How can I get 300 dpi tifs from webex stills worked on in adobe illustrator?

New Here ,
Jun 16, 2009 Jun 16, 2009

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I have been trying to convert images created in webex and transferred to illustrator into 300 dpi tifs. They download as ucf's when generated on white board. Or I'm uploading files from others coming in at 72 dpi, converting them to something bigger in photoshop to paint in before taking them back into the webex session as a doc that then gets worked on further during the session. Later they go into illustrator for some more work with vectors. That's fine for the web but now a publisher wants them as 300 dpi tifs and I can only get things back & forth as 72 dpi pdf's. If I try to bump them up with a resample, they come out teensy weensy. What am I missing and how can I make them look good?

Views

1.4K

Likes

translate

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Jun 16, 2009 Jun 16, 2009

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

The forum is for discussions on how the forum works or should work. Since your question pertains to Illustrator and/or Photoshop, I'd post in one of those two forums. I suggest you post in the Photoshop forum

Likes

translate

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Contributor ,
Jun 17, 2009 Jun 17, 2009

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

The bottom line is that, for proper, clean printing resolution, whatever you capture from a screen shot will reproduce at a pretty small physical size when printed.

Example:

Let's use a common monitor resolution of 1024px × 768px.

Let's say you capture a full screen. At a nominal print resolution of 300 dpi or even 240 dpi (which is about as low as you'd want to go), that full screen image capture will only reproduce in print with the physical sizes of  3.4" × 2.56", or 4.27" × 3.2", respectively.

Now, think about just taking an even smaller element from that screen capture. Say an object that is 200px square on screen. For most current monitors, that would appear to be around 2" square, give or take a fraction of an inch. But at print resolution, it would appear very small, perhaps 0.6" – 0.83" square.

No matter what sort of manipultaion you try, Photoshop simply can not "invent" image data to fill in the detail if you want to enlarge something small into proper, clean, higher resolution print quality.

The publisher may not understand this concept. But that's not unusual; many people don't understand how resolution works, even some folks who have been working with Photoshop and other digital image processes for years.

The best place to gain a clear understanding of how resolution works is at the following ink. Many years ago it turned the light on for me, as it has for thousands of others.


First thing to do when you visist the link is BOOKMARK IT! There's a lot to learn, and you may not have time to absorb it all in one sitting.

http://www.scantips.com

Likes

translate

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Engaged ,
Jun 17, 2009 Jun 17, 2009

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Phos±four dots wrote:

http://www.scantips.com

Great site for info...

lousy site for presentation

Content scores over presentation...

Likes

translate

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Jun 17, 2009 Jun 17, 2009

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

JayJhabrix wrote:

Content scores over presentation...

Yes it is a bit convoluted.


I remember when it all started (in Comic Sans no less ) and since then he's been tacking new bits on as technology advances.

Likes

translate

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Engaged ,
Jun 17, 2009 Jun 17, 2009

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Remember Hamrick (sp?) and the other great one... England-based, darkroom or light something? Run by a photographer... A lot of good info there. I remember i bought Hamrick's (if i have the name right) program. Was pretty damn good! Used it more than the Nikon one.

JJ

Likes

translate

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines