size of traditional illustration if you plan to continue digitally
HeidiGFX last edited by
When you want to start your book cover traditionally then continue digitally, do you work larger than the final size? if so, how big? double, triple...? I plan on taking a photo of it, not scan it. any other tips for best results?
I typically work 125% to 150% larger than the printed size regardless of whether I am working with physical or digital mediums.
Scan or photograph at a minimum resolution of 300 dpi. Be sure to include the full bleed. Most clients ask for 1/8" - 1/4" bleed but I've simply started including a 1" bleed (never hurts to have extra art)
Edit: Pretty much everything I wrote here (at like 1 am) was wrong. Please refer further down the thread for actual helpful info!
Samu last edited by Samu
Hi. You don't have to work double. You can double the image taking the photo with a good resolution cámera.
Let's say that you have a 10 by 10 cm art (like a 4 by 4 inches). If you take a photo with a 3 MP camera you obtain a 2048 x 1536 archive which you can print at 300 dpi at 6.82" x 5.12" size
But if you photograph with a 10 MP cámera you obtain a 3872 x 2592 archive which you can print at 300 dpi at 12.91" x 8.64" size.
Now suppose that your art is 30 by 30 cm (like12 by 12 inches). If you take a photo with a 3 MP camera you obtain a 2048 x 1536 archive which you can print at 300 dpi at 6.82" x 5.12" size
But if you photograph with a 10 MP camera you obtain a 3872 x 2592 archive which you can print at 300 dpi at 12.91" x 8.64" size. EXACTLY THE SAME
Work at the size you need, photograph at the double you need so you can have elasticity in your retouching, and when you finish your retouching resize it in Photoshop using the "Bicubic Sharper Reduction" algorithm (before we have to resize without sharpening, and apply the sharpening after resizing, but now the algorithms in photoshop are very good). Don't let anyone resize for you. Send to the print the archive at the exact resolution they are going to print.
I'll let you with a MP Chart: https://design215.com/toolbox/megapixels.php
HI. "photograph at a minimum resolution of 300 dpi" doesn't make sense. The camera photographs at one resolution, the resolution of his sensor. If is a 10 MP cámera you have 10 MP RAWS, if is a 24 MP cámera you have 24 MP RAWS.
The resolution of a photograph is the W x H. If a photo has 10 MP has 10036224 pixels (3872 x 2592). You can set that photo to 72 ppi (don't mistake dor dpi) or at 300 ppi, or a 1 ppi or at 1000000 ppi and that don't affect the size of the photo, only are instructions, metadata.
Is a common misconception.
@zombie-rhythm Yeah -- you can see how often I photograph my original work! (that would be -- uhhh, pretty much never) With that in mind I will edit my original post to say "scan" not "photograph".
Which now that I re-read the original post "scanning" is exactly what @HeidiGFX stated she is NOT going to do.
Sooooo, let's all pretend I didn't post on this thread shall we?
Glad that there are people well versed in all this technology to actually be helpful!
Samu last edited by Samu
jajajjajajja Thank you! We are all helpful. I spend the last years working as a professional photographer and I learned a thing or two about photography and I find that knowledge very handy in illustration too. So today you learned something from me, but tomorrow I'll learn something from you. That's the forums all about!
Have a great day!!!!
(Edit) In fact, I think I just learned something from you. I just went to your website and your art is astonishing. You have great skills in composition and perspective. Your points of view are so original. I want to include that in my work now.
By the way, I plan to make a Youtube tutorial teaching how to photograph your art step by step, with professional results. there are going to be several videos with well-organized information.
I plan to start next Sunday with the first if time allows me.
I'll send you a link when I have it online
HeidiGFX last edited by HeidiGFX
this was very helpful: "To find the largest photo quality image you can print, simply divide each dimension by 300:
3266 / 300 = 10.89 inches
2450 / 300 = 8.17 inches"
Thank you!! mil gracias
art photography tut...that would be great
please link me when you do
your said: "The resolution of a photograph is the W x H. If a photo has 10 MP has 10036224 pixels (3872 x 2592). You can set that photo to 72 ppi (don't mistake dor dpi) or at 300 ppi, or a 1 ppi or at 1000000 ppi and that don't affect the size of the photo, only are instructions, metadata" to be honest this was Greek to me xD
HeidiGFX last edited by
@davidhohn I still think that working slightly larger is better but I'll try the other method it might be efficient. Thank you for your help
I'll try to explain:
fact: The digital photography size is the number of pixels that we express in "Wide x High". You can express this in Inches, cm, pixels, etc.
Example: 10 MP photo has 10036224 pixels, which is the result of multiplying 3872 pixels Wide x 2592 pixels High. (this numbers can vary slightly from different manufacturers)
ppi is the number of pixels per inch a screen has.
dpi is the number of dots that a printer put in an inch of paper.
ppi and dpi are used indistinctively normally. Is a common error. You have hundreds of pages talking about this.
When you set your photo to 72ppi, 300ppi, 10000ppi or 1ppi you don't change the size of the photo (at least that you resize). The thing is you can set your photo to whatever number of ppi without changing the size of the photo or any other thing. The photo is exactly the same.
What you just did is changing the metadata which orders the printer how to print the photo, how many dots per inch has to put on the paper. For that, they should express this in dpi instead of ppi
So you can forget about all this and focus on the real size. For screen show is completely useless and setting to 72 or 96 or whatever is completely useless. If you know you are going to print at 300, for example, stack to that setting just in case you forget to change it latter and waste a paper
There's a lot of pages talking about this. For an explanation about where this 72 number came up for example: