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.
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?
Resolution = sharpness right?
https://imgur.com/a/Ngcw7Aj
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?
Resolution = sharpness right?
https://imgur.com/a/Ngcw7Aj