Easy-to-use drag-n-drop Photoshop scene creator with more than 2800 items.
Hi,
I’m looking for a tutorial/book on desiging a large poster using Photoshop or Illustrator. Any suggestions?
In article <7Oz9e.9581$>, "Allen
Anderson" wrote:
Hi,
I’m looking for a tutorial/book on desiging a large poster using Photoshop
or Illustrator. Any suggestions?
You shouldn’t need a book for something like that. What you’ll need more than anything is to start out with a properly-sized image with a proper image density, and a who lotta RAM in your machine.
You’d treat just like any other image really.
I set up a new Photoshop file/image at 30"x48" and a dpi of 150 pixels/inch.
I added a layer for the title at the top. So at least I’m started, but very unsure about how to proceed.
Would you use Photoshop for this kind of project, or would you use Illustrator or InDesign?
In article <V0B9e.11357$>, "Allen
Anderson" wrote:
I set up a new Photoshop file/image at 30"x48" and a dpi of 150 pixels/inch.
That sounds pretty good. I’d recommend that 150dpi be the very *least* density
that you use. Ideally, and if you have hardware that can tackle it, I’d recommend working at 300 or even 400dpi.
I added a layer for the title at the top. So at least I’m started, but very
unsure about how to proceed.
What’re you trying to do?
Would you use Photoshop for this kind of project, or would you use Illustrator or InDesign?
Well, it depends upon the nature of the artwork you intend to put in it. Are you looking for limited colors and crisp, sharp graphics, or are you looking for lots of color with special effects etc.?
Perhaps I could be of more help if I knew more about what you were doing…<?>
In article <V0B9e.11357$>, "Allen
Anderson" wrote:
I set up a new Photoshop file/image at 30"x48" and a dpi of 150 pixels/inch.
That sounds pretty good. I’d recommend that 150dpi be the very *least* density that you use. Ideally, and if you have hardware that can tackle it, I’d recommend working at 300 or even 400dpi.
Thanks for your help.You might find this useful once you’ve designed your poster, it’s a free package unfortunately named rasterbator, rather than post the URL, look it up on Google.
The posters are for a history museum. They will be displayed out doors on the side of a train station. They will let visitors know something about the history of the station and the town they are in.
The posters will be fairly simple; they will not show creative artwork. They will display text (in various fonts and colors, but no creative special effects) and images scanned from photos, maps, etc.
I now view the posters as primarily a "print" project, like a large page from a book, that conveys information. I now think InDesign would be the best tool. I can use Photoshop if I need to adjust the images.
Does it sound like I’m on the right track?
Allen
I set up a new Photoshop file/image at 30"x48" and a dpi of 150 pixels/inch. I added a layer for the title at the top. So at least I’m started, but very unsure about how to proceed.
Would you use Photoshop for this kind of project, or would you use Illustrator or InDesign?
300 or even 400 ppi for a 30"x48" print? You must be kidding!
In article <1gvdgba.15hjv1o1jzwpakN%>,
(Johan W. Elzenga) wrote:
300 or even 400 ppi for a 30"x48" print? You must be kidding!
Why? I do that all the time–for murals, posters, and ad exhibits.
Stephen Edwards wrote:pixels/inch.
In article <V0B9e.11357$>, "Allen
Anderson" wrote:
I set up a new Photoshop file/image at 30"x48" and a dpi of 150
densityThat sounds pretty good. I’d recommend that 150dpi be the very *least*
that you use. Ideally, and if you have hardware that can tackle it, I’d recommend working at 300 or even 400dpi.
300 or even 400 ppi for a 30"x48" print? You must be kidding!
Tacit wrote:
In article <1gvdgba.15hjv1o1jzwpakN%>,
(Johan W. Elzenga) wrote:
300 or even 400 ppi for a 30"x48" print? You must be kidding!
Why? I do that all the time–for murals, posters, and ad exhibits.
Why? Because it’s overkill. The viewing distance is such that 200 ppi is also quite enough.
300 or even 400 ppi for a 30"x48" print? You must be kidding!
If you have a better suggestion, then how about presenting it. These are the resolutions I work with all of the time, and they work well for a wide range of project sizes.
In article <1gvdm2r.1rsrjsc1uobf9cN%>,
(Johan W. Elzenga) wrote:
Tacit wrote:
In article <1gvdgba.15hjv1o1jzwpakN%>,
(Johan W. Elzenga) wrote:
300 or even 400 ppi for a 30"x48" print? You must be kidding!
Why? I do that all the time–for murals, posters, and ad exhibits.
Why? Because it’s overkill. The viewing distance is such that 200 ppi is also quite enough.
200dpi might look okay, but assuming he has a relatively modern machine, it should be able to handle 300-400dpi without much trouble. In which case, it might be wise to start higher and scale down as necessary afterwards.
Stephen Edwards wrote:^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In article <1gvdm2r.1rsrjsc1uobf9cN%>,
(Johan W. Elzenga) wrote:
Tacit wrote:
In article <1gvdgba.15hjv1o1jzwpakN%>,
(Johan W. Elzenga) wrote:
300 or even 400 ppi for a 30"x48" print? You must be kidding!
