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

[james p butler]

I'm putting together a report with a cover containing a photography on it (4x6) on the upper half of a sheet.

What I'm trying to do is put a report title in Arial 12 in the area below the photograph (4 lines of text). I found help in doing this with Photoshop Elements 1.0 but am getting lost trying to do this on Version 2.0. The help index seems to be of little use.

What's the best way of doing this

[Jodi Frye]

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...

[Peter Duniho]

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" <lwsfrye@mybizz.net> wrote in message
news:2ccd430e.0@webx.la2eafNXanI...

> [...] ( 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

[Chuck Snyder]

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

[Chuck Snyder]

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

[Peter Duniho]

"Chuck Snyder" <csnyder@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:08E2F1DFD20C74E06AFBB0D6E9D46301@in.webx.la2e afNXanI...

> 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

[Chuck Snyder]

Pete, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one...

:-)

Chuck

[Beth Haney]

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.

[Peter Duniho]

"Beth Haney" <member@adobeforums.com> wrote in message
news:2ccd430e.7@webx.la2eafNXanI...

> 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

[Chuck Snyder]

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