This is Interesting: Free Magazines for Graphics designers and webmasters
Home > Archive > PainShop Pro Scripting > August 2006 > FrostyRusty Outlines Script
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
FrostyRusty Outlines Script
|
|
| Joske 2006-08-02, 12:10 pm |
| underprocessable | |
| SuzShook 2006-08-02, 12:10 pm |
| I think this script does a terrific job at imitating that effect, Joske.
Suz
Joske wrote:
> This is the effect that came up in Stacey's thread, it's not an
> imitation of the ink action.
>
> The script goes into the Scripts-Restricted folder. It works in X, 9
> and 8 on both vector and raster objects.
>
> I'll probably put it up on my site to make it more widely available.
> Hopefully no changes to the script have to be made :-)
>
> Joske
| |
| bjeanneb 2006-08-02, 12:10 pm |
|
"Joske" <j.backer@home.nl> wrote in message news:44c23810$1_2@cnews...
> This is the effect that came up in Stacey's thread, it's not an
> imitation of the ink action.
>
> The script goes into the Scripts-Restricted folder. It works in X, 9
> and 8 on both vector and raster objects.
>
> I'll probably put it up on my site to make it more widely available.
> Hopefully no changes to the script have to be made :-)
>
> Joske
> --
> http://members.home.nl/j.a.c.backer/
>
>
>
Thank you for what appears to be another very useful script from Joske's
Workshop!
Jeanne
| |
| Barb Roberts 2006-08-02, 12:10 pm |
| underprocessable | |
| Joske 2006-08-02, 12:10 pm |
| Barb Roberts wrote:
> "Joske" wrote
[color=darkred]
> I think I stumbled upon something after running the
> script......here's what I did after the script was done.....
> I duplicated the raster layer the script created and moved it
> above the top layer, the effect layer. On the duplicated layer I
> did the following..... Selections, select all, float, defloat.
> Selections modify, contract by 4 (possibly more on really large
> images?). Selections, modify, inside/outside feather -- inside
> feather with feather amount at 10.
> Selections invert and then hit delete.....select none.
> I ended up with an edge only effect, maybe it would need to be a
> wider edge, maybe darker?
Nice outcomes, Barb. Thanks for showing them.
I'm not sure what you are trying to convey (that's just me and the
heat). Depending on the widths, it is indeed possible to leave an
outline when you take the steps you did. It might have a crisper
inside than the layer directly below that was generated by the
script.
The other three scripts I put up do have layers with just outlines.
I didn't feel this effect was in need of it.
http://members.home.nl/j.backer/outlines/outlines.html
The layers are left in place in the other ones as well, so that
should make it easy to make changes like you did.
Joske
--
http://members.home.nl/j.a.c.backer/
Rocky H vs Priscilla Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGkvOaO216E
| |
| Rachel 2006-08-02, 12:10 pm |
| This is great! Is there anyway to make it go in farther from the edges than the 31 pixels that the bevel allows....so it is more than just the edges that the effect is placed on? 31 pixels is very small when you are working on a large image...:> )
Rachel
"Joske" <j.backer@home.nl> wrote in message news:44c23810$1_2@cnews...
This is the effect that came up in Stacey's thread, it's not an
imitation of the ink action.
The script goes into the Scripts-Restricted folder. It works in X, 9
and 8 on both vector and raster objects.
I'll probably put it up on my site to make it more widely available.
Hopefully no changes to the script have to be made :-)
Joske
--
http://members.home.nl/j.a.c.backer/
| |
| Joske 2006-08-02, 12:10 pm |
|
"Rachel" <RachelR@NOSPAMmailshack.com> schreef in bericht news:44c3e240_2@cnews...
This is great! Is there anyway to make it go in farther from the edges than the 31 pixels that the bevel allows....so it is more than just the edges that the effect is placed on? 31 pixels is very small when you are working on a large image...:> )
Rachel
"Joske" <j.backer@home.nl> wrote in message news:44c23810$1_2@cnews...
This is the effect that came up in Stacey's thread, it's not an
imitation of the ink action.
The script goes into the Scripts-Restricted folder. It works in X, 9
and 8 on both vector and raster objects.
I'll probably put it up on my site to make it more widely available.
Hopefully no changes to the script have to be made :-)
Joske
--
http://members.home.nl/j.a.c.backer/
Thanks for liking the script, Rachel.
The script is confined by the maximum bevel width. Run it interactively and see what you can do with the initial selection contraction.
All but two of my scripts and steps are free, and I do them and my pages for friends, out of interest, or for simple enjoyment. Naturally they can't possibly suit every need.
Joske
| |
| Rachel 2006-08-02, 12:10 pm |
| Thanks Joske,
I really wasn't complaing about something you generously give us for free. I was merely enquiring if the script can be adjusted during execution. I just asked because I mostly work on images for printing. 300 ppi up to 12 inches.
Rachel
"Joske" <j.backer@home.nl> wrote in message news:44c3eb3e_3@cnews...
Thanks for liking the script, Rachel.
The script is confined by the maximum bevel width. Run it interactively and see what you can do with the initial selection contraction.
All but two of my scripts and steps are free, and I do them and my pages for friends, out of interest, or for simple enjoyment. Naturally they can't possibly suit every need.
Joske
| |
| Spandex Rutabaga 2006-08-02, 12:10 pm |
| > Rachel wrote:
>
> This is great! Is there anyway to make it go in farther from the
> edges than the 31 pixels that the bevel allows....so it is more than
> just the edges that the effect is placed on? 31 pixels is very small
> when you are working on a large image...:> )
Complain to the authors of PSP, who don't seem to have noticed
that the size of images is increasing. Use the Email Corel link
here http://support.corel.com. Other than that, try the obvious.
Do the effect on a smaller image and then resize the image larger.
You can also consider replacing bevel effects with the Drop Shadow
filter, which will give you are larger width effect.
| |
| Spandex Rutabaga 2006-08-02, 12:10 pm |
| Spandex Rutabaga wrote:
> which will give you are larger width effect
whereas she should have written:
"which will give you a larger width effect".
Sorry
| |
|
|
| Joske 2006-08-02, 12:10 pm |
|
"Rachel" schreef
Thanks Joske,
I really wasn't complaing about something you generously give us for
free. I was merely enquiring if the script can be adjusted during
execution. I just asked because I mostly work on images for
printing. 300 ppi up to 12 inches.
"Joske" wrote
Thanks for liking the script, Rachel.
The script is confined by the maximum bevel width. Run it
interactively and see what you can do with the initial selection
contraction.
All but two of my scripts and steps are free, and I do them and my
pages for friends, out of interest, or for simple enjoyment.
Naturally they can't possibly suit every need.
---------------------
Don't worry, I didn't think you were complaining.
This script came out of another thread about ink, where someone was
asking for particular (not these) thinnish outlines. That's why I
felt it was safe to use the bevel.
Using a Drop Shadow as Spandex suggests will not work with my first
selection, I'm afraid. I used an Outer Bevel working inwards to the
object to make it (and the paint strokes) flow in more smoothly. If
I think of something else, you'll see it here or in the scrapbooking
group.
Joske
--
http://members.home.nl/j.a.c.backer/
| |
| Joske 2006-08-02, 12:10 pm |
| Susi wrote:
> "Joske" wrote
[color=darkred]
> Joske,
> This is really nice. I have been playing with it off and on all
> day. I was making some textured tiles for alphas last night and
> this script works great for the edges.
> I love the frosty look.
> On the S one I took out the center part so the texture would show
> threw. The other one I didn't because I liked the effect the
> frosty made. Another terrific script. Thank you for doing it.
What lovely V's you did with it, no kidding. Thank you in turn for
trying out the script.
> PS I am still messing with the string. LOL
Good for you, I hope something excellent comes out of your
perseverance :-)
Joske
--
http://members.home.nl/j.a.c.backer/
| |
| Lori Davis 2006-08-02, 12:10 pm |
| Rachel wrote:
> This is great! Is there anyway to make it go in farther from the edges
> than the 31 pixels that the bevel allows....so it is more than just the
> edges that the effect is placed on? 31 pixels is very small when you
> are working on a large image...:> )
>
Rachel, here's another way to get larger bevels (besides resizing your
image or using Drop Shadow):
http://loriweb.pair.com/x_BigBevel.html
I often use the Drop Shadow method myself, but that won't give you fancy
bevels. The method I use in BigBevel employs Inner Bevel, so you can use
any of the bevel shapes available there. And since this method doesn't
involve resizing your whole figure, there's no loss of image quality.
HTH,
Lori
| |
| hå£ê¥ 2006-08-02, 12:10 pm |
|
"Lori Davis" <loriweb@pair.com> wrote in message
news:44C57E69.6050703@pair.com...
> Rachel wrote:
>
> Rachel, here's another way to get larger bevels (besides resizing your
> image or using Drop Shadow):
>
> http://loriweb.pair.com/x_BigBevel.html
>
> I often use the Drop Shadow method myself, but that won't give you fancy
> bevels. The method I use in BigBevel employs Inner Bevel, so you can use
> any of the bevel shapes available there. And since this method doesn't
> involve resizing your whole figure, there's no loss of image quality.
>
> HTH,
> Lori
Lori thank you so much for that misc tutorial!! I ran into this 31 pixel
issue myself while creating presets for my inner bevels and was upset again
that PSP didn't allow for the fact that not all of us are creating 72ppi web
images!
I can't wait to play with your information!!
Thank-You!! :-)
| |
| Lori Davis 2006-08-02, 12:10 pm |
| h=E5=A3=EA=A5 wrote:
> "Lori Davis" <loriweb@pair.com> wrote in message=20
> news:44C57E69.6050703@pair.com...
>=20
s=20[color=darkred]
e=20[color=darkred]
are=20[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
y=20[color=darkred]
e=20[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
>=20
>=20
> Lori thank you so much for that misc tutorial!! I ran into this 31 pixe=
l=20
> issue myself while creating presets for my inner bevels and was upset a=
gain=20
> that PSP didn't allow for the fact that not all of us are creating 72pp=
i web=20
> images!
> I can't wait to play with your information!!
> Thank-You!! :-)=20
>=20
You're very welcome. Glad it'll come in handy. :)
Lori
| |
| HISsparrow 2006-08-02, 12:10 pm |
| Amen to this statement Lori! I concur 100%. Thanks so much for all your time
you put into these tuts and stuff. We sure do appreciate you! BTW, I went to
your "alternate" site the other day, nice to put a face with a name! *smile*
blessings,
Carla
"hå£ê¥" <trennemo@paulbunyan.net> wrote in message
news:44c585c1$1_3@cnews...
>
> "Lori Davis" <loriweb@pair.com> wrote in message
> news:44C57E69.6050703@pair.com...
are[color=darkred]
>
> Lori thank you so much for that misc tutorial!! I ran into this 31 pixel
> issue myself while creating presets for my inner bevels and was upset
again
> that PSP didn't allow for the fact that not all of us are creating 72ppi
web
> images!
> I can't wait to play with your information!!
> Thank-You!! :-)
>
>
| |
| Lori Davis 2006-08-02, 12:10 pm |
| "HISsparrow" <iam@gointoheaven.com> wrote in message
news:44c5fd27$1_1@cnews...
> Amen to this statement Lori! I concur 100%. Thanks so much for all your
> time
> you put into these tuts and stuff. We sure do appreciate you! BTW, I went
> to
> your "alternate" site the other day, nice to put a face with a name!
> *smile*
>
Thanks, Carla.
One of these days I'll actually do something with Photo, Scrap, and Paint
(if that's what I actually call it - I was just thinking about that this
morning). Have to get down to doing some housecleaning on my PSP site first,
though. :)
Lori
| |
| Joske 2006-08-02, 12:10 pm |
| Lori Davis wrote:
> Rachel wrote:
[color=darkred]
> Rachel, here's another way to get larger bevels (besides resizing
> your image or using Drop Shadow):
> http://loriweb.pair.com/x_BigBevel.html
> I often use the Drop Shadow method myself, but that won't give
> you fancy bevels. The method I use in BigBevel employs Inner
> Bevel, so you can use any of the bevel shapes available there.
> And since this method doesn't involve resizing your whole figure,
> there's no loss of image quality.
Very nifty method. I'm used to running to CutOut for wide-bevelish
situations, but this one's quite clever.
Joske
--
http://members.home.nl/j.a.c.backer/
| |
| Lori Davis 2006-08-02, 12:10 pm |
| "Joske" <j.backer@home.nl> wrote in message news:44c64212$1_2@cnews...
> Lori Davis wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Very nifty method. I'm used to running to CutOut for wide-bevelish
> situations, but this one's quite clever.
>
Thanks, Joske. Yep, I often use Cutout, too. One advantage to this other
method is being able to get more complex bevels without much effort.
Lori
| |
| Rachel 2006-08-02, 12:10 pm |
| I wasn't complaining...and I have written to that email several times on different things and never get a reply...:> )
"Spandex Rutabaga" <SpRu@agabatur.xednaps> wrote in message news:44C450F7.39062AE4@agabatur.xednaps...
