather than cursing me out for showing my method?

…this is my post again below…

There are several ways to do this but unfortunately I only have time to explain one method.

If anyone wants to make a tutorial of this, it would be nice because I don’t have the time to do that either. If you need my help in figuring this out, just email me! 🙂

And if you come up with other ways and/or using other app’s – all the power to ya! If it doesn’t work for you, I don’t know what to say — it works for me, so I’m telling you about it!

Problem

You have an image that you created for the Web and its dpi is 72. You now want to print this out for a portfolio presentation. Here comes the pain: it needs to be 300 dpi.

Solution

1. Launch Photoshop

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 00:52:01 GMT, Stephan wrote:

Toronto Web Pro wrote:

Excellent Gary. Thanks for this tip. I will try it later. Cheers! 🙂

Hes, truly fantastic!
Here is another one for you:
1) Take your car and a plasma cutter.
2) Cut car in in 3 inches slices
3) Position slices 3 inches apart
4) Join slices with duck tape
Here we go, now you have a limousine!

hahahahahaha!

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…