Yt Banner 1024 X 576 Pixels

[Niobe Hennigan]

Anyway, first issue (of many) is I want to create a PDF booklet for the web using images that are sized 1024 pixels by 1024 pixels. In Photoshop these have been created at 96ppi.

InDesign gives me no options to specify ppi - just the number of pixels. When I "Place" the correctly sized image InDesign imports it at a smaller size and I have to waste time resizing and positioning it?

Why? This is a VERY basic common sense function. I tried changing the ppi in Photoshop to 72ppi (without resampling to ensure the image was still 1024 pixels) in case this was an issue as Mac vs Windows seems to set different ppi sizes for no sensible reason I can think of but that just came in even smaller, requiring even more resizing.

How do I fix this?

The short, sweeping answer here is that InDesign is not an online design tool, despite a few features that seem to work in pixel-scaled layouts. If your destination format is an online banner or document, you have to maintain a continuous "conversion viewpoint" of a non-pixelated source.

First, I can't reproduce the discrepancy between pixel sizes in Photoshop and InDesign you describe: for example, a 200x200 pixels Photoshop image is also measured 200x200 in InDesign when InDesign rulers are set to pixels. (Although I think there are also legitimate reasons for the discrepancy you experience, which other users may explain.)

Second, pixels don't have any meaning in the context of PDF (as you're creating a PDF booklet). Acrobat doesn't even have pixel rulers. PDF objects are only measured in physical ("print") dimensions. (Once again, a deeper explanation may be offered by other users.)

How am I overthinking this? The ONLY thing that seems to be overthinking things is InDesign! This should be a really trivial job: I just want to make a PDF of some photoshop files. It should be simple but InDesign makes it ridiculously difficult. It MATTERS because I don't want to have to resize every single page in the document. Why should I? The dimensions are the same. I am creating a WEB document to tell InDesign exactly what i want. It asked me for the pixel dimensions. I gave them. It seems to have ignored them, bringing in a 1024 x 1024 pixel image into a document it stated was 1024 x 1024 pixels and resized it to be a quarter of the size it should be. I'm sorry, but by any standards, that's just crap. And life's too short to have to fanny around fixing things resizing every single image on a page just because the software is "complex" and "needs a lot of training".

A friend of mine told me he "gave up on Adobe" 15 years ago and didn't understood why I hadn't too. "Its way too expensive because they think they have a monopoly, it's way too buggy, way too complicated and there's no real support, just shills and fan boys in their forums banging on about you neededing to spend your life learning it like they did".

It's beyond depressing to see that 15 years on the situation appears to be exactly the same as he said it was back then.

To end on a positive note, this experience on here has given me the kick up the arse I needed. I can think of much better things to waste 52/month on.

Thanks. After Googling I discovered the "Automate" command under the "File" menu which does indeed allow you to generate a PDF from multiple PSD files and does a pretty good job too. Need to figure out how I can make some of the text/images hyperlinks which Photoshop seems to have some basic functionality for, but I suspect might mean having to dive into Adobe Acrobat, which I'd rather avoid given my experience with InDesign.

The InDesign process is that you create a page or pages and you add text and Place images on the page.

From your screenshot it looks like you've created your "page" the same size as your image; although you can do that, the result may be causing you confusion.

Thank ytiy foir your patronising reply. It's Adobe who keep mentioning how their products integrate seamlessly and charge me 52 for their pleasure

Ten years ago I gave up on InDesign as a buggy mess and vastly inferior to the PageMaker and Ventura Publisher products I'd easily managed to use before then. I foolishly thought things might have changed in the 10 years they've had to improve things. Even basic things that should be there based on other products aren't. WHERE is the consistency? Move the mouse over a tool in Photoshop to get a short, succinct and informative overview of the tool. In InDesign? They couldn't be bothered. There's nothing. I could give a hundred other examples of actions that SHOULD be the same (even something as basic as putting a stroke on text) across the suite of software products and there's no reason they're not, especially given Adobe's promises over 20 years now that they were properly integrating the products.

I bought the Adobe Classroom In A Book for InDesign. As a former software instructor myself, I know the importance of training. The book for Photoshop was good training material - it focussed on "real world" projects and was interesting and TAUGHT things.

The equivalent book for InDesign is tedious in the extreme. Why teach when you can just trawl through "This is what a panel is, and this is how you can close it" nonsense for page after page. That's NOT training. It's just regurgitating the reference manual. I lost the will to leave before I even got to the end of Chapter 1.

Time to move on I guess. I have already moved from Premiere Pro to Da Vinci and wish I'd done it years ago. Now to do the same for InDesign and Photoshop.

Well, not surprisingly perhaps, I don't think his answer is patronizing. ID is a phenomenally complex app and very few can come to use it effectively without training. it's not, in other words, a web-based tool for secretaries and admin assistants to make web banners and presentations.

I understand that in an era where every tool out of a bubble-gum machine can do web-based design, InDesign's distance between its core operation and pixel-based design and output is something of an anachronism. But all that's asked here is that you understand it's not and never has been a pixel-based design tool, and learn the routines to get from its layout strengths to a raster output... which requires something a lot like training.

If, as you say, InDesign is "not and never has been a pixel-based design tool". Nobody said it was. But maybe if InDesign doesn't want "bubble gum machines doing web-based design" it shouldn't have a ruddy great tab on the "Create" page with a ton of options labelled "Web"! And maybe when you go into that tab it shouldn't ask you to specify a page size in pixels. This is not frigging rocket science. Its supporters seem to want to have their cake and eat it: it doesn't do pixel sizes - that's why it has a ton of options asking for them!

And if training is SO important how hard can it be to add video rollovers on the toolbars the way Photoshop did eons ago. No consistency. No integration. Despite 20 years of promising it was now here!

As we mentioned earlier, Shopify doesn't have a comprehensive image size guide ?. This is probably because there are so many different Shopify themes and customisable options for brands that it would be hard to pin down the best image recommendations. But Shopify does provide general image size recommendations that you can use as a reference point.

Collections are product categories on Shopify stores. The idea is to help shoppers find related products faster, increasing your chances of making additional sales.

Collection images appear side by side, so they need to complement each other. Don't use a 1:1 aspect ratio for one image and 16:9 for another. Other visual properties like colour, shape, and font size must be consistent, too.

The best size for Shopify collections images is 1024 x 1024 pixels. Images can also be up to 4472 x 4472 pixels. But they must not be larger than 20 MB in file size, or else they affect your site's loading speed.

See how Verve Coffee pulls this off with its customisable coffee subscription collection.

Your featured image should be prominent but not take up all the space meant for text. People are on the page to read your blog post, not to stare at a gigantic image.

The ideal size for blog post images is 1800 x 1000 pixels or a 16:9 aspect ratio. But you might opt for smaller image dimensions if you want the featured image to occupy less space on your blog. For example, Terreblue uses a 1500 x 1005 pixels image for its blog post.

You can also preview what your crop or the resized image will look like. Once you've saved the preset sizes, you won't have to resize Shopify images manually anymore. Any authorised team member or freelancer can automatically download different Shopify assets in their correct dimensions too.

You can also connect your Dash to your Shopify account to update visual assets in your Shopify app. No more wasting time downloading and re-uploading images from Dash to Shopify. Simply search for the preset digital assets in your integrated Dash and add them directly to your product pages, blog, or other Shopify pages. How cool is that? ?

If I got your idea on the right way, then there is no Moodle specific width for your banner. The artist must know (if is used to WEB design) images for WEB pages are 640 pixels, 800 pixels or 1024 pixels mostly for a "page width". Those measurements are tied to computer video card and monitor resolutions. So, you have to choose which resolution (and monitor) will your visitor use or must have. Try to use standard measurements (800 px) because not everyone have 1024 x 768 px monitors and video cards in their computers (but it is becoming the new standard).

3a8082e126