I do my artwork using 1080x1080p and 300ppi
If i print my artwork as png, will they be printed clear like the digital one?
I do my artwork using 1080x1080p and 300ppi
Is your intent to print it at actual size?
That’s only 3.6" x 3.6"
Print clear like what digital one? Will it look better than your monitor?
Depends on your print output device.
.png is not a print format.
.psd or .tif is better.
300ppi is 300ppi and it won’t get any better by saving it as a PDF or anything else. Its a raster file and nothing can change that.
300ppi is OK at actual size for most picture files, but for text it is just not good enough.
I print whatever you send me.
png, jpg, svg, tif, psd, gif, pdf, eps, bmp, whatever.
Except for .psb. Well I will, but it might cost you more.
People send .png files when they can’t figure out how to preserve transparency in a tif.
There are compression formats though that do not preserve image data on saving, and others that do not play well with rips. Even an LZW compressed tif used to give Quark conniption fits on ripping. Might still, I don’t know.
The .psd and .tif formats are the best bet for print when placing images into layout programs. Whether or not you save to PDF after that is pretty much up to the print vendor.
If just printing to a desktop photo printer, it really does not matter, except for the compression artifacts you may get if using jpg.
Just picking up on this, which has already been touched upon. PNG is not a print format; it’s a format for displaying objects on a monitor.
That said, if you print out a PNG from, for example, a color desktop printer, it will probably work just fine. This is because the desktop printer will separate the RGB information in the PNG into what it needs to print the images using inks the desktop printer has. This can also be true when sending off a PNG to a commercial digital printer, like PrintDriver’s company. As he said, he’ll print what you send him — even if it’s not ideal.
Send that same file to a traditional offset printing company, and you could have major issues. RGB data is not compatible with 4-color process (CMYK) offset printing, and unlike many digital printing companies used to dealing with non-standard files that arrive, traditional printers typically expect files to arrive that are prepared according to long-standing industry norms that are compatible with CMYK printing. In other words, you just might find yourself facing extra charges or getting a print job back that didn’t turn out as you expected.
The first and bottom line is that PNG files are not for printing — even though you might sometimes get away with it. It’s better to stick to industry standards and use either PSDs or TIFFs (saved as CMYK or RGB depending on which the commercial printer prefers).
While I wouldn’t disagree with that statement on its face, an exception of sorts has evolved…
The online, direct-to-garment, you-sell-your-design sites (I have some experience with Zazzle), are somewhat of a special case. Since they do indeed print DTG, and often have white-ink capability too, combined with the fact that your image uploads also have to work in their web-based layout interface, they have adopted PNG as their transparency-supporting raster image format. This allows your design to appear on your screen without a white background. And apparently, they’ve also built a reasonably sound output process around it. I’ve done some one-off, dark-color-fabric sweatshirts that came back looking surprisingly good.
HB’s experience is a very good example of why you should
ALWAYS READ THE PRINT VENDOR’S SPEC SHEET.
I wonder though if Zazzle’s production work flow doesn’t have something more to do with their web interface rather than their output rips. DTG is another form of wide format printing that uses extended gamut inks. If extended gamut is in the equation, RGB data will produce a better output than the same file reduced to a standard CMYK gamut, in which case a .png isn’t the end of the world.
I just miss the good old days when sorting this stuff out seemed a lot more straight-forward.
Yeah. The print end of things used to be far more straight forward too.
I remember laughing at the first machines that printed directly to substrates, thinking, “you blow a print, you blow a whole sheet of substrate instead of just a sheet of paper or some vinyl.”
Now? Can’t live without em. But dam, there are so many different profiles and processes and new ways to do things…