> Rachel wrote:
>
> This is great! Is there anyway to make it go in farther from the
> edges than the 31 pixels that the bevel allows....so it is more than
> just the edges that the effect is placed on? 31 pixels is very small
> when you are working on a large image...:> )
Complain to the authors of PSP, who don't seem to have noticed
that the size of images is increasing. Use the Email Corel link
here http://support.corel.com. Other than that, try the obvious.
Do the effect on a smaller image and then resize the image larger.
You can also consider replacing bevel effects with the Drop Shadow
filter, which will give you are larger width effect.
| |
| Rachel 2006-08-02, 12:10 pm |
| Thanks Lori, that's a great tutorial. If I wanted a larger bevel, I would just use Eye Candy that has no restrictions. But the script she provided doesn't allow me to use anything but the PSP Inner Bevel. I don't think I can stop the script in the middle, go do another bevel and then resume the script can I?
"Lori Davis" <loriweb@pair.com> wrote in message news:44C57E69.6050703@pair.com...
Rachel wrote:
> This is great! Is there anyway to make it go in farther from the edges
> than the 31 pixels that the bevel allows....so it is more than just the
> edges that the effect is placed on? 31 pixels is very small when you
> are working on a large image...:> )
>
Rachel, here's another way to get larger bevels (besides resizing your
image or using Drop Shadow):
http://loriweb.pair.com/x_BigBevel.html
I often use the Drop Shadow method myself, but that won't give you fancy
bevels. The method I use in BigBevel employs Inner Bevel, so you can use
any of the bevel shapes available there. And since this method doesn't
involve resizing your whole figure, there's no loss of image quality.
HTH,
Lori
| |
| Spandex Rutabaga 2006-08-02, 12:10 pm |
| You should complain about never getting a reply :) More
seriously, make sure you have a valid e-mail address
when you e-mail these guys. They won't realize that/take
the time to remove NOSPAM from NOSPAMmailshack.com in
all probability.
Could you please turn off the HTML? It makes it very hard
to reply to your posts. Item 5 in the newsgroup rules
suggests posting in ASCII text (http://tinyurl.com/b5hxy).
Plain text has a number of advantages. It is understood
by any newsreader, it makes for much more compact messages,
permits correct quoting of prior messages, and disallows
execution of evil code on the recipient's machine. Removing
the HTML doesn't reduce the information content of the post
in any tangible way.
Rachel wrote:
> I wasn't complaining...and I have written to that email several times
> on different things and never get a reply...:> )
>
>
>
>
> "Spandex Rutabaga" <SpRu@agabatur.xednaps> wrote in message
> news:44C450F7.39062AE4@agabatur.xednaps...> Rachel wrote:
> from the
> more than
> very small
>
> Complain to the authors of PSP, who don't seem to have
> noticed
> that the size of images is increasing. Use the Email Corel
> link
> here http://support.corel.com. Other than that, try the
> obvious.
> Do the effect on a smaller image and then resize the image
> larger.
> You can also consider replacing bevel effects with the Drop
> Shadow
> filter, which will give you are larger width effect.
>
| |
| Spandex Rutabaga 2006-08-02, 12:10 pm |
| I'm sorry, but I can't quote your message properly. However,
you said "I don't think I can stop the script in the middle,
go do another bevel and then resume the script can I?" You
said this in reference to an Eye Candy plug-in.
What you can do is replace the PSP command in the script with
the execution of a plug-in. You can do this by recording just
the application of your plug-in to a script and then cutting
and pasting the recorded plug-in command into Joske's script
in place of the PSP command. There is one caveat. This will
only work if the plug-in is written to support scripting. I
can't recall now but I think that Eye Candy has it's own
interface on top of the set of plug-ins that constitute Eye
Candy. This may make scripting less easy than desired.
| |
| Lori Davis 2006-08-02, 12:10 pm |
| Spandex Rutabaga wrote:
> What you can do is replace the PSP command in the script with
> the execution of a plug-in. You can do this by recording just
> the application of your plug-in to a script and then cutting
> and pasting the recorded plug-in command into Joske's script
> in place of the PSP command. There is one caveat. This will
> only work if the plug-in is written to support scripting. I
> can't recall now but I think that Eye Candy has it's own
> interface on top of the set of plug-ins that constitute Eye
> Candy. This may make scripting less easy than desired.
I was just about to suggest this to Rachel myself. :) There's no problem
at all including application of Alien Skin plugins in PSP scripts.
Lori
| |
| Joske 2006-08-02, 12:10 pm |
| Spandex Rutabaga wrote:
> I'm sorry, but I can't quote your message properly. However,
> you said "I don't think I can stop the script in the middle,
> go do another bevel and then resume the script can I?" You
> said this in reference to an Eye Candy plug-in.
> What you can do is replace the PSP command in the script with
> the execution of a plug-in. You can do this by recording just
> the application of your plug-in to a script and then cutting
> and pasting the recorded plug-in command into Joske's script
> in place of the PSP command. There is one caveat. This will
> only work if the plug-in is written to support scripting. I
> can't recall now but I think that Eye Candy has it's own
> interface on top of the set of plug-ins that constitute Eye
> Candy. This may make scripting less easy than desired.
I'm afraid Rachel can't that easily. Several reasons:
As I wrote this script in response to a request, I suppose editing
is reasonable though not appreciated by me :-) If it has to be,
please take out the Brush Strokes code and all of the description.
There's a line in most of my scripts saying 'no editing'. Editing
someone else's script is fine when only done on one's own system.
But in my experience, altered scripts get spread widely and then the
original author gets to answer the questions about them.
Replacing the bevel with another effect would still leave the
selections in place which are too narrow for Rachel. Part of the
outcome depends on these selections, also to get the gradual smooth
effect on the brush strokes.
I could easily implement Gary's pause script. But a pause exposes a
script to user steps that the next ones in the script may not be
able to handle. Either this script would become riddled with dialogs
explaining what to do, or it would halt a lot. It would be easier
doing everything manually :-)
I could and might write a wholly new script with interaction or
pauses. But I feel it's fine as it is for the use it was intended
for, and I didn't see a reply from Rachel where I said I might do
something new later on. As I also haven't seen what Rachel does, I
hope this script will remain intact until I see what a more suitable
one would be used on (my hunch is very big 300ppi backgrounds).
Joske
--
http://members.home.nl/j.backer/outlines/outlines.html
| |
| Lori Davis 2006-08-02, 12:10 pm |
| Joske wrote:
>
> I'm afraid Rachel can't that easily. Several reasons:
>
> As I wrote this script in response to a request, I suppose editing
> is reasonable though not appreciated by me :-) If it has to be,
> please take out the Brush Strokes code and all of the description.
>
> There's a line in most of my scripts saying 'no editing'. Editing
> someone else's script is fine when only done on one's own system.
> But in my experience, altered scripts get spread widely and then the
> original author gets to answer the questions about them.
>
> Replacing the bevel with another effect would still leave the
> selections in place which are too narrow for Rachel. Part of the
> outcome depends on these selections, also to get the gradual smooth
> effect on the brush strokes.
>
> I could easily implement Gary's pause script. But a pause exposes a
> script to user steps that the next ones in the script may not be
> able to handle. Either this script would become riddled with dialogs
> explaining what to do, or it would halt a lot. It would be easier
> doing everything manually :-)
>
> I could and might write a wholly new script with interaction or
> pauses. But I feel it's fine as it is for the use it was intended
> for, and I didn't see a reply from Rachel where I said I might do
> something new later on. As I also haven't seen what Rachel does, I
> hope this script will remain intact until I see what a more suitable
> one would be used on (my hunch is very big 300ppi backgrounds).
>
All good reasons to leave the script alone, Joske. I think Rachel was
only hoping that there was a ready way to have the script work with
wider bevels, and if not, that was just the way things go. ;)
Lori
| |
| Rachel 2006-08-02, 12:10 pm |
| I wouldn't edit someone else's script. I would rather look at the steps and
do them manually without the script and change anything I need to as I go
rather than try to edit someone's script.
I wasn't thinking of a 300 ppi background. That is too large and needs to
be done a different way...I was thinking of 300 ppi text or buttons, etc.
In 300 ppi 5 inches wide by 4 inches tall (1500 x 1200 pixels) 31 pixels is
not wide enough for the effect to show up...which is a shame cause it comes
out very pretty.
Rach
"Joske" <j.backer@home.nl> wrote in message news:44c76435_3@cnews...
> Spandex Rutabaga wrote:
>
>
>
> I'm afraid Rachel can't that easily. Several reasons:
>
> As I wrote this script in response to a request, I suppose editing
> is reasonable though not appreciated by me :-) If it has to be,
> please take out the Brush Strokes code and all of the description.
