Confused on how to do CD Artwork

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Dennis Herrick, Mar 2, 2004.

  1. I hope I'm not asking something that's been covered a lot of times, but I'm
    not even sure what to search for!!

    My goal is to take a back of a record album and after the album is on to CD
    use the original artwork on the back of the CD case. A scan at 600 dpi works
    fine for this, but not having a scanner that can do 12"x12" presents real
    problems putting the pieces together. I've been using a digital camera. I
    had an older 2.1 megapixel camera which could to uncompressed tiff and this
    was sometimes usable. With the drop in camera prices, I just bought a 6.2
    megapixel Fuji camera (F700) and thought this would improve things. However,
    Photoshop tells me that ALL pictures are 72 dpi. Maybe I bought a camera
    that won't help!!!! This camera only does jpeg, although I'm told it can do
    RAW but I've never done that. (I probably should have asked for camera
    suggestions here first!!)

    If I understand what the guy at Fuji support told me, if I'm only printing
    approx 4"x4" for the back of a CD jewel case, then the megapixels don't
    matter. Greater megapixels give me ability to print larger sizes, but if I'm
    printing 4x4 it's a waste of disk space to just make a larger file with the
    6 megapixel setting.

    This would mean that the quality setting is far more important than the
    megapixels, and if this is true, I don't need high megapixels but high
    quality.

    Any help/comments/suggestions?
    Dennis Herrick, Mar 2, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Dennis Herrick

    Lucas Tam Guest

    "Dennis Herrick" <> wrote in
    news:lI71c.356$:

    > However,
    > Photoshop tells me that ALL pictures are 72 dpi. Maybe I bought a
    > camera that won't help!!!! This camera only does jpeg, although I'm
    > told it can do RAW but I've never done that. (I probably should have
    > asked for camera suggestions here first!!)


    JPEG defaults to 72DPI. But haven't you noted noticed... your images on
    the F700 has more pixels? In Photoshop, uncheck resample, and up the DPI
    count. That'll shrink your photo in terms of physical size (L x W) but
    will increase the DPI count. In essence, you're packing more pixels into
    a smaller space.

    > If I understand what the guy at Fuji support told me, if I'm only
    > printing approx 4"x4" for the back of a CD jewel case, then the
    > megapixels don't matter. Greater megapixels give me ability to print
    > larger sizes, but if I'm printing 4x4 it's a waste of disk space to
    > just make a larger file with the 6 megapixel setting.


    Well, 4 x 4 at 300dpi = (4 x 300) x (4 x 300) = 1.44MP, so it's still a
    good sized chunk of data.

    > This would mean that the quality setting is far more important than
    > the megapixels, and if this is true, I don't need high megapixels but
    > high quality.


    I guess the 3MP camera would do... but at least with the new camera
    you'll have more image data to work with for cropping, etc.

    --
    Lucas Tam ()
    Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
    http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/
    Lucas Tam, Mar 2, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "Lucas Tam" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns94A0B8441FE5Anntprogerscom@140.99.99.130...
    > I guess the 3MP camera would do... but at least with the new camera
    > you'll have more image data to work with for cropping, etc.



    I still can't get anywhere near the detail that i can get with a 600 dpi
    scan, but scanners aren't that big (12x12) to be able to scan a record
    jacket.

    My old 2 megapixel camera that can do uncompressed tiffs is far better than
    this new 6 megapixel camera.....
    Dennis Herrick, Mar 4, 2004
    #3
  4. Dennis Herrick

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <> on Wed, 3 Mar 2004 21:12:38 -0600,
    "Dennis Herrick" <> wrote:

    >My old 2 megapixel camera that can do uncompressed tiffs is far better than
    >this new 6 megapixel camera.....


    Then something must be wrong with the new camera.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    [PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
    <http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
    John Navas, Mar 4, 2004
    #4
  5. Dennis Herrick

    Lucas Tam Guest

    "Dennis Herrick" <> wrote in
    news::

    >> I guess the 3MP camera would do... but at least with the new camera
    >> you'll have more image data to work with for cropping, etc.


