Home « Forum « Author Hangout

Forum: Author Hangout

Book Cover

Switch Blayde

Amazon manages the size of the book cover thumbnail, but when you click on it (mine) it's really large. I've noticed some book covers aren't like that when you click on them.

What did I do wrong? How do you make the book cover when clicked on be a manageable size for a screen?

Replies:   Daydreamz  Chris Podhola
Chris Podhola

You should put a link in so that we have the option of seeing what you are talking about first hand.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@Chris Podhola

put a link in


And include a link to one of what you're comparing it with.

Switch Blayde
Updated:

Here are the links of mine and another. Click on the small book cover to get the "Look Inside" version (size). The "Kite Runner" is a reasonable size. Mine is bigger.

Kite Runner = http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/159463193X/ref=s9_simh_gw_g14_i2_r?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=desktop-1&pf_rd_r=04M0EE2G5954S5D13FD5&pf_rd_t=36701&pf_rd_p=2079475242&pf_rd_i=desktop

Mine = http://www.amazon.com/Sexual-Awakening-S-W-Blayde-ebook/dp/B00L1VHIZC/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1455718988&sr=1-1&keywords=sw+blayde

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Switch Blayde

The "Kite Runner" is a reasonable size. Mine is bigger.


I would guess around 50% bigger.

I don't think the size of yours is unreasonable.

The likely difference is the pixel size of the raw image you sent to Amazon to use as the cover.

you are comparing a cover image of a dead tree book to a pure e-book. The cover image of the dead tree book is probably a photograph of a printed cover. The sized and aspect ratio of the cover image are dictated by the layout of the physical book.

On the other hand, your e-book cover is not limited by any physical format.

I don't think it's a fair comparison.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Crumbly Writer

Just a guess, but the problem may be the lack of sample 'Look Inside' pages. Instead of offering this feature, double clicking instead displays the HD 300dpi cover image.

If that's the case, the next question is, what happened to your story preview data?

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Ernest Bywater

I don't know if I'm missing something, but both the images on the initial page are so close to the same size it doesn't matter. Yours is 313 x 499 pixels and his is 320 x 499 pixels. When I open both the previews, they show the same size in my software. Your image can be decreased or increased in size by one hit of the zoom button either side of the opening image. The other one can go down one size or up three.

I'd be checking the initial setting for what they're to open with and the settings of the application or device you're using. Because I can't see nay difference at all.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Crumbly Writer

As I said, I suspect that, since it's a free book, clicking on it simply enlarges the image, instead of offering the 'look-inside' display.

Daydreamz

@Switch Blayde

On the intro page 'Awakening' has a typo btw

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde

@Crumbly Writer

If that's the case, the next question is, what happened to your story preview data?


I see the first 2+ chapters. Is that what you mean by preview?

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Switch Blayde

@Ernest Bywater

When I open both the previews, they show the same size in my software.


That's interesting. They don't in mine.

Switch Blayde

@Daydreamz

On the intro page 'Awakening' has a typo btw


Yikes! You're right! Thanks.

Switch Blayde
Updated:

@Dominions Son


The likely difference is the pixel size of the raw image you sent to Amazon to use as the cover.


I agree. I think it's the pixel size of my image. I just don't know how to reduce it without sacrificing quality.

As to comparing it to a traditional publisher, I did that on purpose. I also picked The Kite Runner on purpose because it's a new book so I guess the cover wasn't a picture of a physical cover. I could be wrong about that.

Anyway, how do I reduce the pixels to make the image smaller without losing quality. I use the first version of Photoshop Elements (yeah, that old), but I squeak by in using it.

Lazeez Jiddan (Webmaster)

@Switch Blayde

Anyway, how do I reduce the pixels to make the image smaller without losing quality. I use the first version of Photoshop Elements (yeah, that old), but I squeak by in using it.


I've never used Elements, but I have photoshop and I guess they should be similar enough.

From the 'Image' menu select 'Image Size'. The dialog box will have the dimensions listed. Change them to what you want. If it has a 'Resample Image' with a menu, see if you have 'Bicubic Sharp', if it does, use that.

Ernest Bywater
Updated:

@Switch Blayde


how do I reduce the pixels to make the image smaller without losing quality.


edit to add: I use GIMP because I refused to fork out more money to upgrade from Photoshop 5 many years ago, and found GIMP did all I wanted to do in image manipulation work.

I don't know if this is any help to you or not, but I recently started creating multiple images for my cover art - same picture different sizes for the different uses.

original image is 1838 x 2775 pixels at 600 dpi - for the print book

resized to 1800 x 2700 pixels at 600 dpi for the -epub

resize to 600 x 900 pixels at 600 dpi for a thumbnail for my website.

The key to the image quality is the high dpi to maintain clarity as the pixel size shrinks.

i can send you samples if you want me to so you can compare them.

Switch Blayde

@Lazeez Jiddan (Webmaster)

It is using Bicubic (no sharp, though).

Okay, so to make the image smaller, so it fits on a screen rather than having to scroll, which do I change (I'm actually working on a different image than the one I linked to above):

1. the pixels dimensions 11M (currently, 1550 pixels width & 2480 pixels height)
-- or --
2. the resolution in the document size (currently 310 pixels/inch)

Switch Blayde

@Lazeez Jiddan (Webmaster)

Lazeez,

I was playing with it. I changed the width in the pixels dimensions to percentage rather than pixels. The smaller the percentage, the smaller the image became.

Thanks for your help.

Crumbly Writer

@Switch Blayde

I see the first 2+ chapters. Is that what you mean by preview?

Yeah, that's what I meant. I didn't see a "look-ahead" tag and assumed it wasn't active since the book was free.

@Lazeez

From the 'Image' menu select 'Image Size'. The dialog box will have the dimensions listed. Change them to what you want. If it has a 'Resample Image' with a menu, see if you have 'Bicubic Sharp', if it does, use that.

Save the image from "The Kite Runner" (a new book? Really?) and check the resolution (not image size) in Photoshop Elements. You can keep the extra size, but reduce the resolution. I think that'll make the difference.

@Ernest

I use GIMP because I refused to fork out more money to upgrade from Photoshop 5 many years ago, and found GIMP did all I wanted to do in image manipulation work.

I recently switched from the overly complicated Photoshop to a new Apple Mac program that only costs $39.99, Affinity Photo. However, it doesn't support the Apple based transparent png format which I use for my chapter titles, so now I'm stuck using both! (sigh) I do have other tools that'll convert between file formats, though.

@Switch

1. the pixels dimensions 11M (currently, 1550 pixels width & 2480 pixels height)
-- or --
2. the resolution in the document size (currently 310 pixels/inch)

That's very close to what I use (1583 x 2500), but I use 300dpi. I'm guessing maybe the extra 10pixels dpi may make a difference.

Switch Blayde

@Crumbly Writer

"The Kite Runner" (a new book? Really?)


I meant it was written in the digital age.

Switch Blayde
Updated:

@Crumbly Writer


I didn't see a "look-ahead" tag and assumed it wasn't active since the book was free.


It has the "Look Inside" tag. And it's not free. I never noticed that before. On that page, it looks like it's free. But that's only for the Kindle Unlimited subscribers. Under it, in small print on this page, it says you can also buy it for $3.99.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Switch Blayde

@Crumbly Writer

That's very close to what I use (1583 x 2500), but I use 300dpi


Amazon says for best quality, the longest side should be 2500 pixels. I just changed my image to that and it changed the width to 1563 (which is the 8:5 ratio Amazon suggests).

So I'm fretting over nothing. I'm following Amazon's suggestion. So maybe the bigger image doesn't matter when you do the Look Inside.

Grant

People always need to keep in mind that Resolution & DPI aren't the same thing.
Resolution is for screens, DPI is for printing.

https://luminous-landscape.com/understanding-resolution/
http://www.vsellis.com/understanding-dpi-resolution-and-print-vs-web-images/

Crumbly Writer

@Switch Blayde

It has the "Look Inside" tag. And it's not free. I never noticed that before. On that page, it looks like it's free. But that's only for the Kindle Unlimited subscribers. Under it, in small print on this page, it says you can also buy it for $3.99.

It shows how often I look for books on Amazon!

Amazon says for best quality, the longest side should be 2500 pixels. I just changed my image to that and it changed the width to 1563 (which is the 8:5 ratio Amazon suggests).