>
> There's a line in most of my scripts saying 'no editing'. Editing
> someone else's script is fine when only done on one's own system.
> But in my experience, altered scripts get spread widely and then the
> original author gets to answer the questions about them.
>
> Replacing the bevel with another effect would still leave the
> selections in place which are too narrow for Rachel. Part of the
> outcome depends on these selections, also to get the gradual smooth
> effect on the brush strokes.
>
> I could easily implement Gary's pause script. But a pause exposes a
> script to user steps that the next ones in the script may not be
> able to handle. Either this script would become riddled with dialogs
> explaining what to do, or it would halt a lot. It would be easier
> doing everything manually :-)
>
> I could and might write a wholly new script with interaction or
> pauses. But I feel it's fine as it is for the use it was intended
> for, and I didn't see a reply from Rachel where I said I might do
> something new later on. As I also haven't seen what Rachel does, I
> hope this script will remain intact until I see what a more suitable
> one would be used on (my hunch is very big 300ppi backgrounds).
>
> Joske
> --
> http://members.home.nl/j.backer/outlines/outlines.html
>
>
>
>
| |
| Joske 2006-08-02, 12:10 pm |
| Rachel wrote:
> I wasn't thinking of a 300 ppi background. That is too large and
> needs to be done a different way...I was thinking of 300 ppi text
> or buttons, etc. In 300 ppi 5 inches wide by 4 inches tall (1500
> x 1200 pixels) 31 pixels is not wide enough for the effect to
> show up...which is a shame cause it comes out very pretty.
Yes, those buttons would need something wider. If you could post a
link to a site with your work, it'd be even clearer why the size is
needed. Most scrapbookers on this server, by the way, use 200ppi for
good reasons they could explain far better than I could :-)
As I wrote I'd maybe try some more, and I posted a second version
using shadow, which makes the range fairly wider. The outcome is
almost but not quite the same.
Joske
--
http://members.home.nl/j.a.c.backer/
| |
| Rachel 2006-08-02, 12:10 pm |
| Yes, I understand why some scrapbookers create in 200 ppi but unfortunately
the industry standard is 300 ppi. Which is why I and most of the
scrapbooking designers I know of, use it.
Most scrapbookers on this server, by the way, use 200ppi for
> good reasons they could explain far better than I could :-)
>
> As I wrote I'd maybe try some more, and I posted a second version
> using shadow, which makes the range fairly wider. The outcome is
> almost but not quite the same.
>
> Joske
> --
> http://members.home.nl/j.a.c.backer/
>
>
| |
| Sally Beacham 2006-08-02, 12:10 pm |
|
"Rachel" <RachelR@NOSPAMmailshack.com> wrote in message
news:44cf2656_2@cnews...
> Yes, I understand why some scrapbookers create in 200 ppi but
> unfortunately the industry standard is 300 ppi. Which is why I and most of
> the scrapbooking designers I know of, use it.
The "industry standard" is what you make it. DSP designers, as well as many
other knowledgeable designers, have used 200 ppi for several years. It's
better for the consumer. Anyone who has to stand behind the "industry
standard" flag to justify using an unnecessarily high resolution is passing
the buck.
http://www.digitalscrapbookplace.co...icles/ppi.shtml
--
Sally Beacham
www.dizteq.com/www.lvsonline.com
Digital Scrapbooking (Course Technology)
Paint Shop Pro 8 Zero to Hero (Apress/Friends of Ed)
>
>
> Most scrapbookers on this server, by the way, use 200ppi for
>
>
| |
| HISsparrow 2006-08-02, 12:10 pm |
| thanks for sharing this Sally, I have never been able to create in 300ppi
anyway, computer's tooo dang slow! heheh Used to aggravate the poop out of
me when I would make something I thought was pretty good and share it and
then get told "well it's not 300ppi and we can't use it!" grrrrrrrr I asked
someone once, locally, what is the difference between the 2 and he told me
"nothing the naked eye can notice!" heheh
blessings,
Carla
"Sally Beacham" <sallywho@dizteqwhere.com> wrote in message
news:44cf325e_1@cnews...
>
> "Rachel" <RachelR@NOSPAMmailshack.com> wrote in message
> news:44cf2656_2@cnews...
of[color=darkred]
>
> The "industry standard" is what you make it. DSP designers, as well as
many
> other knowledgeable designers, have used 200 ppi for several years. It's
> better for the consumer. Anyone who has to stand behind the "industry
> standard" flag to justify using an unnecessarily high resolution is
passing
> the buck.
>
> http://www.digitalscrapbookplace.co...icles/ppi.shtml
>
> --
> Sally Beacham
> www.dizteq.com/www.lvsonline.com
> Digital Scrapbooking (Course Technology)
> Paint Shop Pro 8 Zero to Hero (Apress/Friends of Ed)
>
>
>
>
>
| |
| Spandex Rutabaga 2006-08-02, 12:10 pm |
| Rachel wrote:
>
> Yes, I understand why some scrapbookers create in 200 ppi but unfortunately
> the industry standard is 300 ppi. Which is why I and most of the
> scrapbooking designers I know of, use it.
Let's, for the sake of argument, assume that is actually true and
also that scrapbooking can be described as an industry and not a
hobby for women. I bet if you did all your work at 200 ppi and,
at the very end, resized to 150% changing the resolution to 300
ppi at the same time, nobody would know. At least none of the
"industrialists" would know - see attached. You, meanwhile, would
be using 44% of the memory you are using now :)
Here's a hint. The attached image was originally made at a
resolution of 1 ppi. Can you guess the size it was made at?
| |
| Sally Beacham 2006-08-02, 12:10 pm |
| hehehehehheh you're too funny. But boy oh boy, the quality on that sucker
is just amazing! Unfortunately, we surely couldn't use it, not 300 ppi, you
know.
--
Sally Beacham
www.dizteq.com/www.lvsonline.com
Digital Scrapbooking (Course Technology)
Paint Shop Pro 8 Zero to Hero (Apress/Friends of Ed)
"Spandex Rutabaga" <SpRu@agabatur.xednaps> wrote in message
news:44CF8FBC.71B7BF1C@agabatur.xednaps...
> Rachel wrote:
>
> Let's, for the sake of argument, assume that is actually true and
> also that scrapbooking can be described as an industry and not a
> hobby for women. I bet if you did all your work at 200 ppi and,
> at the very end, resized to 150% changing the resolution to 300
> ppi at the same time, nobody would know. At least none of the
> "industrialists" would know - see attached. You, meanwhile, would
> be using 44% of the memory you are using now :)
>
> Here's a hint. The attached image was originally made at a
> resolution of 1 ppi. Can you guess the size it was made at?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| Spandex Rutabaga 2006-08-02, 12:10 pm |
| Sally Beacham wrote:
>
> hehehehehheh you're too funny. But boy oh boy, the quality on that sucker
> is just amazing! Unfortunately, we surely couldn't use it, not 300 ppi, you
> know.
Yes, it is 300 ppi. It's just 300 ppi in metric (i.e. 118.110 pixels
per cm) because it is a PNG file. 118.110 x 2.54 = 299.9994
| |
| Sally Beacham 2006-08-02, 12:10 pm |
|
"Spandex Rutabaga" <SpRu@agabatur.xednaps> wrote in message
news:44D00241.8CE78357@agabatur.xednaps...
> Sally Beacham wrote:
>
> Yes, it is 300 ppi. It's just 300 ppi in metric (i.e. 118.110 pixels
> per cm) because it is a PNG file. 118.110 x 2.54 = 299.9994
I KNOW that. I was being facetious, silly. It's also 1 ppi, if I push the
right button. Or even 3600 ppi. Magic.
(But you better keep looking for that .0006.... I can really tell the
difference on my prints.)
--
Sally Beacham
www.dizteq.com/www.lvsonline.com
Digital Scrapbooking (Course Technology)
Paint Shop Pro 8 Zero to Hero (Apress/Friends of Ed)
| |
| Lori Davis 2006-08-02, 12:10 pm |
| Sally Beacham wrote:
> (But you better keep looking for that .0006.... I can really tell the
> difference on my prints.)
>
Now, now, Sally. ;)
Lori
| |
| Lori Davis 2006-08-02, 12:10 pm |
| HISsparrow wrote:
> thanks for sharing this Sally, I have never been able to create in 300ppi
> anyway, computer's tooo dang slow! heheh Used to aggravate the poop out of
> me when I would make something I thought was pretty good and share it and
> then get told "well it's not 300ppi and we can't use it!" grrrrrrrr I asked
> someone once, locally, what is the difference between the 2 and he told me
> "nothing the naked eye can notice!" heheh
Carla, for components, just resize without resampling to 300ppi and save
the result. It's only the number of pixels that matters. (That should be
every scrapper's mantra.)
