Forum: Author Hangout

put a link in

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

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.

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)

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

I meant it was written in the digital age.

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.

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).

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).

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

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

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.

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

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

On the intro page 'Awakening' has a typo btw

Yikes! You're right! Thanks.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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,

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.

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.

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.

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.