That's because you're maintaining the same ration (6"x9"). When I resize my books for Amazon, I switch to Amazon's non-novel cover size (designed to fit their readers, rather than the actual books). Photoshop or Affinity resize the entire image, so you don't lose any detail.

So I'm fretting over nothing. I'm following Amazon's suggestion. So maybe the bigger image doesn't matter when you do the Look Inside.

I think you're confusing double-clicking the image (expand view) with the look-ahead function (which I did when responding to this thread).

@Grant

People always need to keep in mind that Resolution & DPI aren't the same thing.
Resolution is for screens, DPI is for printing.

This isn't as true as it used to be. Nowadays, with HD 5K screens, 300dpi covers show off an amazing amount of detail. The devices generally control how much detail to reveal, resizing for each device on the fly. For first glance, you get a very low-res image. But you're only allowed to submit one cover image, so you submit the HD version. The 300dpi works best when opening the book on your device of choice (rather than at the sales counter).

Replies:   Grant  Switch Blayde
Grant

@Crumbly Writer

Nowadays, with HD 5K screens, 300dpi covers show off an amazing amount of detail.

Once again it's a question of resolution v DPI.
In the case of extremely high resolution displays you have very high PPI (Pixels per inch) counts.

Crumbly Writer

@Grant

Once again it's a question of resolution v DPI.
In the case of extremely high resolution displays you have very high PPI (Pixels per inch) counts.

My point, and I did have one, is that PPI is controlled by the website/device. The website will display larger PPI images based on what device you have, but the author can only submit a single image. Thus he'll pick a high dpi count based on the site's specifications. But they have no control over what's actually displayed on the sales site. If you submit an 1800x2800pixel image at a 72dpi resolution, it'll look like crap regardless of the image (I'm assuming, since I've never attempted it).

Each of the book sites specify print resolution images (300dpi).

Ernest Bywater
Updated:

@Grant


resolution v DPI.


Grant,

In computers resolution usually refers to the number of pixels across the screen and down the screen, when applied to an image it means the pixels across the image and down the image. technically, it includes the number of pixels per inch (ppi), but few think about that today. When printing an image the quality of the image depends on the dot of ink per inch or dots per inch (dpi). Although not exactly the same, for practical purposes dpi and ppi are interchangeable and most image manipulation software is default set to dpi, so people are used to using that term for the image quality.

The more ink dots or pixels you have per inch the higher the quality of the image when it's printed or displayed.

typo edit

Switch Blayde

@Crumbly Writer

That's because you're maintaining the same ration (6"x9").


No, that sounds like a print size. Mine is ebook only. My ratio is 8:5 which is what Amazon recommends.

Requirements for the size of your cover art must have an ideal height/width ratio of at least 8:5 (1.6)

• For best quality, your image should be 2500 pixels on the longest side

Chris Podhola

@Switch Blayde

When I clicked on yours, the cover size was reasonable. When I clicked on the other one, no cover image came up at all. Not sure why.

On a completely separate and unrelated note, even though you didn't ask for opinions on this at all, I couldn't help but to imagine the girl in the image as sitting on a toilet. I don't know why, but that's what I kept seeing based on the positioning of the legs. I think the image was supposed to have some sex appeal to it, but it didn't have that effect for me.

I just mention it as something you may want to keep in mind in regard to this image. To be honest, I would recommend changing it.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde

@Chris Podhola

I couldn't help but to imagine the girl in the image as sitting on a toilet


I had a graphic artist student look at the cover. She said the same thing.

I found the image of the legs only. When I did the research to see if I could use it, I found the original image it was taken from. It was a girl sitting on a toilet so you (and she) are right.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Switch Blayde
Updated:

I asked Amazon if I should change my 310 dpi to 300 and this was their response:

We recommend our publishers to upload the cover image with a resolution of 72 dpi (dots per inch). If it doesn't meet these criteria, your cover image may get rejected.


I wonder if they mean 72 dpi is the minimum.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@Switch Blayde

I had a graphic artist student look at the cover. She said the same thing.

I found the image of the legs only. When I did the research to see if I could use it, I found the original image it was taken from. It was a girl sitting on a toilet so you (and she) are right.