    Actually I was going to say a 1.3MP camera would do.

    > My old 2 megapixel camera that can do uncompressed tiffs is far better
    > than this new 6 megapixel camera.....


    Either something is wrong with the camera, or you're doing something wrong.
    Most likely it's you and not the camera : (

    --
    Lucas Tam ()
    Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
    http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/
    Lucas Tam, Mar 4, 2004
    #5
  6. "Lucas Tam" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns94A24879686E0nntprogerscom@140.99.99.130...
    > Either something is wrong with the camera, or you're doing something

    wrong.
    > Most likely it's you and not the camera : (


    I sure wish it was me.... I've been trying this with various cameras for
    several months and this new camera is pretty simple. I can set it at 1, 2,
    4, or six megapixels, and standard, chrome or black and white settings.
    That's it. I called Fuji tech support and the guy as much as told me I
    wasted my money getting a 6 megapixel camera, since all that will do is give
    me a better picture if I'm printing large pictures. If I'm only printing 4x4
    (more or less) that what I needed was better quality setting and not more
    megapixels.

    It's not even in the same ball park as the clarity from a 600 dpi scan.....
    Dennis Herrick, Mar 5, 2004
    #6
  7. Dennis Herrick

    Lucas Tam Guest

    "Dennis Herrick" <> wrote in
    news::

    > If I'm only printing 4x4
    > (more or less) that what I needed was better quality setting and not
    > more megapixels.
    >
    > It's not even in the same ball park as the clarity from a 600 dpi
    > scan.....


    In photoshop, convert your digital camera images from 72DPI to 600DPI. DO
    NOT RESAMPLE - just do a straight conversion.

    You WILL notice a difference.

    If not, I can assure you, it's you and not the camera ; )

    --
    Lucas Tam ()
    Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
    http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/
    Lucas Tam, Mar 5, 2004
    #7
  8. Dennis Herrick

    bob Guest

    "Dennis Herrick" <> wrote in
    news::

    > It's not even in the same ball park as the clarity from a 600 dpi
    > scan.....
    >


    It never will be either. 600dpi is way more than you need.

    You printer isn't going to make use of more than 300ppi. 300*4" =1200
    pixels. 1200 pixels / 12" = 100ppi.

    So scanning at 100ppi, or using a camera with 1200 on the short axis
    (1200x1600, or 2mp) should be sufficient.

    I would scan the backs in two parts, and piece them together in
    photoshop, which is really easy. (Actually, if it was me, I would use my
    12x17 scanner, but I guess you don't have one...;-)). Or, if two scans is
    too much effort, shoot with the new camera, and resize (Image, resize) to
    4" x 4", as others have said, without resampling. You will probably get
    the best results with a middle zoom setting.

    Bob

    --
    remove the backwards "SPAM" to reply.
    bob, Mar 5, 2004
    #8
  9. Dennis Herrick

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <Xns94A39557ED519j123w123x123@216.77.188.18> on Fri, 05 Mar 2004 19:33:37
    GMT, bob <> wrote:

    >"Dennis Herrick" <> wrote in
    >news::
    >
    >> It's not even in the same ball park as the clarity from a 600 dpi
    >> scan.....

    >
    >It never will be either. 600dpi is way more than you need.
    >
    >You printer isn't going to make use of more than 300ppi. 300*4" =1200
    >pixels. 1200 pixels / 12" = 100ppi.


    Never is a very long time. :) While it's true that most current printers,
    especially lower end printers, don't need much more than 300 DPI, 600 DPI *is*
    visually better.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    [PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
    <http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
    John Navas, Mar 5, 2004
    #9
  10. Dennis Herrick

    bob Guest

    John Navas <> wrote in
    news:X652c.6103$:

    > [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    > In <Xns94A39557ED519j123w123x123@216.77.188.18> on Fri, 05 Mar 2004
    > 19:33:37 GMT, bob <> wrote:
    >
    >>"Dennis Herrick" <> wrote in
    >>news::
    >>
    >>> It's not even in the same ball park as the clarity from a 600 dpi
    >>> scan.....

    >>
    >>It never will be either. 600dpi is way more than you need.
    >>
    >>You printer isn't going to make use of more than 300ppi. 300*4" =1200
    >>pixels. 1200 pixels / 12" = 100ppi.

    >
    > Never is a very long time. :) While it's true that most current
    > printers, especially lower end printers, don't need much more than 300
    > DPI, 600 DPI *is* visually better.
    >


    I said the output from his new Fuji digital camera will never be as good
    as his 600 dpi scan; it never will, and it doesn't have anything to do
    with his printer.

    Bob

    --
    remove the backwards "SPAM" to reply.
    bob, Mar 5, 2004
    #10
  11. Dennis Herrick

    Lucas Tam Guest

    bob <> wrote in news:Xns94A3A563C4EAEj123w123x123@
    216.77.188.18:

    > I said the output from his new Fuji digital camera will never be as good
    > as his 600 dpi scan; it never will, and it doesn't have anything to do
    > with his printer.


    Never?

    If he maintains a small output size, a 4MP camera has enough data to look
    just as good as a scan - maybe even better.

    --
    Lucas Tam ()
    Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
    http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/
    Lucas Tam, Mar 5, 2004
    #11
  12. On 3/5/04 1:33 PM, in article Xns94A39557ED519j123w123x123@216.77.188.18,
    "bob" <> wrote:
    news::

    >
    >> It's not even in the same ball park as the clarity from a 600 dpi
    >> scan.....
    >>

    >
    > It never will be either. 600dpi is way more than you need.


    I'm not sure about that.... When you reduce a record album cover to CD jewel
    case size, you're look at about 15 lines of text PER INCH. That's really
    hard to read if it's not crystal clear and real sharp. In my experience with
    scanners, if I did it at 300 dpi it would be somewhat readable, but a little
    blurry and unfocused. Doing it at dpi makes it actually something I can
    read.


    > You printer isn't going to make use of more than 300ppi. 300*4" =1200
    > pixels. 1200 pixels / 12" = 100ppi.


    If the printer says it prints 1200x600 how does that relate to all this? (HP
    1600 ink jet)

    > I would scan the backs in two parts, and piece them together in
    > photoshop, which is really easy.


    I've tried that and it's very difficult or impossible (for me anyway) to get
    the two halves to match. They're seldom close. I think if I was more of an
    expert in Photoshop it might be more possible. It's also possible this isn't
    a great scanner (HP5470). And if I do it at 600 dpi to get the clarity I
    can't get at 300 dpi, then I'm dealing with HUGE files that take a LONG time
    to scan and a LONG time to manipulate in a graphics program to reassemble
    them. I've been attempting all this for a long time with all the variations
    I know and can only get good results with the 600 dpi scan.

    > (Actually, if it was me, I would use my
    > 12x17 scanner, but I guess you don't have one...;-)).



    YES!!!! That's what I need, but I've never seen one so I assume they're not
    readily available for the consumer, at least not without taking out a
    loan!!! But just in case I'm wrong, tell me about it....


    > Or, if two scans is
    > too much effort, shoot with the new camera, and resize (Image, resize) to
    > 4" x 4", as others have said, without resampling. You will probably get
    > the best results with a middle zoom setting.


    I think I mentioned that I don't resize, but the label printing program
    automatically sizes the graphic to fit the space. I always figured if I did
    the resize myself, there's more chance for me to screw it up.

    I hadn't thought about the zoom..... Would I get better quality not zoomed
    with the camera closer or doesn't that matter? I'm shooting from a tripod,
    so I can probably position this any way I want.....
    Dennis Herrick, Mar 6, 2004
    #12
  13. On 3/5/04 3:04 PM, in article Xns94A3A563C4EAEj123w123x123@216.77.188.18,
    "bob" <> wrote:

    > I said the output from his new Fuji digital camera will never be as good
    > as his 600 dpi scan; it never will, and it doesn't have anything to do
    > with his printer.


    That's what I'm concluding.... Trying to get 15 lines per inch with my
    digital camera doesn't look like the best way to go. But I'm trying this
    because I never could get the scans to work either. If I hadn't occasionally
    gotten GREAT results with 600 dpi scans, then I wouldn't think there is any
    way to do this.
    Dennis Herrick, Mar 6, 2004
    #13
  14. Dennis Herrick

    CSM1 Guest

    Here is an example of photographing an album cover and printing a CD cover.
    The camera that I used is an Olympus C-2040Z digital which is a 2 Megapixel
    camera. The original Album image was 1600 X 1200 pixels. All images are
    reduced for the web, except the final CD cover.

    http://www.carlmcmillan.com/how_to_copy_with_digital_camera.htm

    --
    CSM1
    http://www.carlmcmillan.com
    --
    "Dennis Herrick" <> wrote in message
    news:BC6E9203.4AEF%...
    > On 3/5/04 1:33 PM, in article Xns94A39557ED519j123w123x123@216.77.188.18,
    > "bob" <> wrote:
    > news::
    >
    > >
    > >> It's not even in the same ball park as the clarity from a 600 dpi
    > >> scan.....
    > >>

    > >
    > > It never will be either. 600dpi is way more than you need.

    >
    > I'm not sure about that.... When you reduce a record album cover to CD

    jewel
    > case size, you're look at about 15 lines of text PER INCH. That's really
    > hard to read if it's not crystal clear and real sharp. In my experience

    with
    > scanners, if I did it at 300 dpi it would be somewhat readable, but a

    little
    > blurry and unfocused. Doing it at dpi makes it actually something I can
    > read.
    >
    >
    > > You printer isn't going to make use of more than 300ppi. 300*4" =1200
    > > pixels. 1200 pixels / 12" = 100ppi.

    >
    > If the printer says it prints 1200x600 how does that relate to all this?

    (HP
    > 1600 ink jet)
    >
    > > I would scan the backs in two parts, and piece them together in
    > > photoshop, which is really easy.

    >
    > I've tried that and it's very difficult or impossible (for me anyway) to

    get
    > the two halves to match. They're seldom close. I think if I was more of an
    > expert in Photoshop it might be more possible. It's also possible this

    isn't
    > a great scanner (HP5470). And if I do it at 600 dpi to get the clarity I
    > can't get at 300 dpi, then I'm dealing with HUGE files that take a LONG

    time
    > to scan and a LONG time to manipulate in a graphics program to reassemble
    > them. I've been attempting all this for a long time with all the

    variations
    > I know and can only get good results with the 600 dpi scan.
    >
    > > (Actually, if it was me, I would use my
    > > 12x17 scanner, but I guess you don't have one...;-)).

    >
    >
    > YES!!!! That's what I need, but I've never seen one so I assume they're

    not
    > readily available for the consumer, at least not without taking out a
    > loan!!! But just in case I'm wrong, tell me about it....
    >
    >
    > > Or, if two scans is
    > > too much effort, shoot with the new camera, and resize (Image, resize)

    to
    > > 4" x 4", as others have said, without resampling. You will probably get
    > > the best results with a middle zoom setting.

    >
    > I think I mentioned that I don't resize, but the label printing program
    > automatically sizes the graphic to fit the space. I always figured if I

    did
    > the resize myself, there's more chance for me to screw it up.
    >
    > I hadn't thought about the zoom..... Would I get better quality not zoomed
    > with the camera closer or doesn't that matter? I'm shooting from a tripod,
    > so I can probably position this any way I want.....
    >
    >
    CSM1, Mar 6, 2004
    #14
  15. On 3/6/04 3:22 PM, in article
    Tir2c.7917$, "CSM1"
    <> wrote:

    > Here is an example of photographing an album cover and printing a CD cover.
    > The camera that I used is an Olympus C-2040Z digital which is a 2 Megapixel
    > camera. The original Album image was 1600 X 1200 pixels. All images are
    > reduced for the web, except the final CD cover.
    >
    > http://www.carlmcmillan.com/how_to_copy_with_digital_camera.htm


    That was GREAT!!! I've been using a tripod with the album sitting on a
    chair. I've had problems with lighting and getting a reflection, or
    washouts, etc. When I went to buy lights, all I could find was tungsten 150
    watt, but I get awful color from them. There doesn't seem to be a tungsten
    setting on this current camera.

    Have you had success getting the back of the album readable? I've been OK
    with the fronts, but never got readable backs except for a 600 dpi scan, and
    that's a lot of bother.
    Jeffrey Herrick, Mar 7, 2004
    #15
  16. Dennis Herrick

    CSM1 Guest

    "Jeffrey Herrick" <> wrote in message
    news:BC6FFB60.8AA%...
    > On 3/6/04 3:22 PM, in article
    > Tir2c.7917$, "CSM1"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > > Here is an example of photographing an album cover and printing a CD

    cover.
    > > The camera that I used is an Olympus C-2040Z digital which is a 2

    Megapixel
    > > camera. The original Album image was 1600 X 1200 pixels. All images are
    > > reduced for the web, except the final CD cover.
    > >
    > > http://www.carlmcmillan.com/how_to_copy_with_digital_camera.htm

    >
    > That was GREAT!!! I've been using a tripod with the album sitting on a
    > chair. I've had problems with lighting and getting a reflection, or
    > washouts, etc. When I went to buy lights, all I could find was tungsten

    150
    > watt, but I get awful color from them. There doesn't seem to be a tungsten
    > setting on this current camera.
    >
    > Have you had success getting the back of the album readable? I've been OK
    > with the fronts, but never got readable backs except for a 600 dpi scan,

    and
    > that's a lot of bother.
    >

    You may have to go into manual mode to set the White Balance (WB) of your
    camera.

    If there is not a WB setting on your camera, you can try some blue tinted
    plastic in front of the lens. The correct filter to correct tungsten light
    to daylight is 80A. Available at photo stores.

    When I did the studio work for the web page, I did not bother with the back
    of the album.

    Now I did the back of the Album. Go back to the web page and see.
    http://www.carlmcmillan.com/how_to_copy_with_digital_camera.htm

    I don't usually use a photograph for the inside of the CD jewel case. I
    usually OCR the back of the album and paste into a text box on the inside of
    the CD cover. You can change the font size and make the text readable on the
    small size of the CD insert.

    On the actual CD insert (the one I printed), the description text is hard to
    read, but can be read. The track titles are very readable.

    In case you did not notice, the CD Cover on the web is only 100 dpi. I
    printed it at 150 ppi.

    --
    CSM1
    http://www.carlmcmillan.com
    --
    CSM1, Mar 7, 2004
    #16
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. philo

    weird artwork

    philo, Feb 10, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    512
    Parko
    Feb 11, 2005
  2. unclejr
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    921
    Mike Kohary
    Jun 23, 2004
  3. docdude316

    Making Custom DVD Case Artwork.

    docdude316, Dec 31, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    955
    DavesVideo
    Jan 5, 2005
  4. Paul

    Can sunlight fade DVD artwork?

    Paul, Apr 10, 2005, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    670
    Bill Vermillion
    Apr 12, 2005
  5. BillyB

    Any good tips for photographing artwork?

    BillyB, Nov 8, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    335
    eric phillips
    Nov 10, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page