Trying to export an image at 300x300px without it being pixelated.

[klsym]

Hi there, 

I'm making a image / graphic for a clients email newsletter - they require the image to be 300x300px so I've set it up to this and exported at the requested 72dpi, however they've come back saying the image is pixelated in their email.

I then upped the resolution on the export to 300dpi, which fixed the pixelation but made the image size 1250x1250px instead of the required 300x300px. I've brought the image into photoshop to decrease the size back to 300x300px, but then the image becomes pixelated again.

To me, 300x300px is a small image size so is pixelated regardless and only becomes unpixelated when the dimensions are increased, but my client is adamant this shouldn't happen and we should be able to get a non-pixelated image at 300x300px regardless of the resolution. I don't know if I'm just being stupid but this is a frequent issue we have and I can never find a way around it. Help please! 

The original image placed into the one I'm making is high-res too by the way.

Thanks 🙂

[rob day]

Can you share/show the graphic? Are you sure it's emailing at the actual 300x300 size and not being reduced in the sending or the creation of the newletter?

[klsym]

Unfortunately I can't share the image/graphic, but it does appear pixelated to me before sending - no matter what software I use it comes out pixelated when exported.

[rob day]

Unfortunately I can't share the image/graphic

What are you trying to resolve? The content matters—in print 8pt type is easily readable and resolved because print output is typically 1200 to 2400 dpi. In a 4.16" x 4.16" page output at 72ppi (300x300px), 8 pt type would not be resolved. For example:

[Scott Falkner]

Pixels are a weird unit and they are not available as a unit in InDesign. I know you can select Pixels as the size of your document and use something called pixels in the ruler, but those are not pixels, they are points, or 1/72 inch. Pixels have no physical size, but InDesign files always have a physical size, unlike pixels.

If you create a 300 pixel by 300 pixel image in Photos ho then export it as a JPEG at 300 pixels per inch you should expect a 300 pixel by 300 pixel image that in one inch square. That is not what you will get. Because InDesign treats a pixel as 1/72 of an inch you will get 4.167 inch square image at 300 pixels per inch. If you measure that image in pixels it will be 1250 pixels square, not 300 pixels square.

This might not relate to the low resolution   your file. That might just be that 300 pixels is not all that big so it appears pixelated because, well, it is, and there is no way out of it. But it is useful to know that InDesign is not suited to creating images that are meant to be saved in a raster format. Photoshop is much better for this job. Illustrator is a little better for this job.

[klsym]

This always fries my brain! haha.

I've tried creating the artwork in Illustrator and Photoshop too and always get the same result. To me it is because it is a small file but when my client questions it, it makes me question it. I've ended up recreating it again in XD to see if it makes a difference but doesn't really. Will explain to my client the sizing issue. 

Thanks! 

[rob day]

Hi Scott, I think @klsym has set up their InDesign document as 300x300 pixels (4.16" x 4.16") and Exported to an image format at 72ppi, which produces the required 300x300 pixel image. That doesn't mean the image is making it into the news letter at that dimension--it could be scaled down in the sending, or the via the newsletter's HTML code.