How Do I Put a Title On A Page With a Photo On It?

James, create a ‘new’ canvas with the same resolution as the 4 X 6 image ( resolution for printed images should be between 150-300 with 300 being best ) you can fill it with white or leave it transparent ( it will print white regardless ) Use the ‘move’ tool and drag your image to the new canvas and position any way you want. Now you can add your text below the image. Keep in mind you have a beautiful blank canvas to enhance your cover page further. You can add a border around your image etc…

Since this relates to the "should I care about 72 dpi or not?" thread, I just have to stick my nose in and give my two cents:

"Jodi Frye" wrote in message

[…] ( resolution for printed images should be between
150-300 with 300 being best )

IMHO, even for printing one shouldn’t worry about the resolution the image is set to, since you can always just stretch the image to come out the size you want on the printer (which is what the printer is going to do anyway if you happen to get the resolution-to-pixels ratio just right).

However, I take issue with the statement "with 300 being best" for printed images. As a general statement, it’s simply not true. The "best" resolution to choose for printed images is one of two choices:

* The resolution that genuinely corresponds to the intended size of the image, or
* The same resolution that the printer will be printing at

For the former, you find that resolution by dividing the number of pixels across or down (either one is fine assuming square pixels) by the width or height, respectively, at which you intend the picture to print. If you choose your resolution this way, then you should not have to adjust the scaling of the image any further when printing.

For the latter, you simply use whatever resolution the printer uses. For older laser printers this is indeed 300 dpi. However, for current ink jet printers (which is what most people here are probably using), this resolution will be anywhere from 720 up to 2880, using Epson’s printers. Other brands may be slightly different, but will be within 5-10% of those numbers. If you choose your resolution this way, then one pixel in your image will correspond exactly to one pixel on the printer. To further complicate this method, you really ought to pick a resolution that is some even fraction (1/2, 1/3, 1/4, etc.) of the actual print resolution, at least with ink jet and laser printers, because they dither to achieve the full range of color.

IMHO, the former method is more desirable. Using the latter, you will have to go back and change the resolution of the image (without resampling) every time you want to print at a different resolution, or else you will have to explicitly set the scaling to get the image to print at the same size. Using the former, the resolution actually *means* something with respect to the image.

All of the above is with regards to selecting a resolution for an image after the fact. For the purposes of creating the image in the first place, it’s even simpler. More resolution is better, period. The highest resolution at which you can capture an image (whether using a scanner, video camera, still camera, whatever), the better the image will look when printed.

Pete

Pete, I think you’re wrong about the pixel to printer dot equivalence: ppi (pixels per inch) does not equal dpi (dots per inch). It takes numerous printer dots to make up a pixel; you would never set the ppi of an image in elements to the dpi of the printer. I’m going to go find an article that explains that better than I can – I’ll be back.

Chuck

Several Photoshop references suggest that the maximum resolution of an image for inkjet printing (in ppi) should be 1/4 to 1/3 of the native printer resolution (in dpi). They also further state that, in general, any image resolution above 300-360 ppi doesn’t significantly improve the image quality and basically just wastes ink.

Chuck

"Chuck Snyder" wrote in message

Several Photoshop references suggest that the maximum resolution of an

image

for inkjet printing (in ppi) should be 1/4 to 1/3 of the native printer resolution (in dpi).

If you will go back and reread what I wrote, you will find that I said that. However, that’s specific to on/off technologies like ink jet and laser print. For dye sublimation, photo process, and similar printing technologies, 1-to-1 is appropriate.

They also further state that, in general, any image
resolution above 300-360 ppi doesn’t significantly improve the image

quality

and basically just wastes ink.

They are simply wrong there. On an ink jet printer, at 2880 dpi print resolution, a 720 dpi image is going to print better than a 300 dpi image. Beyond that, there is no "wasting ink" issue at all. The printer will print at whatever resolution you tell it to, and will use however much ink is required to cover the areas of the page you tell it to cover. The image resolution is completely irrelevant with respect to ink usage.

Perhaps the references you are consulting were written with a 720 dpi printer was top-of-the-line?

In any case, for most purposes, the image resolution doesn’t matter one little bit. The only thing that matters is how many pixels are in the image, and how large you print it. In that respect, the "resolution" is chosen at the time you print, and how the resolution is set in the image file itself is irrelevant.

Pete

Pete, we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one…

🙂

Chuck

"Chuck Snyder" wrote in message

Pete, we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one…

If you like. Far be it from me to try to force actual information down someone’s throat.

🙂

Pete

Pete, I think you’re overstepping the bounds around here. On this forum, we try to be diplomatic, and that includes not publicly stating that the information given to someone is "wrong", and it certainly includes being gentlemanly enough to gracefully accept differences in opinion.

