New Resolution

rgb1Not all digital images are equal. Some are so small that they are adequate for web purposes only, while others are suitable for the more rarified heights of print. There are a few simple rules of thumb to be employed when judging which is which and how much an image can be enlarged without ruining it. 
Image Building Blocks
The ancient Greeks were the first to guess that if you cut matter into small enough pieces, you would eventually end up with the fundamental particles from which all things are composed. Digital images are similar. Peer closely enough, and every photograph resolves into a grid of tiny dots. On a computer screen, each point of colour (or pixel) is composed of three tiny image elements. The three elements are red, green and blue, and when each is illuminated in various combinations at one of 255 levels, give rise to one of many millions of potential colours. Back out at the human scale, viewers see a seamless blend of colour, detail and motion. Dots Per Inch The pixel density on a typical computer screen is 72 pixels per inch, which means 72 pixels on each side of a square inch, yielding a total of 5184 pixels per square inch. Images for use on the Internet are hence set up at 72 pixels per inch. Unless the absolute pixel size of an image is quite large, it is relatively unusual for a web-optimised image to be suitable for print purposes. Print images usually require a minimum of 300 dots per square inch, which equals 90,000 pixels per inch squared. Hence, print demands much larger file sizes. Interpolation All digital photos are comprised of a grid of pixels, also known as a raster image. When a digital image is enlarged, the image software automatically adds (interpolates) additional pixels. If enlarged too much, the resultant image can become noticeably blurry. Judicious use of image sharpening software can correct this to an extent, but not if there wasn't enough information to begin with.  Also. many jpeg images optimised for web purposes suffer from the effects of 'lossy' image compression, where image information is discarded and the picture becomes 'blocky'. Sharpening an image degraded in this way can be counterproductive. For example: An 300dpi image that is 500 pixels along each side translates into a 4.2cms on a side print image. An 72dpi image that is 2000 pixels on a side works out as a 17cms on each side image when resized (without resampling) to 300 dpi.  Hence the image that is larger in terms of absolute pixel dimensions is always the best option, even if it is nominally at 72dpi. Resize without Resampling If using a good quality image editor such as Photoshop, it is possible to resize an image without resampling (interpolating) it. In other words, you are able to change the size at which an image will print without altering the overall number of pixels. The value that changes is dots per inch. For example, a 1000 pixel image at 72 dpi would print out at 35cms across. If the resolution is reset to 200dpi without resampling, the image will now print at 12.7cms across.  At 300dpi, the image will be 8.47cms across. The same image, the same overall width in pixels, but a changing relationship to the resolution, and hence the print size. Example from Photoshop CS3: resize without resampling example image Note the pixel size, print size and resolution After resizing without resampling The pixel size remains the same, but the relationship between the print size and resolution has changed Summary:
  • Try to use images at, or close to, the original size unless there is a lot of image detail to work with.
  • Look for images with large pixel sizes (1000 pixels and above, preferably). Anything smaller than 400 pixels across is likely to be of little use for print.
  • When saving in the jpeg format, use the highest or next highest quality level.
  • when converting an image from 72dpi to 300dpi or similar, resize without resampling to discover the 'true' size of the image at print resolution.
  • If an image has to be enlarged for print purposes, use a sharpening filter afterwards
Read more

By the Letter

Perhaps you saw an interesting typeface on a poster, or in a magazine. You're not a typeface expert and you've got no idea how to track it down beyond hunting through hundreds (if not thousands) of candidates on the web. There are a few simple options:  What the Font is a very neat way of identifying a typeface from just a small sample. The feature will work with a scanned sample or a fairly low resolution image from a digital camera. The clearer the sample, the better the program works. What The Font managed to correctly identify several partial samples we uploaded to it.  A linked forum also offers a bit of human interaction if the software doesn't do the trick. A simple way of identifying a type sample A simple way of identifying a type sample                       Typophile is a haunt for hardcore typeface enthusiasts and designers. If you don't have any luck with What the Font, then some of the folks at Typophile may rise to the challenge posed by your enigmatic sample. Membership is free. Search by Sight is offered at ITC's website (among other places) and involves the font seeker answering a series of yes/no questions relating to the type sample. If you only have a small number of letters/characters, the questions may continue for some time until the list of potential matches is narrowed down. Type Navigator at the Font Shop doesn't require a sample, but instead offers clues based on whatever aspects of the typeface you might remember. Even if you don't find the exact typeface, you will probably see something else of interest.
Read more

YouSendIt, We Get It

Many Internet Service Providers place a fairly low limit on the size of email attachments they will allow. FTP (File Transfer Protocol) offers an alternative for moving large files, but the receiver needs to have their server configured to receive such files. Other options include uploading files to your own website (if such you possess) and emailing the file location to the intended recipient.  However, if you only need to send large files occasionally, and to a range of people, YouSendIt is a far simpler solution. At this stage the 'Lite' level of service is free. The user simply joins at www.yousendit.com, enters the recipient's email and a brief message, locates the file (or zipped collection of files) to be sent and presses the "Send It" button. The receiver soon receives an email inviting her to download the waiting file -- a one-click process. YouSendit offers pay-per-use services also, featuring document tracking, online storage facilities and the ability to send even larger files.  YouSendIt now offers plugins for use within Outlook, Acrobat, Photoshop and others, so users can send files directly from their native application. So far, YouSendIt is all upside. Perhaps email as a medium will eventually adapt to the new demands placed upon it, but until then YouSendIt is an elegant stop-gap.
Read more

Mi Casa es Picasa

These days it is easy to accumulate large quantities of digital images. Hard disks are much bigger, digital cameras are ubiquitous and attached images are emailed in industrial quantities. The image viewing and search tools supplied by Messrs Gates and Jobs are functional, but often slow and not particularly exciting. Others have tried to fill this gap. Apple has iPhoto, Extensis has Portfolio and Adobe sells Photoshop Lightroom. A program called iView Media Pro was gobbled up by Microsoft, but still exists. All are excellent programs, but in our experience, they are just  not as fast and intuitive with large volumes of files as Google's (free) Picasa. After installation, the user instructs the folder manager to watch specified folders on her hard disk. Picasa can also watch folders on networked drives and removable media. The initial index of all image files  on a given volume can take many hours. The resultant database built up by Picasa is often large. The interface is extremely clean. The default option is rows of image thumbnails, but alternatives include timeline and slideshow.  Searches are carried out 'live' -- search results appear as the user types. Individual images can be opened and edited in a number of simple ways.  Scrolling through results or the overall image library is usually fast, particularly compared to previously mentioned programs. Yet Picasa does have its flaws, or at least it can be pushed to breaking point. Image collections with more than ten thousand images may load quite happily in Picasa, but after a few searches, the program often slows dramatically. Picasa performs well in OS X, but even there, a very large image library can bring matters to a standstill.  Users are advised to watch only the folders they need, not the entire disc. It is also possible, if time consuming, to regenerate the database. Picasa doesn't just sit on your desktop. As befits a child of Google, Picasa offers access to Picasa Web Albums, where users can  store up to 1Gb of images on Google's servers. Bloggers can also upload images from Picasa to their own blogs. Useful how-tos for Picasa can be found here and here. Overall, Picasa is a worthy and capable image viewer and suitable for the vast majority of computer users.
Read more

Jumping the Google Shark

It's easy to get addicted to the Google cloud. First it was Google Documents, then Google Calendar, then the contacts feature in Gmail , and Google Desktop and Sidebar, Blogger and Picasa ... many of them viewed via the Google Chrome browser. Oh, and iGoogle, a way of creating a customisable home page.  Each of these services and others not mentioned here is frequently updated, richly featured and weirdest of all, free.  So what gives? As Robert Heinlein once observed, There Aint No Such Thing as a Free Lunch. Reassuringly, this law still holds. Google uses these digital plums to generate customer loyalty,  drive traffic to its search engine and stimulate advertising revenue (99% of Google's revenue comes from advertising).  If you use a Google product every day, or a whole constellation of them, then it seems logical that you would also use their search engine. But as long as they are offering the services, why not take advantage? Keep in mind that what the Google giveth, the Google may taketh away. However, with such massive user bases building up for some of these services, the cost in customer outrage might be high enough to at least give Google pause if they are planning to withdraw one of their digital freebies. Here's a brief summary of some of the advantages of you Googelising your life (apologies to Derek Zoolander):
  • Access to contacts independent of location (assuming you have an Internet connection): Gmail
  • Access to word documents and spreadsheets independent of location: Documents
  • Ability to sychronise mail and contacts between cloud and PC/Mac: Gmail, via various software solutions
  • Access to a huge online email cache (that can also be converted by one utility into an online file storage facility): Gmail
  • Blindingly fast image catalogue that automatically tracks and adds images in selected folders: Picasa
  • Comprehensive database of everything on your computer, with search results delivered much faster than Windows: Desktop
  • A fast and stable browser that won't crash if one of the tabbed sessions fails: Chrome
On the debit side of the ledger, there are some disadvantages:
  • Potential loss of privacy. Google is going to end up knowing a lot about you, your habits and interests, and possibly your friends. They may do no evil, but their interests are not necessarily congruent with yours.
  • Over-reliance on a single provider
Google has competitors, but they don't have Google's depth and breadth. Google is able to swallow up smaller companies offering innovative online software solutions (YouTube, anyone?) and to encourage software developers to write programs that extend the functionality of Google freeware. The resulting situation has a momentum that does not yet seemed to have reached any inherent limits.
Read more

I Love Typography

Well, who doesn't?  ILT is also a website that type lovers should visit as often as possible. Created by one John D. Boardley and featuring additional contributors, I Love Typography is a testament to a simple idea done very well.   The contributors make it clear that there is a world of interesting typeface useage out there, whether hand lettered or computer generated. The examples they find and photograph are discussed intelligently and at some length. They also feature new typefaces and sometimes give away a sample weight or two. Other occasional features include interviews with type luminaries, in-depth discussions of a specific aspect of typography and a bit of type history. Even if you're not a font geek, the site is good for ideas and examples, links to other quality resources and a general sense of unrestrained enthusiasm.
Read more

overall concept

The general plan is to build up a useful resource for our clients and anyone else who might be interested. We will be posting on offset and digital printing, book design, software resources, cloud computing, image and typeface resources and resources for authors. For light relief, I hope to review a few of my favourite podcasts and post anything else that is too interesting to remain unexamined.
Read more