Kindle newbies might like to read this to save a lot of heartache!
When I first created my covers in a graphic arts program I made the mistake of saving them as JPEG (compressed file) then when uploaded to Kindle (which compresses them again) the covers were fuzzy and not clear. I then went back and saved the originals in TIF format (uncompressed) and the result was less fuzzy covers. I also made the giant mistake of using fonts that were too small so my thumbnails are unreadable. You need GIANT font for your book title that uses half the cover space. I would like to re-do my covers but have lost all the original artwork. You can see these mistakes by clicking on -
Simply saving an image as a JPEG is not the cause of a fuzzy image. It's the software used and the quality of the compression process. While JPEG does lose some data when it is saved, it remains the standard both in consumer and commercial printing, and is a better option if you don't have a lot of space and you intend to save/store a great number of images.
TIFF is a better quality all around, but file size can be an issue. I will say that TIFF creates a better product in commercial uses. But for a book cover? Simply create the image large and with a high DPI, then when you need a smaller version, shrink it. Works for me in JPEG every time and I've never had fuzzy images. If you have Photoshop, it's just as easy to save in either format, but you still want a high DPI.
Kindle newbies might like to read this to save a lot
When I first created my covers in a graphic arts
program I made the mistake of saving them as JPEG
(compressed file) then when uploaded to Kindle (which
compresses them again) the covers were fuzzy
I have standarised on 900 x 900 Product Image at 100% compression - ppi and dpi have nothing to do with Product Image as it is not being inserted via Word.
All images turn out fine at the 500 x 500 max size - see my gallery
[i]ppi and dpi have nothing to do with Product Image as it is not being inserted via Word.[/i]
The OP said nothing about inserting the image via Word, now did they? Additionally, why would a person create 3 different image artworks for their project? Let's say that the author makes their book cover as you direct them, and everything works out fine. Then they decide to make a Lulu or Createspace paperback copy. Guess what? They have to make an all new image. Not only that, but you have instructed them to make an image that is 900 x 900, which is all great if that's what they want, but it's not even close to the dimensions of a standard book. What happens when they want to use their book image for anything other than inserting INTO their book? They have to make another new image. See where this is going?
If the original artwork is created at 1300 x 2117 and in 300DPI, just one time. Guess what? It hits all of those birds with ONE stone. Need to print your cover? You're good. Need a cover for Lulu or Createspace? Check. Need a cover for Kindle or Nook? Done. Need promo materials? A poster? A flyer? It's a high quality, so you're good. Simply re-size the .JPEG format you saved from your .PSD and you can do anything with it. Not only does it make things easier, but it makes your product uniform. Are you interested in branding at all? This is the route to go. It's efficient, uniform and professional.
On a computer, the terms DPI and PPI are often interchangeable. DPI always makes a difference. It is the input and output from any external device connected to the computer, including but not limited to, a monitor. An image created in a high DPI in 1600x1200, for example, will still only show up as 800x600 if that is the monitor's limitations. If all of your customers have computers from 1990, then don't worry. Other than internal and external devices, DD is correct when he says that it does not affect image quality.
Likewise with a printer. 300 DPI is actually not even that amazing. Most commercial applications have set 300 as a bare minimum. Some of my company's artwork/graphics have 900.
The OP said nothing about inserting the image via
Word, now did they?
The actual action of inserting an image in html file saved from Word is dead simple and takes up one small part of the Book 2. But to try to HELP people who are all confused re ppi and dpi I went to a lot of detail to FULLY explain it in plain English WITH pictures.
So if you are not a full bottle of difference between Images for Screen and Images for Print then it is $4.99 to buy book, as one reason for putting it into a book was to NOT have to explain the whole thing again.
as for "covers" the OP was talking to a Product Image, which has to be uploaded at Item 4 as a single file, so ppi and dpi have no effect at all.
but 900 x 900 is the 3-D intended as Product Image, but Customer also gets the RoadKill 2-d at 600 x 900 and 100% compression jpg. They can then use either for promotional purposes, or if they elect a flippage, the roadkill is the front cover.
But if we select the start point image we got for aspect ratio via crop of 1.82:1 so as to get the WrapAround so as to have a Spine in the 3-D and if customer did not hassle us too much we do a free REAR cover with remainder of image and put up as a Customer Image.
[i][b]all that[/b] for $39.95 and NOT a ppi or dpi in sight[/i]
Sub-par quality and misinformation? I feel sorry for your customers. It's just a shame that they don't know any better. I even said as much that DPI/PPI has almost no affect on a monitor. It's all about if the monitor can display the quality.
Again, my question. You create a cover image for your customer at 900x900 and use a typical 72 DPI (I'm assuming). This person later decides they need a book cover for Lulu or Createspace, or they wish to have flyers printers for promotional purposes. Either it has to be upsized to 300 DPI to print clear, professional quality images, or it needs to be completely reworked to prevent 'fuzziness'.
Whereas, my proposal and all I'm trying to say is: Create the image big, with a high PPI. It can be downsized with a couple of clicks. No reworking required. Try stretching a 900x900 image into a 2000x2700 size image (front cover of 5.25 x 8 inch Create Space book)
Obviously got a couple of experts writing to this post so wonder if you guys can help me out with simple graphics question.
Took a digital pic of my kids today, xfrered to computer and saved in jpeg. Reduced in size in graphics program to 20% and put on my webpage. Problem is pic is blurry and unfocussed. Used sharpen to improve image but still way below original in quality. Any ideas?
Thanks - J[b]ames[/b]
Most consumer digital cameras will allow you to set the dimensions of the image. See if you can access the settings and set the default save on the images to a larger size, then, when transferring to your PC, it might result in a bigger image.
What graphics software are you using?
If that doesn't help, feel free to email the pic to charlielange at gmail. I can take a look for you, maybe see what's up.
In addition to what charlielange said, you must remember that jpg or jpeg uses a compression algorithm EVERY time you save the image. So if you adjust and save five times, you have severely degraded the image. When working with image try to save it in a format that doesn't compress. I use Photoshop, so I save all intermediate steps in .psd, and then use .jpg for the final image. I understand that .tiff doesn't compress, and does .bmp, and they are not proprietary.
When saving .jpg in many photo software packages, the software allows you to determine the amount of compression, so if given a choice, always use the highest value.