Need help with CD cover project

JJ
Posted By
Jammer_Jammer
Oct 15, 2005
Views
497
Replies
9
Status
Closed
I’m doing a CD cover and back for an internet client who is an amateur musician. Unfortunately, he wants all kinds of things in the different photos that will be dependent on photos that he takes himself. This will be a matter of me bringing many different images into this one image and try to make it all look as if these things were all together in the first place.

I have created a file that PS file that is 4.75 by 4.75 inches, which is the size of a CD photo and I’ve set it as 300 dpi. This way, as I bring different images into the file, I’ll know if they are large enough to use and still be printable.

One of the images he wants will be the back end of two different cars. One is a specific Volkswagon that he wanted in the image and the other is the back of his vehicle. Each one of these automobiles will be taking up approximately half of the width of the total image. I found an image of the Volkswagon that is large enough.

He has now sent me a photo that he took of his car. I cut it out and brought it into my workpage and see immediately that it is about a third of the size that it needs to be and in relation to the Volkswagon, it is also taken at the wrong angle.

I am able to transform his photo to be as large as the Volkswagon and sharpen it enough that it doesn’t look bad but I’m guessing, that even though it doesn’t look bad on the monitor, that it may look pixelated when printed.

Here are my questions:
1. Am I correct that if I transform the Toyota to be as large as the Volkswagon that it will look pixelated when printed?
2. Given the output size and dpi of this image, when I suggest what kind of camera this guy should use to take his photos, how many megapixels should I say that the camera needs.

Sorry if these are stupid questions. I played with digital imaging for some time now but as of yet, still have never had a digital camera of my own.

Here is a link to a crude mock up of the image to show the correct size of the Volkswagon in relationship to the photo of his car that he provided.

< http://img431.imageshack.us/img431/9641/workepssample1pj.jpg>

How to Improve Photoshop Performance

Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!

P
Phosphor
Oct 15, 2005
Enlarging an image won’t generally make it look pixellated, but it will probably look a little blurred compared to an un-enlarged image.

Photoshop does the best it can to guess and fill in pixels when enlarging, but it’ll never be the same as if the image were placed at original size.

The first thing you need to understand is that in the world of digital imaging—from camera and scanner output and through the entire process of image manipulation in Photoshop or any other raster-based software—is that you must get used to thinking in pixels. EVERYTHING is measured internally in pixels, and anytime you see any other unit of measurement (like inches or centimeters) its only because the software is making the converrsion for your convenience.

So: completely ignore inches and think pixels. Inches come into play for printing, and at 300 pixels per inch, you have more than enough resolution to create good looking images.

Simple math tells us that 4.75" at 300 ppi is 1425 pixels. So, to bring in an image to fill that entire space space you’d want to have a camera that shoots at a minimum of 1425 pixels in its smallest dimension. This makes sense, right?

So, ideally you want a file coming out of the camera that can output 3.0 MP or better (approximately 2048 x 1536 pixels—see this simple camera resolution chart < http://www.crutchfieldadvisor.com/ISEO-rgbtcspd/learningcent er/home/digitalcameras.html#chart>). For an element that will appear smaller on the template than the full 4.75"2, you won’t need all of that image data, unless you decide you want to enlarge that element. The more image data you have to work with the better. When faced with a choice, ALWAYS ask for the biggest files you can get. You can crop image area, or throw data away by reducin the size of an image, but you can’t create new image data out of thin air. Photoshop’s good, but not THAT good.

If you want an image to look like it’s taking up half of that 4.75" space, it should ideally come into the document at 1425px x 713px. Again, simple math. Reducing an image is usually OK, but enlarging it much more than 10 – 15% isn”t really the best idea. A lot of your success in enlarging is dependent on the content of the image, and explaining the ins and outs of that is worth another whole big bunch of paragraphs.

There, I’ve gotten the ball rolling. Is it making sense? Read through that, and see if you need to put a finer point on your questions.
JJ
Jammer_Jammer
Oct 15, 2005
Thanks for your explanations and yes it is making sense.

This leads me to a few more questions:

1. If I were forced to used the image that he sent me, which method would render the best image of the Toyota?

a. Enlarging the photo that he sent me and THEN cutting it out and bringing it into my workpage or…..

b. Cutting it out and bringing it in as is and then using the transform tools to enlarge the Toyota.

2. Isn’t almost any digital camera these days at least 3 megapixels? I haven’t had the chance to ask him yet but I can’t imagine that he used a camera of less pixels than that and if that is the case, why is the Toyota so much smaller than it needs to be, given that the photo he sent me was almost full frame?

Thanks for continuing to help the ignorant. : -)
P
Phosphor
Oct 15, 2005
Q1: a or b, doesn’t matter. Photoshop will handle the enlargement the same way in either case.

Q2: Very simply put, you get what you pay for. You can walk into Toys R Us and get a 1 MP camera if you want. Full frame? That means nothing, because you haven’t attached a value to your measurement, nor even defined what a "Full frame" means.

Remember: Think ONLY in pixel dimensions and the relative sizes of images will start to make innate sense to you.
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 15, 2005
Why not scan the toyota at 600 or so ppi? that way, if you transform it, you’re transforming down, which is usually better than the other way ’round.
JJ
Jammer_Jammer
Oct 15, 2005
Phosphor,
Thank you very much, you’ve been very helpful and I really appreciate it.

YrbkMgr,
Do you mean, have the Toyota owner make a print of the Toyota image and then scan that print at 600 ppi?
Y
YrbkMgr
Oct 15, 2005
That’s exactly what I mean Jammer. I’m not sure how much fidelity loss you’ll have, or if it would even be noticable, but in your situation, it’s worth testing it. That’s what I’d try anyway. It’d work better with a traditional camera I would think, but the truth is, I’m no photographer, so your mileage may vary.

The reason I think regular film would work better is because the "making a print" part can introduce crappiness, depending on how it’s printed and all. Film is pretty reliable.

Peace,
Tony
ML
Mike_Logan
Oct 15, 2005
Have him take another shot of the Toyota at the correct angle – for a start… 🙂
D
d-signer
Oct 15, 2005
Reduce size of the Volkswagon picture as Toyota’s has and then enlarge them together to desired size. It will give you equal quality of each pictures. 🙂

—Kostya
JJ
Jammer_Jammer
Oct 15, 2005
YrbkMgr,
Thanks again.

Mike,
Yeah, I had already mentioned it was at the wrong angle in my first post. 🙂

d-signer,
True but then they would both be crappy. 🙁

Thanks everyone. I’m gonna find out how many megapixels that camera has that he used and if he used the best resolution setting that the camera had. I think the easiest way out of this is to just have him borrow a better camera and take the correct angles.

Must-have mockup pack for every graphic designer 🔥🔥🔥

Easy-to-use drag-n-drop Photoshop scene creator with more than 2800 items.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections