sorry about the situation... here are some links that might help!

http://www.graphicdesignforum.com/fo...ead.php?t=6805

http://www.graphicdesignforum.com/fo...read.php?t=294

thanks, i've read that, still not making sense...

perhaps i need some sleep

Raster artwork (photoshop tif, jpeg, etc...) is pixel based artwork. That means that each image has a grid of pixels, each one containing color/position information. If you create the graphic at 72dpi, and it's 4"by 3", it will always be 288 pixels wide and 216 pixels tall. When you up the resolution to 300 dpi, you still have the same number of pixels, they just get bigger and more obvious. In order for your 4X3 72 dpi image to print clearly, it has to print at .96" wide by .72" tall. Your monitor displays 72 dpi, where your printer will output at 300 dpi. What looks good on screen will not always look good in print. Does that make any sense?

The only suggestion I have for you is to open this image in Photoshop and increase the image size in 10% increments. You can record an action of this and just play it over and over. It'll lose quality eventually, but I've had farily good results with this method. By the way, why didn't you create it at 300dpi in the first place? It's so much easier to size down and "save as" than to do what you're trying to do.

Pash, be sure to check the last couple of pages of Morea's first link. In it, there are samples of what is possible with PrintPro, a leading 'upsampler' plugin for Photoshop. It's really worth a looksee.

rule of thomb.. you can always go down but never up.

if you follow that you wil be golden.

thanks everyone

the image looks shite, i tried all i could...

i'm going to do another for their brochure instead, this time i will start out with 300 dpi.

or, they can get a "real" designer to do something instead lol

There isn't much a any designer could do with a 72 dpi image. The only obtions that come to mind are blow it up and get over the loss of qaulity or vector it. I doubt you would want to do either. Better off just reshooting or finding a new picture at the correct size to print effectivly.

Ok try doing this i had a same problem once and did this trick and worked.

Open 3dsmax and create a plain and apply the image as matterial to the plain and zoom it in camera and save it as tiff.

you will not get it at 300 dpi b,cause its 3ds max but you can get in a bigger size

Regards
Kapil

Never work at 72 dpi, unless it's for website material such as icons etc. Even then it pays to do the original at 300dpi at least.

>>Open 3dsmax and create a plain and apply the image as matterial to the plain and zoom it in camera and save it as tiff.<<

That's one might complicated (not to mention expensive) utility to create a bicubic upsampling. A 3D texture mapping is still just an upsampling, like any other.

I'll maintain that PrintPro is the only 'hopeful' compromise solution for this task.

I find just one exception to the 72dpi rule, and this usually deals with digital cameras with high megapixels. Sometimes they shoot in 72dpi, but the pictures are extremely large. That kind of allows for compensation, if you're sizing that large, large picture down for a magazine/book/whatever. For example, taking an 18x24 in picture at 72dpi and sizing it down to 4X3 at 300dpi.

But something like 640px X 480px at 72dpi, uh uh, fah-get-bout-it.

I agree with broacher's comment. Your best bet for raising the resolution is trying Genuine Fractals Print Pro... this plug in is made for this and it is simple.

Using plug-in: Open doc and save it as a GF doc (*.STN , *.FIF) ... then when you reopen it... it will let you choose the resolution.

I have used this with a 72 dpi image for a printed 8ft display... it worked for me.

>>I find just one exception to the 72dpi rule, and this usually deals with digital cameras with high megapixels. Sometimes they shoot in 72dpi, but the pictures are extremely large.<<

First, I wish everyone would stop thinking in dpi and just say 'ppi' (it's even more fun to say). Secondly, the resolution of an image is nearly secondary to its range of useage. It's the pixel dimensions that's critical. And it's that fact that lies at the bottom of so much confusion and wasted production effort and time.

Look, for production purposes, a 3,000 x 3,000 pixels at 10 ppi is identical to a 3,000 x 3,000 pixels at 2400 ppi. And it doesn't make any real difference (from a matching pixels to output standpoint anyhow-- artifacting from lossy jpg, and colorspace matching aside) whether the file is a JPG, TIF, BMP or PSD.

Sure, we like to have all our images ready to drop at 300 ppi for all our purposes, but the reality is that we work within bands of standard scan and digital image sizes. Don't get hung up on resolution statements-- just pay attention to the pixel dimensions, and work from there.

PGP#38 (Pet Graphic Peeve): clients (and even publishers!) who hand over (or specify) images that are, yes--- 300 ppi. But when you open them you realize that they are simply screen jpgs reset to 300 ppi (and now good for postage stamps) or worse, simply upsampled from 72. Aaaaaarggghhhhh!!!!

What is PPI, DPI, Res. Dont all of them represent the same.