• I want to thank all the members that have upgraded your accounts. I truly appreciate your support of the site monetarily. Supporting the site keeps this site up and running as a lot of work daily goes on behind the scenes. Click to Support Signs101 ...

...for all you Photoshop experts!

CenturySigns

Custom Sign Shop Designer
I don't use photoshop much but I need to put a printalbe beval edge and soft drop shadow on some text that will be 15' long and I know ps will handle this. I am unclear about 2 things; On the "new" screen in ps do I set the resolution to like 300 with a transparent backgrd? Does that mean that the text that I set in there is going to be 300 dpi? If that is the case can I type the text in at say half the size and later send it to print at full size at 150 dpi? Also can someone tell me where I can mathmatically size the word? Sorry for the dumb questions folks, just don't get to spend much time with PS.
 

MITCHATEXOTIC

New Member
Try these apples

Double click on you text layer and ta da there is your f/x menu tweek to you hearts content then when all is perfect flatten and rip or exort or pomagranit juice or what ever turns you on
 

CenturySigns

Custom Sign Shop Designer
thankx Mitch but the fx I got covered, it's the dpi at full size and how to resize the text I'm concerned about!
 

MITCHATEXOTIC

New Member
second part oops I forgot

rasterize the layer after fx appliesd by merging it with a blank transparent layer...I work at 1/20 scale at 800-1000 dpi....Yes its a memory hog (thats why I run dual dualcor zeons....hope that was more of a comlete answer
 

CenturySigns

Custom Sign Shop Designer
Hey Flame
Yeah, I have Corelx3 but not sure what will happen if I have a 15' span on my letters then try to add the bevel effect. My puter would probebly freek on me, not to mention a soft drop shade and 2 outlines.
 

_SAi_

New Member
I have never had a need to create files larger than 100dpi at full size. If I have a 300 dpi file I can make it 1/3 scale. Plus, if it is text, you can always scale that up if needed... raster is a different story!
 

Bogie

New Member
If you know the capabilities of the output device, use a multiple... You'll get sharper results - My Mutoh does 1440, so if I'm doing something I like 90, 180, 360, 720, 1440....
 

iSign

New Member
If you know the capabilities of the output device, use a multiple... You'll get sharper results - My Mutoh does 1440, so if I'm doing something I like 90, 180, 360, 720, 1440....

whatever you are saying... I don't think you used enough words for anyone who doesn't already get it, to have learned it from your post.

Maybe I'm wrong, & I'm the only dense one here... but I think I only halfway under stand this & I still don't fully trust my comprehension.

This probably ought to become a topic of it's own if you can actually explain this to me (& anyone else looking in) but for now, I'll ask here...

when you say "use a multiple" I assume you mean set your file resolution to 90, 180, or 360ppi (NOT 100, 150 etc)...

...because when your printer tries to take that file later & print it at 360x360 or 720x720 it is better that 90ppi is 1/4th of 360 or 1/8th of 720 instead of some obscure proportion.

I vaguely understood in some class way back when... that the term "resample" applies to a complex interpolation of every pixel that should be avoided when deterioration of the print quality is a concern.

What I believe the idea was is if you enlarge an image, you can just settle for the same number of pixels, with each pixel being larger... but if you want to set a higher ppi, it's best when you enlarge 1 pixel to 4 (400% or 2 rows of 2) or to 9 pixels (900% or 3 rows of 3 pixels) or 16 pixels (4x4) because each one pixel is only one color, & if you turn one into 4, 9 or 16... the edges of that block of color do not change, so no interpolation is required.

I never really understood this, & I've never seen the deterioration of a file as a result of not observing this ancient suggestion... but it sounds like you might know what the deal is, so I was hoping you could explain it.

On a similar note... the word interpolation has also been at the tip of another iceberg of print industry confusion... which is the way software like genuine fractels, (or Z-spline and others) can enhance an image that would otherwise suffer badly from extreme enlargement.

I've always assumed it meant somethinmg like this:

Picture a curving black shape on a white background. the edge of the curve is built out of a stairstepping configuration of black squares. If you assign a higher PPI value, such as turning each 1 black pixel into 4 black pixels...

..you could then make the stairstepping configuration of black squares less choppy by turning the outermost of each group of 4 pixels into a white pixel... like sanding down the high spots on the edge of an image.

I believe this automatic determination of when a newly split large one-color pixel can be become a number of pixels that have their color reassigned based on their proximity to other pixels of other colors... is what is called interpolation.

I know this is getting really complex for me to type... so I hope I haven't made absolutely no sense to anyone. I'm trying to spit out something I have an unclear grasp of, in hopes of learning if I'm close to some usefull information... or if I'm entirely off base in some delusional memory.

I have heard some say that there is no need to buy software like genuine fractels, because if you know how to use photoshop, you can get just as good results enlarging images in photoshop if you do it right.

Anyone care to step up and make sense of some of my confusion?
 

scott pagan

New Member
I don't use photoshop much but I need to put a printalbe beval edge and soft drop shadow on some text that will be 15' long and I know ps will handle this. I am unclear about 2 things; On the "new" screen in ps do I set the resolution to like 300 with a transparent backgrd? Does that mean that the text that I set in there is going to be 300 dpi? If that is the case can I type the text in at say half the size and later send it to print at full size at 150 dpi? Also can someone tell me where I can mathmatically size the word? Sorry for the dumb questions folks, just don't get to spend much time with PS.


you're all on it. at 180" long the file size won't be too massive, big but not unwielding.
as to "mathmetically size the word", i'm not following you. if you want to see the actual size you can use the "transform" [Crtl+T] and with your "info" pallette open to see the actual width/height.
 

scott pagan

New Member
to address Bogie and iSign... don't forget your RIP output is going to reinterpert your source image file and reimage the pixels to the printers dpi, so you may be spending alot of time on something you'll never notice.
 

javila

New Member
I'm pretty there's zero relation between image PPI and print DPI. Other than the higher the two are the higher your print quality will be.
 

thewood

New Member
I'm pretty there's zero relation between image PPI and print DPI. Other than the higher the two are the higher your print quality will be.

Bingo.

PPI (pixels per inch) how many pixels per square inch in the file.

DPI (Dots per inch) how many dots of ink the printer lays down per inch.

There is no relation between the two.

72 ppi should be more than sufficient for 15' text.

360x540 dpi should be suffucient for the printer.
 

iSign

New Member
I'm pretty there's zero relation between image PPI and print DPI. Other than the higher the two are the higher your print quality will be.

This would follow my presumptions on this issue as well, largely because with wet drops of ink falling onto the media, square pixel corners are not being reproduced anyway... BUT

Part 2 of my question is still of great interest to me, & while confusing, it is in no way irrelevant based on the "zero relation between image PPI and print DPI."

If anyone understands these 2 issues related to enlarging image files, I'd still like to learn more about them.

The first being, before inkjet printing is even considered, when an enlarging files in photoshop are there advantages in minimizing, or eliminating interpolation (automated pixel color reassignment) by adhering to specific percentages when "resample" is on... or turning "resample" off for non specific percentages.

The second being, if you need to take advantage of the "interpolation" capabilities to improve very low resolution files needing enlargement, can current versions of photoshop really do this as well as freestanding programs such as genuine fractals, and if so, is there a trick to it... or is simply enlarging the image with "resample" on all I need to do for Photoshop to give me it's best interpolation.

Also for the record, when I imply that "interpolation means, among other things, "automated pixel color reassignment" ...this is again just my current understanding, and one I don't claim to be sure of.
 

CenturySigns

Custom Sign Shop Designer
you're all on it. at 180" long the file size won't be too massive, big but not unwielding.
as to "mathmetically size the word", i'm not following you. if you want to see the actual size you can use the "transform" [Crtl+T] and with your "info" pallette open to see the actual width/height.

Scott:
What I am trying to do is find a place where I can go in and type in the dimensions. Transform lets me "see" how I have drug the word to a certain size but I need to be more accurate than that.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
 

eforer

New Member
Firstly, lets clarify something about artwork and resolution. File size is whats ie, its ultimately down to pixel count of your file. An 8X10 image at 300 dpi is the same filesize and ultimately resolves the same information as the same image at 4X5 @ 600 dpi. In other words, its the same number of pixels the exact same image, the same amount of data stored identically. The only relevance to the different denotation of the image size is that it sets the size for your RIP.

When you take an 4X5 image thats 300dpi and enlarge to an 8X10 image at 300dpi, you must perform re-sampling. This is because the grid of pixels that makes up your image is now 4 times larger in area. The software must now fill in information to occupy the new larger pixel grid based on the original file data. The computer re-samples the image adding color information to the new pixels, remember for every 1 pixel in your starting image, the computer has to add 4 new ones based off the color of that one pixel and the pixel surrounding it. Photoshop uses bi-cubic re-sampling which produces heinously ugly results. Photozoomer and my personal favorite Genuine Fractals use more sophisticated mathematical models to add in this new information. The resized files look waaayyy friggin' better. In general, bi-cubic re-sampling results in alot of chroma noise as the color model does a relatively crude average of the surrounding RGB info, the plug ins produce enlargements that looks smoother and alot less noisy. Noise Ninja is a great plug-in to run after re-sampling to help further tame the noise added by the re-sampling process.

