Help with sizing large TIFF to tiny postcard (not looking for free work!)

[Vigilante]

Ok guys, I HAD typed a huge long explanation, but the dumb PC crashed as I was finishing, so now you get the short version instead. :(( :((

My original TIFF, taken by a photo guy in town, starts at 16mb. I save-as, then crop it to the part I need.
I then add this crop to my postcard, and resize, usually with a simple CTRL-T and size it in one move to the new tiny size. I also hold down shift to restrain proportions. The new document postcard, in PS, was created simply 5inch wide and 4 inch tall as the document size. I don't know how that translated to pixel quality.

The problem I have is that when this small head/shoulders shot is printed, it looks like crap. And we compare to other post cards of his peers, they look nice and clear and sharp. Mine ends up washy, out of focus, blurred.

Tell me, how best to resize this large cropped TIFF into my small post card without loosing so much quality?
My question revolves around the difference between height and width of pixels versus inches (document size) and the pixels per inch box.

In other words, on a 4"x5" postcard size document in PS, I ust CTRL-T and resize it, it prints crap. BUT, my image is 72px/in and like 100 px height. Now if, instead of resizing, I use image-size on the cropped document and set it to 1.2inch tall and retain 300px/in size, then it prints better, by itself. But I can't use it in my post card because the pix/inch dictate that the image is still HUGE! So that obviously effects placement of the image on the little post card. I can't resize the image without drastically changing my pixels per inch count. I don't know.

How in the world do I size my large document into a small area and retain good quality like these other postcards I see? What is the best resizing technique? Should I convert the TIFF to something else? Note that when I open the TIFF, PS usually tells me that it will use the embeded color profile, is this a problem?
Where can I learn about the pixels versus inches laws? Because I want my pic to be 1.5" tall, but then he stays huge, but if I set to 150pix tall, he prints like junk. I really don't get it.

Help?
If you want some originals, I can post them, but I don't want to beg free work, unless someone asks to have a go at it!

[karin]

hmm, I think I have the same question

k

[kevinf]

You are printing at 72DPI which is FAR too low. On your postcard go to Image->Image Size... checkmark resample image and then set your resolution to 300 before importing the tiff. Import it and scale it down. Then it will print nicely.

Or even before all that when you do File->New... set the resolution to 300dpi for the postcard.

[Nebraskagirl]

Yes you need to be printing at 300 dpi. From what I understand the file is big to begin with. Open the file, go to image size, make sure resample image is unchecked. At this point the file will be at 72 dpi with large dimensions. Type in 300 instead of the 72, and you will see the dimensions proportionally size down. Click ok. Now at this point, you would be able to print the image and it'd look beautiful. Now crop whatever you would like and it will remain at 300 dpi. I'd reccomend saving as tiff to retain quality, make sure you don't save over your original document.

[Vigilante]

Ok. When I open the original TIFF, and go to Image-Image Size. The values are:

W = 1213 pix
H = 2606 pix

W = 4.043 in
H = 8.687 in

300 Pixels/inch

This is the original. If I save-as a new file, and crop, the new image is:

W = 838 pix
H = 884 pix

W = 2.793 in
H = 2.947 in

300 pixels/inch
------------------------------------

So at this point, is this the best way?

1) Create new document 4"x5" @ 300pix/inch.
2) Copy layer of crop to this document.
3) Add rest of content to this doc
4) Save and print
-----

When I try to do this, at the point when I copy the layer. Or actually I just drag from the Layer Pallet to the other doc, it pops up a box saying:
"The target document has a different depth than the source document. This may result in lower than expected quality. Are you sure you want to proceed?"

What is this? They are both 300pix/in?
So I just say yes and it copies to my doc. Does that affect something?

Now the weird part about working this way is, my image size is supposed to be 5" wide, but because it is 300pix/in, it looks huge on screen. So when zoom is 100%, it is nowhere near 100% in real life? This is pretty weird stuff.
So what if I want to edit a document where 5" is REALLY 5 inches, as it will print? Or is my thinking backwards?

Thanks so far, the print is getting better but still looks a bit pixelated. What if I used 600pix/in? Or can I do that since the original was 300?

[BabbleGrabble]

First of all, get used to the fact that the original will look huge on your screen - this is good. The bigger, the better. What you see on your screen in no way translates to a relative printed size. At 300ppi, you're displaying 300 pixels for every inch. Compare this to your pixel screen resolution and you'll begin to understand why that image is eating up all the space of your monitor. If you need to see the image in its entirety, just zoom out to something like 25%. But when you print the original TIFF, it will print exactly 4.043" x 8.687" (regardless of the resolution).

You could just print the original TIFF (and accept the message that not all of the image will be printed). But if you need to print a specific crop of the TIFF, set your crop tool settings to 4" x 5" 300ppi, then drag from outside of the top left of the image down to the lower right and extend outside the right of the image. You don't want to shorten the width at all, or else you will lose quality (since the original is already only just over 4" in width). Adjust the crop up or down, according to how you want it, then apply the crop and print.

A final thought - I am unclear about what dimensions you want in the end ... by saying 4" x 5", I assume 4" width by 5" height, but then you mentioned 5" width later on ... this will result in a loss of quality because the original is only just over 4" in width.

[Nebraskagirl]

W = 838 pix
H = 884 pix

W = 2.793 in
H = 2.947 in

300 pixels/inch

Is the detail given of your cropped image. At this point, you cannot blow it up to 4" x 5" because you cannot create more pixels than are in the original. That 2.7, 2.9 is all the bigger that image will print at 300 dpi. Now, there is a way to blow it up from printing as a PDF in adobe. Pretty much it's a scale percentage you use when printing in adobe acrobat from your saved image as a pdf.
Once you get the hang of this, it'll make sense.

