300 dpi resolution

[Merboy]

For my coverart, the site says "If using an image, its resolution should be set to 300dpi". My dpi is set to 600. Is that okay (or better) or does it have to be exactly 300? I would assume more than 300 would mean a clearer image resolution, yes?

[Maggie]

You can use cover image with 600 dpi. No problem at all. It will be sharp.

[kevinlomas]

300 is suggested and works just nice. Some of my artwork is 600, but that's just so they can be 'blown up' huge and is not needed for book covers.

[Merboy]

Awesome! Thank you!

[Ken Anderson]

 I would assume more than 300 would mean a clearer image resolution, yes?

Not really - perhaps of the printing process.
One would near a magnifier to notice any difference.
One factor of course would be the content of the image.

300dpi produces the best results with optimum file sizes.

[crooked6p]

Todays digital cameras all have different pixel depths but the result is the creation of a whole new range of "standard" print sizes that the world of paper manufacture and printer software are simply not prepared for. Ken is absolutely correct that 300dpi at full size is simply perfect.  However the new pixel depth is trying to revise this as we speak. An image shot at hi-res and scaled down to size will normally leave you with a pixel depth of 600 or more. The truth is, the information embedded in that resolution does make a difference between the subtle differences in difficult images. Reducing the 600 to 300 in not technically critical, but it is noticeable.  On the other hand. I would never ask you to bump up the resolution of a lower res image. It is a huge mistake to think you can create image information.

[kevinlomas]

Pixel sizes boasted about to do with digital cameras are a bit misleading really. All it means is that the greater the pixel count, the larger an image can be printed out at and still keep a good sharp image. Few people really need above 5mps unless they are thinking of printing at 'poster size'. 30mps if you wish to print as big as a wall. 600dpi is not needed for book covers unless the book is massive (A0? LOL) 300dpi is more than enough even for an A4 sized book.
Back to cameras >> I think Sony have brought out a 'lo-res' one that uses that 'old' interpolation (I think it is called) system that uses clever software to 'upgrade' a lo-res image to a hi-res one.

[kids_stuff]

Thankfully, personal PCs etc have improved no end in recent years, but before this, the limitation DPI wise was often nothing to do with image quaility, it was getting the image through at more than 300; only now can I do this, before, my PC packed up and went on holiday sticking two fingers up as it went. But one other thing to do think about, it may be relevant at some point, 300 is also the magical figure for the universal comparison with standard dimensions, ie, 300 DPI equals 1 inch. I add this as working in a higher DPI may throw you out if you try to base given dimensions such as here on Lulu, on the higher DPI you may use for resolution. 

KS

[Ken Anderson]

It's always nice to have a friendly PC  

[kevinlomas]

PCs have changed, yes, but that does not mean they never used to be able to handle large graphics files etc. It depends on your system. There are many cheap PCs around now but that still usually means basic and a clue that they do not have a dedicated graphics card. To handle large files and most modern applications you really need a graphics card. Very often you get people wailing they have just bought a £299 PC or even (shudder) a £299 laptop, and it will not do much! Well, der ...
Anyway >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dots_per_inch