Aesthete18
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 70
- Likes
- 4
Welcome to Photoshop Gurus forum. Register a free account today to become a member! It's completely free. Once signed in, you'll enjoy an ad-free experience and be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Thanks Sam......beautiful!
@OP
This has nothing to do with 'pixelation'.
Changing the anti-aliasing may help but again, there are are very few pixels in which to get that anti-aliasing.....see Sams image.
Like I said, there are only so many pixels in that small space, PS will do its best to get the desired look but there is only so much it can do.....in fact, that anyone can do.
If the font was bigger then sure....lots of pixels to play with and the anti-aliasing can do its job but at this size you are wanting to split the pixel and that's just not possible.
Post the other guys 'better' example so we can see why you seem confident of improvement.
Regards.
MrTom.
Sorry, you've totally lost me.....resized version?...I know it's bigger but the resized version doesn't have jagged edges like mine either...
I'm trying to understand, honestly, but this really isn't making any sense....I don't know why this one appeared so big, I only put it cos it was the same size as mine...
Well, yes...when starting from scratch why work on a thumbmnail sized image?...Is it better to work on a bigger size then output it to the 300x100? Would that change anything quality wise?...
Sorry, you've totally lost me.....resized version?
Of what?
I'm trying to understand, honestly, but this really isn't making any sense.
Well, yes...when starting from scratch why work on a thumbmnail sized image?
Make it as big as you feel comfortable with. Just keep the proportions the same as the output...so 3000 x 1000px would be more than big enough.....even 1500 x 500px would be OK.
As to 'Quality'...well, quality doesn't really exist in a digital image, every pixel is always as good as it can ever be, as to the content of that image well, that's down to you and your skills in Photoshop.
When making something like this 'size' shouldn't really be a concern....just make the canvas the correct 'ratio' (proportions) of the final output size and as big as you can.
Anything you put into that image should be proportionally correct, but its actual pixel dimensions are irrelevant....scale fonts till they 'fit' or look right, don't restrict yourself to having to use a font at a certain size.
The same goes for images too....preferably you'll have images that are too big for the canvas, which is good, re-sampling down is ok, re-sampling up is not.
On that note, images used may depict the size of the canvas you start with....but if its too small then its better to source bigger images than to reduce the size of your canvas.
Saving out to the required image size from a much larger 'working' (PSD) image is the more usual workflow.
Regards.
MrTom.
Your original image is 300 x 100. The images from the other guy are 460 x 125. They are a bit larger.
This A is created at 1000 x 1000
View attachment 55374
This is the same A scaled down to 100 x 100.
View attachment 55375
This is an A created at 100 x100
View attachment 55375
Sizing will not help much. This is about the number of pixels that Photoshop has to work with. Period.
Some fonts are deliberately designed to be 'blocky', others smoother....Why is his fonts better?...
Some fonts are deliberately designed to be 'blocky', others smoother.
Have you tried a different font?
What font are you using?
If we knew that, and its a 'free for public use' font, we may be able to find the best settings for you.
And yes, I can see your images perfectly thank-you.
Regards.
MrToM.