[Vigilante]

Thanks guys, for the clarification. Somebody aught to write up an article on how to interpret sizing, pix versus in and printing.

Ok, the cropped image STAYS that way. It is just the part of the original that I am placing on the 4"x5" document. It is not being resized anymore. Remember this is a postcard, the cropped image is a head/shoulders shot. It isn't filling the whole doc, it's just in the bottom corner.

After the crop and copy to my new 4x5 doc, it is not edited at all or resized or changed. Just positioned. The rest of the 4x5 is just lines and text and so forth. Which leads to this next question.

I do a lot of design for the web, so I am far more used to dealing with pixel widths versus printed inches. And most all my work was in default 72px/in. So this confused me, having to move to 300px/in which made it huge.

But the new issue has to do with transfering this image to another program. Bare with me please :)
I am creating this document sort of as a template. The person I'm doing this for will actually go and change the text on this postcard himself and print them himself. But not with Photoshop! They want nothing to do with PS. They want to use Publisher. So I must create this template image in PS, and transfer it to publisher for printing the postcards. How does the huge size in PS translate to a 4x5 postcard template in Publisher? What I fear is when I try to import the image from PS to Pub, it will be way huge? No?

I can't try this now until I go to his house to work on it again. So what can I expect when working with Pub also?

[kevinf]

An image that is 4"x5" at 72dpi and an image that is 4"x5" at 300dpi will both be 4"x5" when imported into a document layout program. The former will simply have less pixels in an inch than the latter. In photoshop, images at 100% zoom are represented on a 1:1 pixel basis. If your image is 1"x1" at 72ppi then it will be 72 pixels wide on screen, while a 1"x1" 300dpi document will be 300 pixels wide on screen. But they will both print at one inch by one inch... just with a variable number of pixels IN that inch.

[David Anders]

http://www.google.com/search?q=photoshop+printing+resolution&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official
.

[Nebraskagirl]

Publisher should be banned...it's a cheap way to design and was meant to undercut the profession. Oops, did I say that out loud? You should be able to place the image, typically layout design is done in InDesign or Quark (including your postcard...nothing but photo manipulation should ever be done in photoshop) but I see what you're working with. You should be able to go to edit, use one of those pull down menus, and place the image. Otherwise best bet is look under the Help menu and it'll give you step by step.

[kevinf]

Latest versions of the two applications and their pricing via microsoft.com and adobe.com

Indesign = $700
Publisher = $170

They both have their places, and they aren't typically in the same place. Publisher works well for home use and for stuff to take to your local copy shop. Indesign is good for professionals who will be sending work to be press run or to other professionals.

Would you rather have people use word to layout their kids birthday cards? I wouldn't wish that on anybody. The programs both cater to different markets. If someone is going to be doing serious document layout work, Indesign will pay for itself. Someone trying to undercut other professionals by cheaping out on their tools is just shooting themselves in the foot.

With that said, both programs have their faults :)

[Nebraskagirl]

Maybe this is why some people don't believe that designers should be paid $70-$85 an hour. They think they can do it at home and it's not that difficult. Same goes for cheap logos/icons. Of course I understand that it's two target markets which is fine, professional designers shouldn't be using it. But that's my opinion, you get what you pay for. Publisher isn't just used at home though, a majority of businesses use it for design.

[Vigilante]

When I went to use Publisher for laying out this simplistic little post card, I found almost immediately that I couldn't do near anything I wanted to do with it. Especially in its extremely pour font design system.

Basically I have to draw everything, or edit everything, in Photoshop into small chunks of graphics that can laid out in Pub. About the only thing we used Pub for was plain text.

Explain why it would be a bad idea to layout in PS? I mean, if I create a document 8.5x11 and layout a page, having infinite design capabilities, why is it better to use a layout program? Because I also had a heck of time in Pub trying to deal with transparencies.
Surely you don't need a $700 program to make a postcard with a name/address and a picture on it.

[Nebraskagirl]

I used to think this too, before I got further into my BFA education. If you don't have a layout program, I suppose doing it in psd is better than publisher. You could even get away with doing it in illustrator, which would be better than psd. All professionals design in Illustrator and InDesign/Quark for layout of publication pieces, ads, etc. The reason is, psd is rasterization, and you want to design your typography in vector form. In vector form, it's easier to edit, manipulate, and so forth, (also printing isn't as risky with those jaggies in psd). You could even mock up what you want in psd, then get rid of the typography, save as a psd, open in illustrator, and the image file keeps it's properties. (Any transparency) Then you can use illustrator for your typography. You're also able to convert your typography into outlines, which is wonderful!
Just for future FYI, while working in a print shop, we had the worst time with a file someone brought in which was designed in psd. (It was a postcard) It was very rare for us to have a publication file from a designer in psd form. Hope that answers your question!
PS You don't have to buy the professional version, I bought educational in a combo pack for around $300.

[tfoster]

PS You don't have to buy the professional version, I bought educational in a combo pack for around $300.

Only if you're eligible, no piracy please!!!!!

[Nebraskagirl]

Yes I was taking a night class at the time, and it's not piracy if you buy the software from a reputable retailer. If it was, the retailers wouldn't sell it to you if it was illegal (since they would be at risk for a lawsuit). The professional versions have more bells and whistles than the educationals do.