Free logos?! http://www.logomaker.com
Websites for $10 month?!? http://order.1and1.com
With the web pretty much pervading every niche of the economy, there has been a preponderance of cut-rate design services online. So why would I advertise for them? Because I'm confident that my work is better. I'll get to know you, your vision and your business. I'll give you choices based on my experience as an artist, designer and marketer, and I'll deliver the quality that I'd expect for my own business.
In the end, you are putting a face on your company, the face that everyone will see for at least the next few years, and the thing that will compel people to either pick up and call you or change the channel.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Friday, November 6, 2009
pushing pixels
One issue I struggle with on a frequent basis is resolution. I'm not talking about conflict here, but rather the clarity of an image. As an educator, this was something that perplexed my students. As a professional, I find it an equal challenge to explain it to clients. But like riding a bicycle, once you get it, you've got it for good.
Here's the basic premise:
Images are made of pixels, tiny squares of differing color. When placed together in a grid, they form an image. The "resolution" of a pixel-based image is dependent on how many pixels you fit into one inch, otherwise known as pixels per inch, or ppi.
A 72 ppi image fits fewer, larger pixels into a single inch than a 300 ppi image. The fewer pixels you fit into that inch, the less seamless your color transitions will appear in print. Thus, when printed, a 72 ppi image might have pixels observable to the naked eye, whereas a 300 ppi image might appear equal to a traditionally printed photograph.
So far, so good? Here's the trick: different resolutions are befitting of different tasks. My first question when someone asks me for a copy of an image is, "What will it be used for?"
A logo used on the web need only be 72 ppi. Why? Because the screens they are viewed on display between 72 ppi and 96 ppi, meaning the low resolution image will look fine on the low resolution device. You can save your jpeg and gif images at a higher resolution, but why waste the extra bandwidth?
The same image used in a print ad, however, must be 300 ppi or higher. Why? Because printing produces a series of small colored dots rather than squares to recreate that logo (dots per inch or dpi), and the higher pixel count allows for more pixels to transition between the various tones that make up that image.
This is where people usually get lost, and I don't blame them. I was there once, too. I suggest this test: copy any logo from the web, something familiar that you might find in a print ad. Paste the logo into a document and print it. On screen, the logo looks great (as long as the web designer was competent). In print, however, the curves may appear jagged, and artifacts, pixels colored to force color blending, may be highly visible. A once beautiful thing on screen, looks cheap and unsophisticated in print.
One last thing. You cannot force an image or logo that started as a low resolution original to become high resolution by running it through a photo editing program. Yes, you can artificially force more pixels into your image to take it from 72 ppi up to 300 ppi via interpolation, but that's just putting lipstick on the pig, so to speak. Simply put: garbage in, garbage out.
Here's the basic premise:
Images are made of pixels, tiny squares of differing color. When placed together in a grid, they form an image. The "resolution" of a pixel-based image is dependent on how many pixels you fit into one inch, otherwise known as pixels per inch, or ppi.
A 72 ppi image fits fewer, larger pixels into a single inch than a 300 ppi image. The fewer pixels you fit into that inch, the less seamless your color transitions will appear in print. Thus, when printed, a 72 ppi image might have pixels observable to the naked eye, whereas a 300 ppi image might appear equal to a traditionally printed photograph.
So far, so good? Here's the trick: different resolutions are befitting of different tasks. My first question when someone asks me for a copy of an image is, "What will it be used for?"
A logo used on the web need only be 72 ppi. Why? Because the screens they are viewed on display between 72 ppi and 96 ppi, meaning the low resolution image will look fine on the low resolution device. You can save your jpeg and gif images at a higher resolution, but why waste the extra bandwidth?
The same image used in a print ad, however, must be 300 ppi or higher. Why? Because printing produces a series of small colored dots rather than squares to recreate that logo (dots per inch or dpi), and the higher pixel count allows for more pixels to transition between the various tones that make up that image.
This is where people usually get lost, and I don't blame them. I was there once, too. I suggest this test: copy any logo from the web, something familiar that you might find in a print ad. Paste the logo into a document and print it. On screen, the logo looks great (as long as the web designer was competent). In print, however, the curves may appear jagged, and artifacts, pixels colored to force color blending, may be highly visible. A once beautiful thing on screen, looks cheap and unsophisticated in print.
One last thing. You cannot force an image or logo that started as a low resolution original to become high resolution by running it through a photo editing program. Yes, you can artificially force more pixels into your image to take it from 72 ppi up to 300 ppi via interpolation, but that's just putting lipstick on the pig, so to speak. Simply put: garbage in, garbage out.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
watching wallpaper peel
I've turned some of my illustrations into desktop and iphone wallpapers for free download. Of course, if these start peeling, we're in trouble. http://kholdesign.com/downloads.html
Design Altruism Project
Beautiful Things from the Cradle: Q&A with the culture-makers
http://design-altruism-project.org/
http://design-altruism-project.org/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
