# Need advice on using a jpg pic on album cover, advertising, and merchandise



## ra1der2 (Nov 4, 2009)

I have an original jpg that is about 1024x680 and at 72 pixels per inch. This is the only copy I have of the image. I need some advice about using this image on an album cover as well as for advertising, and on merchandise like posters, shirts, etc. 

I realize I can increase the dpi but is it possible to successfully use an image of this resolution or should I really look into re-shooting it to attain the highest quality image possible?

It's a black and white image and I'd basically only want to have someone add the band name and album title to it if it was usable as it is.

Thanks in advance for any help


----------



## darren (Nov 4, 2009)

1024 x 680 will be pretty poor quality for print reproduction. Divide those dimensions by 300 and you'll get the approximate size in inches that it will reproduce well at. (Images generally need to be about 300 ppi for print, though you can sometimes get away with a bit lower.)

You're BARELY going to be able to use it on a CD, and it won't look good at all on posters or merch. Re-shoot it or if it's a hard black-and-white image, you could have a designer trace it into a vector image so it can be scaled up without losing quality.


----------



## ra1der2 (Nov 5, 2009)

Thanks for the help. I forgot to mention it's an actual photo and not artwork or a design. 

If I increase the pixels per inch using paint shop pro and make it 3600x2400 at 300 ppi, could it possibly work?

Also, do you have an idea what it may cost to have a designer convert it to vector?

Thanks again


----------



## DarkKnight369 (Nov 17, 2009)

It won't work at all without look like total shit. You can't take a web resolution image and make it work for print. You can only size down effectively not up. In addition to that, I have had CD's printed where they worked at 600dpi, not 300. That was for disc replication though as the duplication printing process was different.

Retake the pic. The more megapixels the better. I know my Canon Xsi is 12mp I believe and it maybe gets a useful 8x10. The bigger the better.


----------



## darren (Nov 17, 2009)

ra1der2 said:


> Thanks for the help. I forgot to mention it's an actual photo and not artwork or a design.
> 
> If I increase the pixels per inch using paint shop pro and make it 3600x2400 at 300 ppi, could it possibly work?



Upsizing an image in a photo editing app just interpolates the pixels, so you're going to get a soft image that still won't look good. It won't be pixelated, but it won't be a sharp image, because you didn't capture that information to begin with. All the computer is doing is guessing and averaging the information between those pixels.



> Also, do you have an idea what it may cost to have a designer convert it to vector?



It depends on the nature of the image and how long it takes. If it's a continuous-tone colour photo, there's probably no point in doing the conversion, as it won't give you a better result. This would only really work if it were something more graphic or even grayscale.

You're really better off shooting the image again. Even an 8 Megapixel camera will give you an good 8x10 at 300 ppi.


----------



## ra1der2 (Nov 23, 2009)

Thanks for the information guy I really appreciate it. The image is black/white if that makes any difference?

I am also curious does anyone know if there is a preferred photo size / photo specs for use when creating shirts?


----------



## Randy (Nov 23, 2009)

ra1der2 said:


> I am also curious does anyone know if there is a preferred photo size / photo specs for use when creating shirts?



Well, most t-shirt guys I know print in 13" x 13" and they prefer pictures to be in 300dpi; so you're looking at 3900 x 3900. 

Also, if it's black and white... is it a just text or a line drawing? If so, the print guys would LOVE YOU if you had it as a vector image. I or somebody else can get you more information on that, if that's the case.


----------



## sami (Nov 25, 2009)

I've always wondered. If you were able to show an image either on a large LCD (in a low resolution setting) or projection on a wall, then take a new pic with a digital camera, would you be able to get a bigger version that way?


----------



## Randy (Nov 25, 2009)

It'd probably have the same effect as doing a "smart resize" in your editing softward, is my guess. The actual image will be blurred/pixelated around the edges and if you "Live Trace" the photo, the lines will probably be a bit wavey or inaccurate. 

Totally a guess though.


----------



## sami (Nov 26, 2009)

Well if you had it displaying in 800x600 on a 21" display, then use a good camera, maybe then? I hope I never have to try that but you're prolly right!


----------