Boogie is also correct, if you use a factor common to the various output resolutions found on your machine (generally 12) your RIPs will go faster and your prints will look better. This is because the rip has to do generally less work interpolating the image to meet its native print resolutions. For example, if you have a machine that prints at 720 dpi, you'll get a generally better result if the image you rip is 360 dpi vs 400 dpi even though the 400 dpi image ultimately resolves more data! This is because the pixel grid is easily translated to the dots of ink fired by the print head. Simply put, its easier to make 4 pixels 8 dots than it is to make 5 pixels 8 dots. The computer will have to compromise on the values of said pixels to best represent the input data where as when you work within the multiples of the native resolution, it simply multiply the quantity of any give pixel by (in this case) 2 on both axis.

Finally, working size in illustrator does matter, it shouldn't but it does. Working in a smaller scale for what ever reason in illustrator has benefits in terms of speed even while working with pure vector data. This is a product of crummy programming. If you use a spline based cad application, the only thing that impacts performance is the number of vertices, the complexity of the curve interpolation and the level of detail you choose to resolve to on your screen. Vectors are mathematical representations of lines and shapes (remember Y=X squared makes a smile!) and the complexity of the math should be the only determinate factor of load placed on the cpu. For some reason when illustrator is worked on with a big project and you set your art board at 1:1 scale, things slow down more than they would with the same vector data scaled down. It makes no sense, but it happens in practice (thus far in my experience with cad and graphics software this issue is pretty unique to illustrator). Also, vectors are cpu number crunchers and raster eats ram, so spec your system to your bias. Don't think that doubling your ram is going to impact vector editing beyond helping cope with the excessive bloat of the software itself. It won't make your machine crunch the vectors any faster. Same goes for RIPping, the large quantity of ram is helpful in that it lets you store the data to be ripped in ram vs spooling it off the hard disk (the FSB speed is wwaaaay fastater than the SATA, IDE SAS bus) but the real work is done by the CPU. Also, most rips aren't multi-threaded in the sense that it can rip a single file using multiple cores or chips. Most will apportion a core or cpu to each rip job. So if your a 1 job at a time guy, a really expensive quad core xeon isn't going to help much. In fact, a 3.6ghz p4 extreme might be a better route.
 

iSign

New Member
thanks for that.

Some complex stuff there. when it hasn't sunk in fully yet. Probably gets to seem basic, but not for me yet.
So, if as you say, using "a factor common to the various output resolutions found on your machine (generally 12) your RIPs will go faster" ...

...would this not also be true when choosing percentages to enlarge rastor images?
 

eforer

New Member
Sort of.... The best practice is to do no enlargement in the rip, do it all in photoshop, if you do the enlargement in the rip, stick with the common factor idea. IE, if you are going to send a file and double its file size in the rip, make sure its dpi going into the rip will work out well with the enlargement factor and the native resolution of the machine. So, a 360 dpi image doubled in the rip works out to 180 which is a good correlation to a 360/540/720/1440 machine. So if you output at 720 dpi at the printer, it will be multiplying by nice round numbers (always the goal).

I think I'll post my workflow for photography->Illustrator->photoshop->Rip which will help contextualize a lot o the info. I actually came to digital printing from having gone to art school and worked as a commercial illustrator and art director. A lot of the image stuff I learned (especially from 3D computer graphics stuff) really helped me wrap my brain around printing better. The rendering process with 3D stuff is basically analogous to ripping files.

I'll attach a design I recently did where I did the photography, design and printing using what I feel is the best workflow for achieving a fast rip, and excellent results.

1) Photography

First things first, I shoot everything right now with a Sony Alpha 10mp Digital SLR in RAW only. I use a Sigma 28-300 (good general purpose lens, not amazing quality but versatile) with B+W MRC circular polarizer. The photos for these images were shot outdoors. I'm not a professional photographer, and my lighting equipment is pretty limited, so on big stuff I just hope for a sunny day ;)

2) Photo Editing

I use CS3, and Bridge to bring all my photos in via camera raw. I use camera raw to do baseline adjustments. If I need to layer up an image to refine appearance, I try to do the adjustments for the different layers (at least roughly) using camera raw, and then I combine them in a psd. I synthesize the different raw processed images masking to reveal the better sections of each component. Sometimes I bracket via ISO to extend the dynamic range. I use the same principal, bring in each shot via camera raw and try to do as much there as possible, if necessary doing several raw versions to synthesize one image later. Of course camera raw has a lot of limitations, so regular photoshop workflows apply once you've done the best you can.

3) Layout

For higher end outputs, I work 1:1 in illustrator despite the aforementioned issues. The reasons for this will become clear soon. All raster artwork is brought in as linked files. This is very important. After finalizing the layout, I select each piece of raster artwork from the linked file pallet. I then write down the file name and the size it has been scaled to (print size not pixels) in th layout.

4) Back to photoshop.

I then go and open all the photos again in photoshop. I resize/re-sample them to the sizes recorded from illustrator using Genuine Fractals Print-Pro. The resolution is re-sampled in Genuine Fractals to 360 dpi at the same time. Also, I use the unsharp mask less than I used to in photoshop and do alot of my sharpening adjustments in GF. The tools in genuine fractals print pro are awesome. I then use Noise Ninja (optional) to help work out any grain from higher ISO shots. I find that I now use Noise Ninja in moderation on almost all my photos. I then flatten and save a new version of the file.

5) Back to illustrator

Open the layout in Illustrator. Go to the links pallet and replace all the links with the images re-sampled/sized in Genuine Fractals. They will directly replace the versions we started with and require no positioning etc. In fact, in the editing environment you won't notice any difference, but it makes a huge difference in the print. The issue we're avoiding is that Illustrator does an abysmal job of dealing with raster artwork especially scaling/sampling. We basically handle that for it by doing the work in photoshop with the genuine fractals print pro plug-in. Once you've finished replacing the links save a new, final version of the illustrator layout. Make sure you add crop marks and that all of the design makes it on to the artboard.

6) One more time to photoshop

Open the AI file in photoshop (Illustrator sucks for exporting raster artwork and often will throw memory errors due to adobe's incompetence in handling swapfiles), when the import/open illustrator file dialog comes up select crop box and set the rasterize resolution to 360 dpi. Make sure that your dimensions are the same as your AI file (they should be by default). The idea here is that we've done all the resizing/re-sampling for photoshop so it won't butcher your nicer photos with fugly bi-cubic re-sampling. Once it finishes opeing, save it and your done.

Now just RIP it!

From my experience, this is the best way to deal with resized/resampled artwork in a real world layout scenario. The file linking in illustrator is the key concept and makes it a lot easier as you don't have to nail down your image sizes until after your done tweaking your design.

Also, good color management practices apply throughout. I am managed from in camera on out (Sony has Adobe rgb 1998 as a color space for the camera) although its moot if you shoot raw. I am currently profiling with an X-Rite DTP 41 (Series II USB) and an X-Rite DTP92Q (yes I'm still in the stone age with viewsonic and mitsu CRT diplays).

Hope this was useful, the print reallys looked great. I printed them on my Mimaki JV3-160s 6 color using triangle JVS inks with wide gammut magneta and light magenta onto arlon dpf 4000 film and mounted them to corrugated plastic. I printed 720x720 16 pass Bi-Di. Solvent will never look like an aqueous art print, but it can get pretty close, are at least pretty darn good with a good workflow.
 

Attachments

  • layout_004 small for web.jpg
    layout_004 small for web.jpg
    136.4 KB · Views: 164
Last edited:

iSign

New Member
thanks pickles... I mean eforer!
that was very educational Probably ought to copy & paste it into it's own thread, but I'm going to remember how to get back here.

I violate several of your taboo procedures, like exporting .ai files (with embedded rastor componants) as .tiff files for 90% of my printing.

When you bring in rastor images as linked files, tweak all your sizes to your satisfaction & then record those final sizes...

If you resize with GF plug-ins in PS, do you have to carefully place each image exactly where the old one was, & then delete the old one... or do you just resave with the same name & let Adobe "update links"?

WOW!! 720x720 at 16 pass... and then you compromise all that quality onto coroplast?? ...for such an obviously bright professional... that just sounds crazy to me. I guess I'm just not a fan of the coroplast flute texture :rolleyes:

Thanks again for the time spent explaining all that. I'm going to go online & check ouit the cost of genuine fractals print pro plug-in now. I'm convinced that you know what you're talking about... so even if I don't understand it all, better tools will lead to better work, even if I don't understand everything about it at first.
 
Top