TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Resolution describes how big your pixels are in a text
column that gets printed. Word and FrameMaker care
about resolution. Photoshop--and even Paint--really do
not and have no need for resolution.
What matters for press and PDF production is that you
can increase the resolution of a raster image and
decrease the printable size of that image--without
destroying or editing the pixels themselves. There are
really no pitfalls here.
Checkout my screen captures 102 PDF that's posted to
the techwr-l Web site.
Cheers,
Sean
--- Ed Wurster <eawurster -at- hotmail -dot- com> wrote:
> I opened both files in Photoshop, and found that the
> screen capture pasted
> into Windows Paint was a 96 ppi document, while the
> second file was a 72 ppi
> document.
<snip>
> However, both BMP files contained the same number of
> pixels: 1024 x 768. The
> file sizes are identical.
>
> As you move forward with what appear to be "typical"
> screen captures, each
> subsequent program you use can interpret the
> "standard" file format
> differently. The quotes are mine. I think this type
> of exercise demonstrates
> that there are pitfalls, and the software you use
> either performs the way
> you expect, or introduces new properties which must
> be understood in terms
> of what happens downstream in your job flow.