Sure, the doodad you designed to be 1.5"x1.5" at 200ppi will then be
1"x1" if placed in a 300ppi layout, but folks use 1"x1" doodads, too.
(And, for components, this would be true whether you changed the
resolution or not, since anything you paste into an image becomes part
of that image. Only the entire image has a print resolution.)
Lori
| |
| HISsparrow 2006-08-02, 7:40 pm |
| heheh, thanks Lori, words to live by!
blessings,
Carla
| |
| Sally Beacham 2006-08-03, 7:55 am |
|
"Lori Davis" <loriweb@pair.com> wrote in message
news:44D096ED.4090705@pair.com...
> HISsparrow wrote:
>
> Carla, for components, just resize without resampling to 300ppi and save
> the result. It's only the number of pixels that matters. (That should be
> every scrapper's mantra.)
>
> Sure, the doodad you designed to be 1.5"x1.5" at 200ppi will then be 1"x1"
> if placed in a 300ppi layout, but folks use 1"x1" doodads, too. (And, for
> components, this would be true whether you changed the resolution or not,
> since anything you paste into an image becomes part of that image. Only
> the entire image has a print resolution.)
>
> Lori
Actually, believe it or not, the reason many scrappers don't use 200 PPI is
because of the "size surprise" when they paste a 300 PPI element into a 200
PPI layout. I know, I know I know - it's "too much work" to convert them.
Thus my push for a one-button solution, ;-)))).
--
Sally Beacham
www.dizteq.com/www.lvsonline.com
Digital Scrapbooking (Course Technology)
Paint Shop Pro 8 Zero to Hero (Apress/Friends of Ed)
| |
|
| Sally Beacham wrote:
> "Lori Davis" wrote
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> Actually, believe it or not, the reason many scrappers don't use
> 200 PPI is because of the "size surprise" when they paste a 300
> PPI element into a 200 PPI layout. I know, I know I know - it's
> "too much work" to convert them.
Question: has anyone ever done a crisp and clear page explaining all
this in words similar to what I read here? If yes, where is it?
Since I'm not into printing (or scrapping, really, honestly) I am
one of those never remembering quite what it is that makes the
300ppi hogwash and the 200ppi common sense... the theory behind it
as written here keeps escaping me. I would definitely welcome such a
page as a reference point for me and to point others to.
Joske
| |
| Sally Beacham 2006-08-03, 7:54 pm |
| On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 14:34:16 +0200, "Joske" <j.backer@home.nl> wrote:
>Sally Beacham wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>Question: has anyone ever done a crisp and clear page explaining all
>this in words similar to what I read here? If yes, where is it?
>
>Since I'm not into printing (or scrapping, really, honestly) I am
>one of those never remembering quite what it is that makes the
>300ppi hogwash and the 200ppi common sense... the theory behind it
>as written here keeps escaping me. I would definitely welcome such a
>page as a reference point for me and to point others to.
Joske -
Here's much of the issue presented in scrapbook terms -
http://www.digitalscrapbookplace.co...icles/ppi.shtml
This article is very good in "common sense" terms for
non-scrappers - http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1790570,00.asp
300 PPI isn't so much "hogwash" as it is unnecessary for "the
masses." If layouts were going to be printed at full size on an
offset printer (such as might be needed for magazine layouts) then it
would be necessary (probably.) However - layouts are NEVER printed
that way, and unless a person is planning on having their personal
albums printed in that manner (which no one would do unless they had
money just burning holes in their pockets) the higher resolution is
not necessary.
The problem lies in the large file sizes created by the higher
resolution images. The scrapping community in general is often
working on older, less powerful computers, and many issues are avoided
by working with smaller file sizes. Storage needs are less, online
downloads are less of a burden if the file sizes are smaller (and you
know how large print-quality scrapbook paper files can be.) Couple
that with a general lack of computer and graphic knowledge and
expertise in the community, and you have lots of people struggling to
do basic tasks when they don't need to be. It's an unnecessary burden
on the new scrapper, in particular, who just wants to create some
layouts.
Sally Beacham
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| HISsparrow wrote:
[color=darkred]
> Thanks Lori, great articles, I have bookmarked them for MY
> reference. heheh
Great, these are very clear as well (and may appeal to those
visually oriented, as the dsp article is in rather small letters).
Thank you too Lori, these are helpful to me.
Joske
| |
|
|
|
| | Copyright 2003 - 2009 forum4designers.com Software forum Computer Hardware reviews |
|