On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 5:01 PM, bumpkin<for...@gimpusers.com> wrote:
>>bumpkin <for...@gimpusers.com> wrote:
>>> The graphics guy sent me our logo as a .jpg so I created a new file with
> the
>>> appropriate dimensions in the lasest GIMP for windows. I imported and
> scaled
>>> down the logo to the appropriate size and placed it at the top, finished
>>> adding the text, combined the layers and exported as a .tiff for the
> printer.
>>> The logo and text resolution on the print out was terrible... I tried
> printing
>>> it in the original GIMP format and as jpeg... same quality.
>>> I then tried created the same add in Word 2007 and the image and text
> quality
>>> was excellent :( I am a linux user and was rather frustrated and confused
> when
>>> Word produced better print quality than GIMP. Any explanation or help
> greatly
>>> appreciated. Thanks
>>Your problem is obviously a problem of resolution, especially when you
>>compare a raster application like GIMP to a vectorial application like
>>Word. What were your "appropriate sizes"? I suspect you appreciated them
>>on your screen at 100 dpi, while your printer needs at least 300 dpi.
>>Thanks for the reply. First I created a document to be the size of the
> entire quarter page ad, 3.75" by 4.75".
That size is only meaningful in the context of the dpi used.
at 100 dpi, that would be only 375x475 pixels, which is indeed very chunky.
Whereas at 300 dpi, it would be 1125x1425.

To be honest, it confuses me that you would use a raster editing
application like GIMP to perform a task that is essentially
vector-based, instead of choosing to use a vector-based application
like Inkscape or Scribus. Personally, I would use Inkscape for such a
However, you can certainly achieve what you want with good quality in
GIMP, through applying improved understanding of the raster medium (eg
the meaning and use of dpi/ppi)

Gimp-user mailing list

Reply via email to