I’m trying to make a simple logo in GIMP which I need in different formats (small logo, business card) but I’m running into issues when resizing it. I’m sure this is due to my inexperience and wanted to ask if there are guidelines for doing this?
I started with a 3000 x 2000 pixel file and that worked fine when I scaled it down a lot for the small logo, but when I scaled it to 1040 x 693 (keeping the same aspect ratio) to match the dimensions of the business card the result was fuzzy borders and text that’s not sharp anymore. When Facebook displays a thumbnail and not the full picture, the line under the letters is also a bit ‘wiggly’.
Would someone be so kind to give me a nudge in the right direction?
Original:
Scaled:
I will also link to both files on my Dropbox because it seems to me that when posting it here, it doesn't look as bad. Maybe Imgur resizes them too. What a mess for a noob like me
Opening in Gimp, a variety of options see: https://i.imgur.com/cU7gkhd.jpg
As it will open (1) about 300 pix wide
Increase the resolution to 300 (2) for say a letterhead or send to the printer, about 1000 pix wide
Set a size in pixels for a flyer (3) 3000 pix wide.
All will scale with equal quality, just do not re-scale once opened in Gimp.
10-04-2018, 08:11 PM (This post was last modified: 10-04-2018, 10:10 PM by freek.)
When I open that bizcard.svg in Gimp, select the business card dimensions and 300 PPI & export it as a jpeg or png I still get an image that's not 100% clear. Am I doing something wrong?
I made the logo again in Inkscape and exported it as a pdf and that looks way better to me. No matter how I zoom in or out it always looks perfect.
Is there any way to get that same quality in a jpg? I want to use vistaprint for business cards and for some reason they don't accept my pdf's and png's.
EDIT: ok wait, something confuses me here that bizcard.svg I imported in Gimp and exported as a jpeg and complained it wasn't sharp, well, if convert that to a pdf it is sharp. The thing that probably confuses me is when I open the jpeg, it shows the actual size in pixels and NOT the actual print size like the pdf does.
So what's the easiest way to get a 'print preview' when you design something in in a raster file format?
And is it always like that? When you design something for print will it look bad on screen in full resolution? It's really hard for me to wrap my head around.
10-05-2018, 08:45 AM (This post was last modified: 10-05-2018, 09:03 AM by rich2005.)
You need some degree of anti-aliasing otherwise the graphic will look horrible. It would be nice if you could turn anti-aliasing off for straight edge characters 'H' or 'L' and on for rounded or angled characters 'C' or 'A' but you can not.
I can see more anti-aliasing in your screenshot than I get with a Gimp 2.10.6 (linux) default jpeg. Not a lot, just some extra semi-transparent pixels.
Companies like VistaPrint love PDF so that is a good way to go. The best (free) tool for creating a PDF for publishing is Scribus.
Why will they not accept your PDF? Could be an embedded font. I converted the text in the svg to a path because the probability is you do not have that specific font.
Why will they not accept your PNG? a black and white png by default is a color-indexed image, maybe that is the problem. Not the most wonderful company for proving information.
edit:
Quote:The thing that probably confuses me is when I open the jpeg, it shows the actual size in pixels and NOT the actual print size like the pdf does
Gimp is a raster (bitmap) editor and works in pixels, not centimetres or inches. Only when you come to print does the resolution come into play and you can check the print size in Image -> Print Size For quality printing the generally accepted minimum is 300 pixels-per-inch (ppi), but that value depends, biz card 300 ppi, an A3 poster maybe 150 ppi.
A PDF will scale up or down providing the contents are vector. Embed a poor quality bitmap in a PDF and there is no fix. Gimp produced PDF is a bitmap so make sure it is good quality.
Be careful opening a PDF in Gimp. The default conversion is 100 ppi increase this to 300 ppi for editing.
10-05-2018, 03:02 PM (This post was last modified: 10-05-2018, 04:00 PM by freek.)
First, thanks for taking the time to explain this to me, I think I'm almost there. Getting things ready for print is clear to me, however publishing for web is still a little unclear.
Quote:You need some degree of anti-aliasing otherwise the graphic will look horrible. It would be nice if you could turn anti-aliasing off for straight edge characters 'H' or 'L' and on for rounded or angled characters 'C' or 'A' but you can not.
Do you mean this is why the jpeg doesn't look 100% sharp to me on screen, because of the anti-aliasing?
Also, if I only had Gimp to work with, could I still use it for text & logo's provided I design them at the size they will be used (100%) and not scaling them afterward?