Why? I do that all the time–for murals, posters, and ad exhibits.
Why? Because it’s overkill. The viewing distance is such that 200 ppi is also quite enough.
200dpi might look okay, but assuming he has a relatively modern machine, it should be able to handle 300-400dpi without much trouble. In which case, it might be wise to start higher and scale down as necessary afterwards.
30"x48" @ 400 ppi is 659 MB, for a file without any layers. As soon as
you add a few layers, this will grow to over 1 GB. I hope he has a big pot of coffe as well…
30"x48" @ 400 ppi is 659 MB, for a file without any layers. As soon as^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Well, not exactly. Photoshop does a good job of "trimming the fat" as far as file sizes go when saving them to disk.
When it’s loaded into RAM, yes, it will likely take up 659MB, but that’s why there are workstations that can take up to 4GB of RAM.
Stephen Edwards wrote:
30"x48" @ 400 ppi is 659 MB, for a file without any layers. As soon as^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Well, not exactly. Photoshop does a good job of "trimming the fat" as far as file sizes go when saving them to disk.
I’m not talking about disk size. That is totally irrelevant with todays disk sizes. I’m only talking about RAM.
When it’s loaded into RAM, yes, it will likely take up 659MB, but that’s why there are workstations that can take up to 4GB of RAM.
But up till now, Photoshop cannot address more than 2 GB of RAM, no
matter how much RAM your hardware can address. That limit is only lifted in Photoshop CS2, which is not on the market yet. And 659 MB is for a file with ONE layer only…
"If you have a better suggestion, then how about presenting it. "
300-400 dpi is not necessary, eats up time waiting for filters, saving so large files etc and the printer will throw away the extra info anyway.
In any print project, from my experience it is best to select the print shop first and get DETAILED specs from them BEFORE you do anything in page layout. Depending on the type presses and inks, paper selected and other factors like what software formats they prefer, there will be different outcomes with different printers. Many of them will provide you with simple templates.
If you just need type added to photos, most print shops will do this type of simple artwork for a very small charge. If you are not a professional layout person you should not really try to learn on such an important project. Aside from the fact that you do not seem to know how to create the artwork I am quite sure you will be befuddled by how to OUTPUT the files for a printer. You will save yourself time and money in the long run by using an expert.
In article <1gvdgba.15hjv1o1jzwpakN%>,
(Johan W. Elzenga) wrote:
Stephen Edwards wrote:pixels/inch.
In article <V0B9e.11357$>,
"Allen
Anderson" wrote:
I set up a new Photoshop file/image at 30"x48" and a dpi of 150
densityThat sounds pretty good. I’d recommend that 150dpi be the very *least*
that you use. Ideally, and if you have hardware that can tackle it, I’d recommend working at 300 or even 400dpi.
300 or even 400 ppi for a 30"x48" print? You must be kidding!
If you have a better suggestion, then how about presenting it. These are the
resolutions I work with all of the time, and they work well for a wide range
of project sizes.
Why? Because it’s overkill. The viewing distance is such that 200 ppi is also quite enough.
Example 4: Large-format advertising materials, especially the kind used in bus stops and metro stations. These environments often do not *permit* viewing the material from a distance; the audience can reasonably be expected to be standing right next to the piece, because there ismply isn’t enough room to back up to the distance that the silly guidelines about viewing distance predict.
In article <1gvdm2r.1rsrjsc1uobf9cN%>,is
(Johan W. Elzenga) wrote:
Why? Because it’s overkill. The viewing distance is such that 200 ppi
also quite enough.
That’s the standard doctrine, of course, and I’ve heard it many times: "All pictures over thus-and-such a size will always be viewed from thus-and-such a distance."
The argument is bunk; there is no way to predict the viewing distance for an object based only on its size. The general guidelines that are often used to try to make this prediction assume that the viewer will always be at such a distance that the entire object fits in his field of view, which is an assumption that’s not only untrue, it’s kind of silly.
Example 1: The wall-sized mural at my local airport. It dominates the entire wall, so naturally the designer assumed the viewing distance would be about fifteen feet or so and that he could get away with low resolution. But the line of people waiting to pass through security runs right along that same wall; the average viewing distance is more like six inches. From six inches, it looks like crap–and believe me, people notice.
Example 2: Free-standing trade show displays. These often flank a booth or are mounted in the aisle; they’re not always located behind the booth. People can and do come nose-to-nose with them. If they look poor when someone is standing right in front of them, again, people notice.
Example 3: Exhibit signage and graphics of the kind you see in art shows and museums. These often contain text explaining the exhibit as well as graphic material; they’re *intended* to be seen from a very close viewing distance. Making judgements about the resolution of the graphics based solely on the size of the piece is a big mistake.
Example 4: Large-format advertising materials, especially the kind used in bus stops and metro stations. These environments often do not *permit* viewing the material from a distance; the audience can reasonably be expected to be standing right next to the piece, because there ismply isn’t enough room to back up to the distance that the silly guidelines about viewing distance predict.