Jodi’s initial response was perfectly acceptable and all the man needed in the way of immediate information. Either it got him on the right track for his task or the ensuing posts drove him away.

You and Chuck also disagree. Chuck chose not to pursue it on the forum, and I don’t believe making snide remarks in response benefits anyone.

There are times when patently wrong advice is posted. When that happens, we gently offer corrections while trying not to embarrass the person who gave it. We also reserve the right to disagree with anyone about the "right" way to accomplish a task, but we also try to do that in a way that isn’t offensive.

You bring a great deal of expertise about digital imaging to the forum. You’re much more experienced and knowledgeable about some aspects of it than many of the rest of us. That is appreciated, but not the personal confrontation that seems to enter in to your posts from time to time.

"Beth Haney" wrote in message

Pete, I think you’re overstepping the bounds around here. On this forum, we try to be diplomatic, and that includes not publicly stating that the information given to someone is "wrong", and it certainly includes being gentlemanly enough to gracefully accept differences in opinion.

I fail to see what use a forum like this would be if all information, correct and incorrect, is accepted equally. How in the world could someone who is reading the forum to find out the actual answers be able to tell the difference between a post that’s providing correct information and one that’s providing incorrect information?

I also don’t find these issues to be matters of opinion. Questions regarding accuracy in image reproduction and degree of ink consumption have completely objective answers.

Jodi’s initial response was perfectly acceptable and all the man needed in the way of immediate information.

Her initial response included information that would mislead someone into sacrificing quality for no good reason. You are right that as far as the original question goes, the answer was fine. The original question didn’t ask about setting the image resolution. But most people reading the answer will digest all the information in the answer, not just what was specifically relevant to the original question.

You and Chuck also disagree. Chuck chose not to pursue
it on the forum, and I don’t believe making snide remarks in response benefits anyone.

What snide remarks?

There are times when patently wrong advice is posted.

This was one of those cases.

When that happens, we gently offer corrections while
trying not to embarrass the person who gave it.

I guess that depends on how you look at it. For some people, it is impossible to not embarass them at the same time you point out an error in their statement. For others, it is practically impossible to embarass them at all, no matter what you say.

IMHO, a person should not be at all embarassed to have incorrect statements that they make in a public forum corrected. That is the nature of public conversation, to offer what you know and to be willing to have your knowledge refined by others.

But a person who is inclined toward such embarassment should probably rethink their willingness to make statements in public that they are not absolutely positively sure are correct.

All that said, I think my response was about as gentle as anyone could make it without encasing it in a candy shell and not pointing out the error at all. It’s not like I was calling her names or questioning her competence, or anything like that. In the end, it’s pretty much impossible to point out that someone has said something incorrect without actually pointing out that what they said was incorrect.

We also reserve the right to disagree with anyone about
the "right" way to accomplish a task, but we also try to do that in a way that isn’t offensive.

Methinks you are being too sensitive. I don’t find anything offensive in my post at all. Perhaps you could go back and point out exactly where it was that I insulted Jodi. Whereas a simple disagreement could be considered "confrontation", I will simply have to disagree (again, it appears) that confrontation in and of itself is a bad thing. Much good comes from construction confrontation, and it should not be discouraged.

Pete

Pete, I think this has run its course. My ‘fact set’ and yours are not in full agreement re resolution and ink consumption, and I didn’t see a lot of value to others on the forum to pursue it any further; hence, my ‘agree to disagree’ comment. Your response to me that implied I didn’t want the truth was unduly harsh; I’m sitting here reading books from the gurus of Photoshop which draw different conclusions than you do. So who is right? I don’t know, but I didn’t feel like debating any further was going to be productive.

With respect to answers in general, we try very hard to be patient and understanding with our participants; if that’s ‘candy coating’, so be it. We do want the answers to be right, no question about that; but the answers can have a little gentleness to them which in most cases will allow them to be more readily accepted. And, of course, there is more than one right (or at least practically acceptable) answer to many Elements questions.

Re constructive confrontation, that’s another place we’ll agree to disagree; I believe that’s pretty close to an oxymoron. I think it’s a natural reaction to feel embarrassed when giving a wrong answer or asking a ‘dumb’ question; many people would rather demur than try to participate in a potentially embarrassing venue. We don’t want that to be the natural reaction; we want people to feel free to ask and opine and not feel they’ll be jumped on. Some of the ‘dumb’ questions turn out to be very useful in pursuing a feature or, on occasion, a genuine bug. It all boils down to trying hard to treat everyone who wanders in here with grace, dignity and respect.

You bring a tremendous intellect and knowledge base to this forum; I look forward to seeing many more posts from you in the future.

Chuck