The figure/pose is a standard one is stock art, and is one of the only ones you can use for that type of story without crossing into images which wouldn't be allowed. I was considering a story where I considered a variety of similar images. And yes, they all look like the woman is sitting on the toilet!

Replies:   Chris Podhola
Crumbly Writer

@Switch Blayde

I asked Amazon if I should change my 310 dpi to 300 and this was their response:

I've always submitted my cover images in 300dpi, and I've never had a cover rejected, or had the resolution flagged. I suspect the tech support people simply have no clue what they're talking about. Typically, anytime you mention a problem, they begin listing all the things they'd do, rather than what the website supports/specifies. You've got to take such advice with a grain of salt. However ... if you'd like to submit it at the same resolution at only 72dpi, I'd be interested in the results.

Ernest Bywater

A few general points:

1. The two main sizes used for paperback books today are Us Trade which is 6 x 9 inches in size and Paperback which is 8 x 5 inches in size. technically there's also A4 which is a metric size, but almost no one uses it.

2. 72 dpi is the minimum of a readable image in print and is what you often see as the black and white images in a newspaper. Most colour images in newspapers are 150 dpi, and most magazines won't accept an image that's less than 300 dpi. The higher the dpi the higher the quality.

3. In general usage dpi and ppi are interchangeable, although they're technically different, the end result is not that noticeable by the human eye.

4. Regardless of the dpi or ppi and image will display on a screen based on the actual number of pixels and the screen resolution. Thus an image of 1,200 pixels by 600 pixels set at 300 ppi will appear on the screen of a computer the same size as one of 1,200 pixels by 600 pixels set at 600 ppi. Because it will still take up the same amount of the screen but will appear to be a sharper and clearer image on most screens.

5. An image that's 2,400 pixels by 1,200 pixels set at 300 ppi will usually print at 300 dpi and come out as an 8 x 4 inch printed image. However, the same image at 2,400 pixels by 1,200 pixels set at 600 ppi will print out as a 4 x 2 inch printed image unless stretched across the page, but will look sharper.

Switch Blayde

@Ernest Bywater

Ernest,

I'm not talking about print.

When I take a photo on a 10 megapixel camera, the image is gigantic. My photo viewing software makes the picture fit the screen, but if I hit ctl/z it shows the actual size (maybe all I see is the forehead and eye of the face I took and then have to scroll to see the rest). To make it smaller, I reduce the pixel dimensions by some percentage (Lazeez reminded me of that, but I did it a lot with email).

So what I got from your explanation is the DPI has nothing to do with the size. Reducing the pixels for the height and width is what makes the image smaller.

If the above is true, then I'm better off simply using Amazon's guidelines which say optimum is a height of 2,500 pixels with a 8:5 ratio. That's probably what works best on the Kindle reader.

Thanks.

Switch Blayde
Updated:

@Ernest Bywater

Actually, you can reduce the size of pictures 2 ways:

1. reduce the picture dimensions as I said above
2. reduce the dpi

The problem with the second is it lowers the quality. I found this on a site talking about Outlook.

There are two ways to reduce the size of pictures that you attach to e-mail messages in Outlook 2010:

Reduce the picture dimensions -- Digital cameras can create very large images far in excess of the dimensions that most computer monitors can display full screen. Compressing the image to a smaller width and height can greatly reduce the file size. This option is available for pictures that are attached, but not displayed within the message body.

Compress the picture resolution -- By decreasing the dots per inch (DPI), file size is reduced, but the quality of the image is also impacted. Displaying images on a computer monitor requires a lower DPI than images that are printed. If the recipient doesn't need higher quality resolutions, use a lower setting. This option is available for pictures that appear within the message body.

Ernest Bywater

@Switch Blayde

1. reduce the picture dimensions as I said above
2. reduce the dpi


That will reduce the storage size of the file, and the second will reduce the quality. One way to achieve a better effect if looking solely at an electronic image with no intention to ever print it is to up the ppi / dpi while reducing the number of overall pixels.

Take a 2,400 x 1,200 at 150 ppi / dpi image and resize it to 600 x 300 at 600 ppi will give you a smaller looking image at a much higher quality for a smaller storage size because storage is a factor of the number of pixels by the ppi rate - 2,400 x 1,200 x 15 = 432,000,000 while 600 x 300 x 600 = 108,000,000 or 25% of the original size. But the image is sharper and clearer on the screen. Just prints damn small on paper unless stretched out.

Chris Podhola

@Crumbly Writer

The figure/pose is a standard one is stock art, and is one of the only ones you can use for that type of story without crossing into images which wouldn't be allowed. I was considering a story where I considered a variety of similar images. And yes, they all look like the woman is sitting on the toilet!


I guess I'm a little confused by this statement. For roughly five dollars an image, you can get access to a massive variety of images through many different stock image sites. Surely five bucks isn't a lot to spend.

Dominions Son

@Chris Podhola

I guess I'm a little confused by this statement.


The point of the image used is to imply that the woman is stripping down for sex. Amazon would not allow a cover with an full length nude image.

Replies:   Capt Zapp  Chris Podhola
Capt Zapp

@Dominions Son

The point of the image used is to imply that the woman is stripping down for sex.


But if it looks like a woman on a toilet, even without the toilet, perhaps a woman's hand with panties dangling from her fingers would work better?

Crumbly Writer

@Chris Podhola

I guess I'm a little confused by this statement. For roughly five dollars an image, you can get access to a massive variety of images through many different stock image sites. Surely five bucks isn't a lot to spend.

I'm talking from experience from having searched several different stock art collections. 'Woman undressing' almost always returns a similar image, one which almost always looks more like someone sitting on the toilet than sexually enticing. It seems to be more the attitude of the collections (what they request/promote) vs. what authors are looking for (by the way, authors have very little input in photo collections, since they don't comprise a large collection of the purchasing market. It's usually graphic designers/ad-generated content that feeds the photo libraries. The images I'm seeing probably look like they're sitting on the toilet for good reason.

@Capt Zapp

But if it looks like a woman on a toilet, even without the toilet, perhaps a woman's hand with panties dangling from her fingers would work better?

That sounds great. Now, if you could photograph that for me, including getting model signatures and authorizations, I'll gladly use your image. 'D

The point, is that authors are at the bottom of the stock image food chain, and thus we end up trying to cobble together compromised images from a selection of bad choices. There are a lot of choices, but they're primarily for print/web based ads instead of creative content.

Replies:   Capt Zapp
Chris Podhola
Updated:

@Dominions Son


The point of the image used is to imply that the woman is stripping down for sex. Amazon would not allow a cover with an full length nude image.


For shits and giggles, I went to Dreamstime which is one of the sites I purchase images from. I typed in a search for 'woman pulling panties down' and I quickly found images which seemed much more appropriate. The suitable images ranged in price from $5 to $12, and none of them gave the impression of a woman sitting on a toilet.

The I.D. number for one of the images is 8480515

Go to Dreamstime and type in that I.D. number. Or you can do the search yourself. Type in either "Woman stripping" or "Woman pulling panties down". Either of them give satisfactory results.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
richardshagrin

I am trying to think of a product that would want/need a picture of legs that might be sitting on a toilet for its advertising. Not coming up with much. One possibility might be toilet paper, but I haven't seen anything like that. They talk about softness and sometimes about the environmental benefit of their brand. Maybe a shaver for ladies legs?

Switch Blayde

@Chris Podhola

For shits and giggles, I went to Dreamstime which is one of the sites I purchase images from. I typed in a search for 'woman pulling panties down' and I quickly found images which seemed much more appropriate.


I bookmarked that site. Didn't know about it -- thanks.

But I did the same search and none of the images would work. The woman in the novel is a sexually repressed wife of a pastor. None of those panties would work. In fact, I had to photoshop the one I used to make it more plain.

Crumbly Writer

@Switch Blayde

I bookmarked that site. Didn't know about it -- thanks.

I've never used it either, I'll keep my eye on it. I've used several stock image sites over the years. My current favorite is Adobe's Fotolia.com, as they have a lot of sci-fi specific images, as well as enough generic content to be useful. In fact, I found it useful enough that I purchased a yearly subscription, though I'm not sure I'll come up with enough new stories in the next year to continue the subscription.

DeviantArt had a lot of useful images for book authors, but it's a pain trying to come to terms with the authors concerning how much they charge, or whether you can get the artwork for free by promoting it. I've found trying to negotiate those details isn't worth the trouble. A straight, 'buy the image you see' seems like a more straightforward approach.

@Switch

The woman in the novel is a sexually repressed wife of a pastor. None of those panties would work. In fact, I had to photoshop the one I used to make it more plain.

That's really what it all boils down to. Generally, it's hard to find a stock image that fits what you're looking for, as we're each looking for something specific. Generally, we just pick a 'close enough' image, or we try to patch a suitable image together using a photo editor. However, both options end up producing crude, non-professional covers. And don't get me started on commissioning artwork! In that case, you're out money whether the final image works or not. If a fan offers their services, you can hardly refuse when the image doesn't adequately fit the bill.

Chris Podhola

@Switch Blayde

That would certainly make finding the precise image more difficult. Possibly impossible even. When I went back to look again, I couldn't find any 'granny pantie' images either.

What I would do in that situation, if I felt like the type of panties were important, is use Photoshop's warp tool. I would find an image with the appropriate pose and find a separate (probably free image) of a pair of suitable underwear. I would then warp the underwear to fit the pose.

I have done this before with other images and with a little practice, you should be able to make the panties look very convincing. It takes a little effort to get it just right, but I have been able to change entire outfits on models and have gotten good results.

Capt Zapp
Updated:

@Crumbly Writer


@Capt Zapp

But if it looks like a woman on a toilet, even without the toilet, perhaps a woman's hand with panties dangling from her fingers would work better?

That sounds great. Now, if you could photograph that for me, including getting model signatures and authorizations, I'll gladly use your image. 'D


I find many of this type on sites like Shutterstock, Canstockphoto, Colourbox, and 123rf.

edit to add: Saw in later post the situation you were trying to show and couldn't find any of that style.

Switch Blayde

@Chris Podhola

I struggle with Photoshop. My latest cover is white so I needed a thin black border. You wouldn't believe how long it took me to do that. Something that simple!

Replies:   Chris Podhola
Chris Podhola

@Switch Blayde

Even though I don't consider myself a professional, I have spent countless hours learning to get a handle on Photoshop by watching Youtube videos. My favorite is Andrei Oprinca. I don't think he has any videos covering the border thing that you are describing, but I have learned a great deal from watching his videos and my covers are much, much better because of his videos. He is meticulous and detailed about showing his viewers how to achieve beautiful results in their artwork. I highly recommend him. He doesn't cover book covers specifically, however. His videos are more about how to get Photoshop to do what you want it to do in a general sense. But by watching his videos, you can apply the same principals to book covers.

Switch Blayde

@Chris Podhola

I will check his videos out. Thanks.

One problem is I have Photoshop Elements version 1. Yeah, the very first version. So when I watch videos, things are different.

Replies:   Chris Podhola
Chris Podhola

@Switch Blayde

Oh... Yeah. I can see how that might be a problem.

I guess it's entirely up to you, how often you publish (and would use Photoshop), and how much revenue you generate, but my subscription to Photoshop only costs ten bucks a month for the latest version. For me, this is a wise investment that pays for itself many times over. For you, it may not be time for that yet, but it's something to keep in mind.

Crumbly Writer

@Chris Podhola

What I would do in that situation, if I felt like the type of panties were important, is use Photoshop's warp tool. I would find an image with the appropriate pose and find a separate (probably free image) of a pair of suitable underwear. I would then warp the underwear to fit the pose.

A better option, since he's already using Photoshop, is to use the 'Color Substitution' tool, and replace whatever color/pattern of panties he has with pure white. It'll still have the appropriate shading, but it'll look how he desires.

My problems with images are more typically when I want to add another character to an image, often photographed under different lighting conditions, making masking them in tricky.

Replies:   Chris Podhola
Crumbly Writer

@Chris Podhola

Even though I don't consider myself a professional, I have spent countless hours learning to get a handle on Photoshop by watching Youtube videos. My favorite is Andrei Oprinca. I don't think he has any videos covering the border thing that you are describing, but I have learned a great deal from watching his videos and my covers are much, much better because of his videos. He is meticulous and detailed about showing his viewers how to achieve beautiful results in their artwork. I highly recommend him. He doesn't cover book covers specifically, however. His videos are more about how to get Photoshop to do what you want it to do in a general sense. But by watching his videos, you can apply the same principals to book covers.

In my case, I purchase various Photoshopping magazines every time they cover something I want to do. My problem is, without much practice, it's difficult mastering the techniques, even if you understand how to do the techniques.

Replies:   Chris Podhola
Chris Podhola

@Crumbly Writer

A better option, since he's already using Photoshop, is to use the 'Color Substitution' tool, and replace whatever color/pattern of panties he has with pure white. It'll still have the appropriate shading, but it'll look how he desires.


Well, no. Obviously, you answered this without actually viewing the images he was referring to, or without taking the time to understand what his needs were.

His issues weren't with the color of the panties in the image. It was also with the fact that the panties in the images weren't conservative enough. These images contained thongs and or lacy underwear, which was way to racy for what he said he needed. That is why I suggested warping a regular pair of suitable panties to fit the image. If you take a red thong and color it white, it would still be a thong.

Chris Podhola

@Crumbly Writer

In my case, I purchase various Photoshopping magazines every time they cover something I want to do. My problem is, without much practice, it's difficult mastering the techniques, even if you understand how to do the techniques.


I used to have the very same issue. Andrei Oprinca helped me in that regard. Before studying his videos, I wasn't able to do a very good job of accomplishing complicated Photoshop tasks, but since studying his techniques, I can accomplish almost anything I set out to and I can do a pretty good job of getting it to look believable.

Just for fun, I took an image of a nearly naked woman and turned her into a flying warrior princess and did so to my satisfaction.

Perv Otaku

@Switch Blayde

Actually, you can reduce the size of pictures 2 ways:

1. reduce the picture dimensions as I said above
2. reduce the dpi


No, this is wrong.

The actual picture file is only defined by the dimensions in pixels. If you shrink the image, Photoshop (or whatever) averages pixels together in order to combine them. This is also what happens when you have the image zoomed out on the screen.

Dots per inch only really has meaning when you print something because there are no inches involved until you put the image on paper.

You can, in Photoshop, take a 300 by 300 pixel image and change it from 100 dpi to 300 dpi. The program will tell you the image changed from three inches square to one inch square. The image actually hasn't changed at all, no pixels have been added or removed. How it prints is the only thing that has changed. Even then, if you use the image in, say, MS Word, where you can independently define the image size to three inches or one inch or anything else you want, it doesn't matter at all what dpi Photoshop thinks it is.

graybyrd
Updated:

Correct.

Dots per inch applies ONLY to printing the image. Newpaper images were as coarse as 65 dpi; smooth or glossy paper print quality was typically 150 or 300 dpi. The terminology comes from pre-digital era technology, when a "halftone" image was produced from a photograph. Lights and darks were produced by varying the size of the dots engraved onto the metal or acetate printing plate. Later, in photo lithography, we used a "halftone screen" to break the projected camera image into halftone dots on litho film for making a printing plate.

There was no such thing as pixels; only halftone dots whose size varied to print lights and darks.

Pixels came along with cross-hatched cathode ray tubes for computer monitors. Each pixel was a discrete unit of the monitor display screen. Macintosh graphics were 72 pixels; Windows graphics were 96 pixels. This difference caused much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

A four by five inch 300 dpi scanned image will be seen MUCH larger on a 72 pixel screen. That's why the display software will shrink the image to 20 or 30 percent so it will fit the monitor screen size. Thus a one inch by one inch 300 dpi image will print 1 inch x 1 inch on paper, but will display much larger than that on a monitor. The actual display size will depend on the resolution of the monitor, its pixels per inch.

Dots are aligned in rows on paper, by the inch.

Pixels are display bits on a monitor screen, their density dependent on its resolution.

Dots are not pixels; pixels are not dots. They are NOT interchangeable terms.

For an excellent explanation & tutorial on the subject (which can be so confusing as to cause severe headaches), here's a useful link:

http://www.judyofthewoods.net/money/pixels_resolution_dpi.html

Back to Top