Example 5: Posters. The typical viewing distance for a poster has less to do with the size of the poster than it does with the location where the poster is mounted and the purpose of the poster. Mocvie one-sheets can, depending on where and how they’re mounted, have a typical viewing distance of anywhere from one foot to ten feet or more; free-standing movie displays, which are often placed along the areas where lines form, may have a viewing distance of less than one foot; posters placed in a home may have a viewing distance anywhere form nose-to-nose to six feet or more.
You can’t make predictions about viewing distance based only on the size of a piece, and the idea that you can, like the idea that the human brain uses only ten percent of its capacity, is an enduring myth.
Nor is there any need. Any reasonably modern personal computer, even a low-end Pentium or Mac machine, should be up to the task of dealing with a poster-sized image at high resolution. I’ve dealt with such images on antique computers far less capable than even a low-end Dell system.
—
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Once i was doing a billboard for a marketing company and the print vendor told me to make my photoshop files at 12dpi.
thats right, 12.
Bet they were printing the billboard with a Vuetek machine.
I’ve seen one of these machines in operation. Imagine a gigantic inkjet printer, about 22 feet long, that prints on an enormous roll of vinyl material. They’re used to print billboards all in one go.
Older Vuetek machines have three user-selectable resolutions: 9, 12, and 18 pixels per inch. They print with an ink that resembles spray paint. The print heads are about the size of your fist.
The resolution is low because most people typically expect to be looking at billboards from at least ten feet off the ground and a good distance away. If you stand right next to the output, they’re VERY low resolution indeed.
I’ve always wanted to own one of these gadgets; they’d be great fun for printing large-format output for decorating a house. 🙂 Newer billboard printing machines can print at up to 200 pixels per inch continuous tone, and can print on a variety of materials (eg, canvas) in addition to vinyl.
Hi,
I’m looking for a tutorial/book on desiging a large poster using Photoshop or Illustrator. Any suggestions?
Allen Anderson
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:26:27 GMT, "Allen Anderson" wrote:
Hi,
I’m looking for a tutorial/book on desiging a large poster using Photoshop or Illustrator. Any suggestions?
Allen Anderson
wow, busy busy the replies to this one. Here is something useless I might add…
I have a single layer 8.6 gigabyte Photoshop image (scanned) at 4 inches by 5 inches
I did this as a test. It took approximately 3 – 4 hours on a P4 3.0e HT with only 512 megs of ram, to do anything to the file (basically any command you gave
it including undo.) I was going to use a new Mac, but the nicer scanner was hooked up to this hunk of junk PC.
I also did the same thing to a 4.3 gigabyte Photoshop image (again scanned, the same image even, just re-scanned at a lower res) at 4 inches by 5 inches
This file when printed had a significant quality difference from the larger image.
I then decreased the resolution of each image to 300dpi at 4 inches by 5 inches, and printed them again. Now, while the initial starting size was quite
different the file image sizes were still pretty decent and now identical. When I printed both of these now smaller images, again the one that I started at a
higher resolution was significantly of better quality. One could assume that since this was done to a scanned image that the input might be to blame, but
another person could easily argue that the substantial decrease in quality down to an identical (to the individual byte) file size should have evened out any
differences from being scanned in.
anyone got an explanation for that one?
(as a side note to this side note… I did this test as I originally scanned the image at 300 dpi and the reproduction was horrible, it improved when scanned at
600 dpi and again at 900 dpi, so I decided to see how much better it could get. This was all done in a brand new (= 2 month old) top of the line state of the
art graphics design lab with a printer that supported prints of the size that the original poster here is intending on making.)
Annie,
I am sorry to say this, and I am sure people will attack me for this, but that sounded like the biggest load BS I have read in this NG to date. Would you like to tell me what resolution you scanned that image at (I know what resolution would be necessary to give the file size you claim, but I want to see if you know what you ‘reckon’ you did). Also tell me what type of scanner you scanned on and what its optical resolution was.
Aside from that, clearly a Mac lover, keep your BS opinions about PC’s to yourself. A Mac with only 512mb of RAM would take all day on an image of 8.6gb too, but you are clearly too stupid to realise that. I never criticise Mac’s even though I am a PC person, so why Mac lovers have to criticise PC’s is beyond me. Some kind of complex, no doubt.
Have a good day,
Brian.
"Brian" wrote in messageSmiling here. You are so right Scruff! I seem to have a habit of doing that, don’t I ?Annie,
I am sorry to say this, and I am sure people will attack me for this, but that sounded like the biggest load BS I have read in this NG to date. Would you like to tell me what resolution you scanned that image at (I know what resolution would be necessary to give the file size you claim, but I want to see if you know what you ‘reckon’ you did). Also tell me what type of scanner you scanned on and what its optical resolution was.
Aside from that, clearly a Mac lover, keep your BS opinions about PC’s to yourself. A Mac with only 512mb of RAM would take all day on an image of 8.6gb too, but you are clearly too stupid to realise that. I never criticise Mac’s even though I am a PC person, so why Mac lovers have to criticise PC’s is beyond me. Some kind of complex, no doubt.
Have a good day,
Brian.
You sure wound yourself up on that one!
Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.
Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections
