Skip navigation
WebDBApps
Currently Being Moderated

How to Resize a JPG Logo?

May 3, 2012 1:27 PM

Hi,

 

I've been given a rather large jpg file containing a client's logo.  The dimensions are huge - 6299 x 1890.  I need to resize the image without losing clarity.  What steps must I take to do this?  Is Photoshop the best place to handle this task, or is Illustrator a better fit?

 

Thanks,

Sid

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 3, 2012 1:48 PM   in reply to WebDBApps

    I'd take advantage of that high resolution and convert it to vector, in Illustrator.

     

    http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2010/11/15/illustrator-s-live-trace-sk etch-to-vector/

     

    ...but at that size, I would suspect that your client already has a vector version of their logo and has neglected to provide it to you.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 3, 2012 1:51 PM   in reply to WebDBApps

    Since the image is pixel-based, just use Photoshop. Depending on the final size you need, if you can deal with reducing the image by a multiple of 4, you're going to have a slightly better result because of interpolation. Also, depending on the content of the logo, you may want to try 2 different interpolations (nearest neighbor or bicubic sharpener).

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,514 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    May 3, 2012 2:26 PM   in reply to Shan-Dysigns

    I'd recommend against Bicubic Sharper.  Yecchh!

     

    Just use Bicubic.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 3, 2012 3:36 PM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    I just created this .psd (below) - the original .psd size is 1960px wide. There are squares of solid color, 2 different kinds of gradients, and a typical photo. I used "save for web", resized to 800px wide and saved using each interpolation method. Then I loaded those images into a stack and randomly hid the layers to compare. Outside of nearest neighbor, I really didn't see much (if any) of a different in pixel shift or image quality. I thought I would have at least seen "some shift", but nothing too noticeable.

     

    http://www.shan-dysigns.com/userForums/photoshop/interpolation.zip

     

    I think trial and error is always the best bet. Ruels of the road can't possibly cover every situation.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,514 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    May 3, 2012 4:45 PM   in reply to Shan-Dysigns

    The differences between Bicubic and its cousins ...Sharper and ...Smoother will be seen in real photographic material where there's detail.  Why you're not seeing a difference in them in your trees is a mystery; I can only assume something didn't do what it said it did.

     

    I don't like Bicubic Sharper because it creates edge halos.  Bicubic Smoother just doesn't seem to be needed as Bicubic always seems plenty smooth enough to me.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 3, 2012 5:28 PM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    Here is the source file if you care to investigate. Like I said, for this purpose I saved for web as .png - so I don't know what the results would be if I was to simply resize the document FIRST (using the different interpolations), then save straight to .png or .jpg - I had a previous post regarding the different results between saving for web vs. saving straight to image (whether .png or .jpg), but that thread died out and was never really solved. Maybe there would be a difference when saving directly to image - who knows... Like I've said many times, there seems to be a lot of varying results people are getting the more varialbes that get mixed in with the process (of whatever).

     

    http://www.shan-dysigns.com/userForums/photoshop/interpolation.psd

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Trevor Dennis
    5,922 posts
    May 24, 2010
    Currently Being Moderated
    May 3, 2012 5:36 PM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    Noel Carboni wrote:

     

    The differences between Bicubic and its cousins ...Sharper and ...Smoother will be seen in real photographic material where there's detail.  Why you're not seeing a difference in them in your trees is a mystery; I can only assume something didn't do what it said it did.

     

    I don't like Bicubic Sharper because it creates edge halos.  Bicubic Smoother just doesn't seem to be needed as Bicubic always seems plenty smooth enough to me.

     

    -Noel

    I'd have thought that a high frequency image like one with trees, would be a dead cert for showing the damage Bicubic sharper does.

     
    |
    Mark as:

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points