After reading more about raster/vector editing I've got the feeling you will answer 'yes' on my last question, but then I'll be lost again. I don't get how something would look sharp in a browser if it doesn't look sharp to me at full size. For example, my screen size is 2560x1600. I made 2 identical looking files, both with 300ppi resolution. One is 3000 x 2000, the other one 1200 x 800. When I export them as png and view them in my standard preview app, they both open in the same window size. The smaller one at full size and the bigger one zoomed out. What troubles me is that the one at full size does not look sharp to me while the zoomed out one does. I'd expect it to be the other way around since I got here in the first place after shrinking a raster image in size (but respecting aspect ratio) and getting bad results!
When I look at both pictures full size, let's concentrate on the letter 'G' for example, the bigger one *still* looks sharper than the smaller one, but they have the same 300ppi resolution... Why?
(10-05-2018, 03:02 PM)freek Wrote: Also, if I only had Gimp to work with, could I still use it for text & logo's provided I design them at the size they will be used (100%) and not scaling them afterwards?
Yes, that is true. But it is not only scaling, but also other things like rotation. If you create the image at the correct size and do not edit the text layer (and other layers) at all it will look good.
But vector graphics (eg Inkscape) is much better than bitmap editors (eg Gimp) for creating logos. You can rotate and scale the text. When done, export as a bitmap (png) for use on the web. When exporting you can choose any size that you want.
10-05-2018, 10:36 PM (This post was last modified: 10-05-2018, 10:40 PM by freek.)
(10-05-2018, 03:38 PM)Blighty Wrote:
(10-05-2018, 03:02 PM)freek Wrote: Also, if I only had Gimp to work with, could I still use it for text & logo's provided I design them at the size they will be used (100%) and not scaling them afterwards?
Yes, that is true.
So let's say I wanted an image for my website 1200 x 800, black background and 'PAGELIFT' centered in Montserrat bold size 150, how would I do that?
I end up with this! the 'P', 'A' and 'G' are not sharp. How can you use this on a website?
(10-05-2018, 10:36 PM)freek Wrote: I end up with this! the 'P', 'A' and 'G' are not sharp.
Those are the letters that are not pure horizontal / vertical.
A computer screen is made up of pixels. Very sharp edges follow those pixels and give "jaggies". Anti-aliasing pixels are there to reduce this harsh effect.
Do a quick test. Create your text, but in the Tool Options uncheck Antialiasing. The text will be sharp, but not what you want.
(10-05-2018, 03:02 PM)freek Wrote: Also, if I only had Gimp to work with, could I still use it for text & logo's provided I design them at the size they will be used (100%) and not scaling them afterwards?
Yes, that is true.
So let's say I wanted an image for my website 1200 x 800, black background and 'PAGELIFT' centered in Montserrat bold size 150, how would I do that?
I end up with this! the 'P', 'A' and 'G' are not sharp. How can you use this on a website?
10-06-2018, 06:02 PM (This post was last modified: 10-06-2018, 06:11 PM by freek.)
(10-06-2018, 05:13 AM)Blighty Wrote:
(10-05-2018, 10:36 PM)freek Wrote: I end up with this! the 'P', 'A' and 'G' are not sharp.
Those are the letters that are not pure horizontal / vertical.
A computer screen is made up of pixels. Very sharp edges follow those pixels and give "jaggies". Anti-aliasing pixels are there to reduce this harsh effect.
I do get that part. However if I make the exact same image 2.5 times bigger (so 3000x2000 and font size 375) and zoom out so it has the same window size on my monitor as the 1200 x 800 image, the bigger one *does* look good. So it's not that my monitor can't display it as a straight line and follows the pixels, it must be something else.
![[Image: eQAJuFQ.jpg]](https://i.imgur.com/eQAJuFQ.jpg)
![[Image: 9FpirU3.jpg]](https://i.imgur.com/9FpirU3.jpg)
![[Image: Su2FqCE.png]](https://i.imgur.com/Su2FqCE.png)
that bizcard.svg I imported in Gimp and exported as a jpeg and complained it wasn't sharp, well, if convert that to a pdf it is sharp. The thing that probably confuses me is when I open the jpeg, it shows the actual size in pixels and NOT the actual print size like the pdf does.
![[Image: giCyPwb.png]](https://i.imgur.com/giCyPwb.png)
![[Image: jCEpkxF.png]](https://i.imgur.com/jCEpkxF.png)
![[Image: e20rnu0.png]](https://i.imgur.com/e20rnu0.png)