PS and Illustrator

[Gare]

I'm new to this forum and don't know if I'm posting in the right place  ?
http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/1606/final1wd.jpg

Just knocked out this baby this afternoon. The body was done in Illustrator (shape only) all else was done in PS, using various posterization levels for different layers. The top image is the final image. The bottom one I pushed  some, using the 'select edges' plugin from Optipix and combining the result (over a black BG) with the original image. Nice effect I think, I invented this technique by making a mistake when I first got the plugin. Also had to build a 'special' eraser for the graduated effect. Hope you-all like it. if interested I can do a tutorial

[Gare]

Hi and welcome ronmatt!

Yup, this is the right area to post how you converged Illustrator and Photoshop features. Very nice illustration 

I and I'm sure others would love a little tute on your procedures. I'm unfamiliar with Optipix plug-in.

I'm a Xara kinda artist and use it with PS, mostly for creating crisp text in a finished image--the attached below is a modeled scene that needed signage; researching taxi fares took longer than building the graphics !

Thanks for sharing!

My Best,

Gare

[ronmatt]

Thanks Gare, I'll prepare a tute..

But, regarding 'crisp', vector text with PS really doesn't require using another app. simply, keep your text on separate layers and never rasterize the text layers. When you save, save as an EPS, make sure you click on 'save vectors'. convert the EPS to a PDF using Distiller. PDF does make the best format for almost everything because it doesn't rasterize the way .jpg, .png, .tif etc. does.

[Gare]

I stand corrected, ronmatt.

I didn't explain my rationale properly. When you place vector text above a bitmap using Illustrator, Xara, CorelDraw, etc., you can scale the exported bitmap to any resolution. You can also edit to your heart's delight and warp text or other vector objects without the inevitable blurring you get with bitmap text. Natch', you can do this in Photoshop, but not as quickly I've found--PS takes an eternity to load on my machine, partially because I've only got 500 MB on my notebook, partially because I've got a lot of plug-ins to pre-load, but mostly because of Photoshop's bloated footprint. I dearly hope Adobe cleans up the code for CS3 next year and calls it quits with feature-itis. I've seen CorelDraw grow from a 3 diskette install to a largely unecessary 300MB install. And look where the company is now.

And I agree that PDF is the next wave. It's fairly idiot-proof for printing press work, compact, and is gradually replacing PostScript both for output and Illustrator file format. Fortunately, there are many 3rd party PDF rippers besides Distiller, which IMO costs an arm and a leg. Let's see what Microsoft does next year with their own flavor of page descriptor language.

My Best,

Gare

[ronmatt]

about PDF's. As you said Gare, and I agree, PDF's are the future. However, Adobe ( in their need to muck up the water) has begun to mess with them as well. Too many types of PDF that started with Acrobat 6. I only use PDF 1.4. it handles transparency just fine. I fail to see the need for PDF/X ( 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 etc.) Although I have Acrobat 6, (great for e-books) my distiller settings are for Acro 5, 1.4. I supply many docs to printers and this seems the best for Pitstop Pre-flight. Of course, I pre-flight my own files with Pitstop, so I better not get any complaints.

As for creating PDF's I find that Jaws is about one of the best out there. At around $80.00. It's also the native PDF writer for Quark. Adobe Library PDF's out of In Design are terrible and Photoshop PDF's are virtually useless. You must save as a Postscript and distill in order to get a decent PDF. It mystifies me as to why the inventer of the PDF format has such a hard time writing an app that can make one, (except for Acrobat distiller), unless it's a marketing ploy. (Want a good PDF? Buy Acrobat.)

[Gare]

Hi, ronmatt--

Agreed, agreed, and agreed. But on the InDesign PDF issue I must disagree. I rip PDFs out of ID all the time for output to my inkjet--I started doing this because I'm a PageMaker weenie (Quark on Windows is marginally more feature-filled than Windows Notepad) and AgeMaker botches calls to Distiller even though I set up the prefs correctly.

Shifting subjects slightly, manufacturers have to keep their cash cows going, so I understand 2% why Adobe Systems messes with PDF and PostScript. But this also destroys I/O and my workflow between apps! I'm not hard and fast on reflexive upgrading--IMFFHO Poser 6's renders are faster and more realistic than 5, C4D 9.5 is much better than 9.0, and PS Elements 4 for Windows is a terrific little bargain. But on the other hand, Photoshop CS2 bellies up far more than PS 6, Xtreme faults more than Xara Prime on font tables and the clipboard, and I use Painter 6 more than 9. Just because a version is outdated doesn't make it obsolete. I use Adobe Dimensions 3 because Illustrator doesn't do lighting as well, and I've yet to find a better font extruder than the 1995 Pixar Typestry, although ULead Cool 3D comes close. "Legacy" apps are still useful to me as long as the OS supports them. Heck, I still play a text-mode game called "Zork" from the 1980s in a DOS window.

But then again, I play Beatles music all day  It's a bear trying to get the LPs into the stereo's CD slot!

My Best,

Gare

[ronmatt]

At the level you are ripping, In Design may work fine. But at other levels, not so. At least in my experience.  The workflow I usually have to deal with consists of either Prinergy or a version of a PDF workflow. RE: files to an FTP site, files downloaded to Pitstop server, files opened in Acrobat with the Pitstop plug in and pre-flighted to correct file issues such as OPI, ICC Tags, un-embedded fonts, RGB and or spot color, image resolution. Then,once they pass pre-flight they are postscripted for imposition in Preps. Preps simply doesn't like In Design PDF's and usually flushes them. Pitstop gives an error message with PS and In Design PDF's. Now, this may be attributable to how the printer has their workflow set up and their PDF profiles, But generally, it's the issue. All the profiles I get from printers are pretty much the same for either web or sheetfed printers. Font issues seem to be the major bugaboo. Even though I spec the text as 0y-0m-0c-100k and not registration black, I end up with 4/c black text from I.D. PDFs. I'm too busy to deal with returned files, so, I save as postscript and distill. And you'd be amazed at what a mess an Epson 9600 printer does with PDF's out of ID especially in regards to transparency and knockouts. Most printer rips are postscript level 3 but some are still level 2, which hates ID PDFs (if you can get them that far) With 'computer to plate' and Prinergy, those files better work or you'll go broke doing remakes.

[Gare]

You evidently have much more experience with presses than I do, ronmatt. Last job I did was three years ago. Interestingly, the only font problem I've had was with locked fonts; it's an attribute that can be changed using a font utility like FontLab. But ID doesn't alert you to a used font's access level, so you wind up with substitutes or blank areas (but you obviously preview the PDF before packing it off).

ronmatt, do you have a favorite print house? I was extremely fortunate to have been hooked up with S&S in Maryland a few years back, and their presses run National Geographic. NG maintains and calibrates the presses; the digital proofs and finished run were to die from!
I wonder if they make a home version 

My Best,

Gare

[ronmatt]

I have soooo much experience with presses that I get sick every time I think about it. It's become a terrible way to make a living. I miss art mechanicals. I've worked with every print format that exists, mostly in the L.A. area (although I live in the Northern CA foothills). Usually the printer is determined by the client. If I have total control over a project, including budget (very rare) I prefer Geo. Rice & Sons in L.A. They run 6 color Heidleburgs and are masters at touch plates, varnishes and flourescent additives, though the soy based inks today aren't as rich as the lead based back in the day. The most important thing I look for in a printer, is that they recognize that I know what I'm doing and don't treat me like the run of the mill designer when checking proofs or on press checks. I know how to run their presses, set the ink, do the pre-press work etc. I need for them to know that so that I don't have to put up with their 'you're only a designer, we're printers, we know best, BS'. Once the respect is established, I pretty much end up with a good job from most printers. This has nothing to do with ego, it's business, they'll jack you around if you let them. Been there, done that.

[Gare]

I glean that you're a valuable resource for our growing group here, then, ronmatt!

I'd like to digress for just a graph or two here on reproducing work. I'm a traditional illustrator (drafting board with minor pre-press experience doing amberlith overlays...but that was eons ago). Now, conceptually, I had to turn my head around when I first adopted the personal computer and graphics programs, because my "original" is virtual. I can't see it, not really, until I pull a print. Now enters the factor of publishing one's work; traditionally, unless I was getting paid for illustrating something, my original went into a portfolio, end of story. But now I've got more options than I can shake a stick at for my physical copy of my "original". Do I just personal print it, send it out for a C or a dyesub? Do I want or need color correction on artwork I myself defined the colors I used?

"Publishing" is a funny concept in 2006. I used to kid that, "No one aspires to be an author. We all aspire to be published!" But technology has leveled the playing field--everybody can publish a blog, and vanity presses still keep themselves busy. Growingly I'm getting concerned about content that is published, or more precisely, that shouldn't be published. Where lies the responsibility that goes hand in hand with publishing these days? I look at the spam in my mailbox and I envision a 2-year old wielding a plugged-in power tool. I spent the good part of my life in television and print advertising, and although it's an art everyone loves to hate, advertising is still an art and a communication tool. I don't like what I see happening and for the record I don't need little blue pills, a mortage, or pirate versions of MS Office.

Perhaps if Internet publishing cost as much as physical publishing, folks would give a little more thought to presenting the true worth of the product they advertise.

My 2 cents, but for a limited time only, you can get my 2 cents...and much, much more by completing this survey: _______




Gare

[ronmatt]

Gare...it's all so subjective, isn't it. I like to get 'C's' on some things, but not many anymore. As far as dye transfers or subtractives like cibachromes, then the answer to color correction would be yes, (but that's an opinion) Keeping in mind that the printed image will be cmyk not rgb or index or lab.
You must see what you'll get. When I convert from rgb to cmyk, I always color correct, primarily for the color (cmyk is flatter than rgb) but also for the D-Max required for the press. What I used to like about C's and Transfers was the ability to airbrush them. Photoshop, of course, also provides this luxury and does it well, but I really enjoy the 'frisket' and 'blowgun'. The biggest issue with me concerning digital reproduction of images, would be all about settings. If you send 10 different people a copy to print from their machines, you'll get 10 dramatically different prints. This is a scarry issue.

Regarding publishing these days, It has become ridicules hasn't it? Everyone is a publisher. But that's our 1st amendment right. The advent of the computer has brought about a degradation of almost everything connected to graphics and published works. Fortunately though, it has also enhanced and motivated some incredibly gifted artists and writers as well. I see it as a wash. It's just that the 'bad' stuff wouldn't have been out there a few years ago. The bad stuff also has diluted the value of the good stuff. You can go on the net and find corporate identity packages for $29.95. $10.00 logos, $ 20.00 web templates. page production for $7.50 per page. Most of it is shoddy at best, but some of it is actually pretty good. My average income between 1974 and 1990 was $115,000 per year doing strictly design and illustration. Keep in mind that $115,000 went a lot further in those years than it does today. At the prices people are giving their work away for today you'd have to turn out 200 logos, 300 pages and a hand full of corporate ID's a week,  just to pay the rent and grab an occational McDonalds. I'm glad I'm out of it now.

Regarding personal portfolio pieces that I've done, they're all hard copies. Mounted and framed and on my wall.  There aren't too many, I really got picky toward the end. Just my very favorite illustrations, covers etc. that I've done over these past 40 years. All else is on disk.