Does this make sense?
Hairfish:
At the other end of the spectrum are people who send photographs straight from their camera, through email. No resizing... They can't understand my complaints about a 10MB photo that arrives at 8,000 x 6,000 pixels. My display is only 1152 x 864, after all. And I have no intention of examining your cat's eyelashes for mites.
ElviraGoth:
I heartily agree on the bitmappy images. I work at a sportswear company and we screenprint on garments. Customers and sales reps will tell us to get the graphics from the website. Can't seem to understand that you can't take a 1x1 inch crappy 72 dpi jpeg and make a vector graphic that will work in an 11 inch size. You can't tell any details on something that small and blurry.
Oddysey:
Oi. Although I can kind of see how people would think they can blow internet pictures up and have them retain detail, if they're used to working with actual photos, since film picks up details the human eye can't even see without magnification. Computer images operate under the WYSIWYG principle.
But then, why are these people get images of the internet anyway? It's really, really hard to find decent pictures on the web.
Sagana:
Quote
But then, why are these people get images of the internet anyway?
Because they're cheap and don't want to pay a photographer, or even to get decent free source photos. And are too lazy to find out where the logos came from and get the company's provided vector/high res required for use ones.
They're too cheap to pay us too, or to pay anything for the work involved in making their not-so-great art work in large format. Customers are a pain ;) Shame they're kinda the point of a business...
witch:
Going by he students' attitudes, they think anything on the net is free source. When I tell the florists or the fashion design students they have to reference every picture, they give me looks of pure dumbstruck horror. ::)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page