google images
It never ceases to amaze me how many people think that images on the web are a suitable quality for print. Here's a heads-up: NO! NO! NO! Just cos you used a PC all your sad office life and you can copy and paste (the shittest) clipart into a Word document, then blow it up to A4 and get passable image quality on-screen - doesnt, I repeat, does not mean you know what the fuck you are doing. OKAY?
Consider this an education. FACT: Required resolution for web, 72dpi. Required resolution for print, 300dpi. And I mean proper print through a printing press, not your gay inkjet.
With this in mind, it brings me to an interesting turnaround. The web is no good for hi-res images and those that do reside online exist only because the website's creator (often an amateur who downloaded a free application) has not reduced its resolution for web-use. However more and more hi-res images are becoming available.
When I first arrived in New Zealand, Fonz, one of the designers I worked with suggested Google images to find an image to fill a space in the magazine. My response, though I didn't say it quite like this aloud was:
"What the FUCK? What kind of amateur outfit is this? We can't use images off the web they'll be far too low res."
"You'd be surprised", said Fonz "ole Google images has got me out of some pretty sticky situations."
And he was right. While working on that magazine Google saved me many times, hell, most of the CD and DVD review pages and all of the Games reviews images were sourced from there. Waiting for supplied images from contributors was the correct process but in reality they never arrived.
After I left, I freelanced for a year in many ad agencies and it was obvious that it was a bit of a well-know secret amongst Creative Directors how many times they'd bailed themselves out of sticky situation with good ole Google. One even confessed that certain live campaigns existed with content obtained via Google Images. "Sometimes you can find higher resolution images out there than ones the client supplied", he whispered slyly.
Consider this an education. FACT: Required resolution for web, 72dpi. Required resolution for print, 300dpi. And I mean proper print through a printing press, not your gay inkjet.
With this in mind, it brings me to an interesting turnaround. The web is no good for hi-res images and those that do reside online exist only because the website's creator (often an amateur who downloaded a free application) has not reduced its resolution for web-use. However more and more hi-res images are becoming available.
When I first arrived in New Zealand, Fonz, one of the designers I worked with suggested Google images to find an image to fill a space in the magazine. My response, though I didn't say it quite like this aloud was:
"What the FUCK? What kind of amateur outfit is this? We can't use images off the web they'll be far too low res."
"You'd be surprised", said Fonz "ole Google images has got me out of some pretty sticky situations."
And he was right. While working on that magazine Google saved me many times, hell, most of the CD and DVD review pages and all of the Games reviews images were sourced from there. Waiting for supplied images from contributors was the correct process but in reality they never arrived.
After I left, I freelanced for a year in many ad agencies and it was obvious that it was a bit of a well-know secret amongst Creative Directors how many times they'd bailed themselves out of sticky situation with good ole Google. One even confessed that certain live campaigns existed with content obtained via Google Images. "Sometimes you can find higher resolution images out there than ones the client supplied", he whispered slyly.
posted by Phil at 8:30 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home