Damien Symonds

@Sandra?

Ok, I started by duplicating the file, so I could have two copies open side by side on screen. This was necessary so I could be constantly referring to the original while messing about, so as to keep the child's proportions roughly correct. Then, on the working one, I duplicated the Background layer, and Edit>Transform>Warp. And bowed it down as shown: Once happy with that I went into Liquify, to mess around a bit more, to curve the back a little more, and make the head not so pointy, and so on: Then I copied the head from the original layer, brought it above, and masked it in: After your less-than-enthusiastic response, I re-visited that layer and rotated the head a lot more.

The number on the screen's setting (20) has absolutely no correlation with the brightness reading. 120 is ALWAYS too high, unless your room is lit by football stadium floodlighting. VERY reasonable, yes. Some people go into single digits (some screens even need their brightness set to 0!) but generally, the 10-30 range is most common. But of course the only thing that actually matters is the print comparison. Does your screen match your pro lab prints?

Geez you're hard to impress. How about this one?

@jamie_snider, PLEASE post some photos in the Raw Class. Don't let your class membership dwindle away - make me work hard for your money. Let me see what you've been shooting lately, and let me help make it as beautiful as it can be.

@Kellie W, PLEASE post some photos in the Raw Class. Don't let your class membership dwindle away - make me work hard for your money. Let me see what you've been shooting lately, and let me help make it as beautiful as it can be.

How did you ever go with this, @Tina B.?

Well, let's not imagine magical powers that don't exist. They're still raster files (and how!). Having them as smart objects just prevents degradation.

You probably already know this, but just to make sure - never copy and paste the design elements into your layout. Only File>Place, or drag and drop from Bridge. This ensures they come in as Smart Objects. Smart Objects can be resized and rotated as many times as you like, and they never lose their original quality. This is vital for this kind of work.

If I hadn't seen the "before" I doubt I would have been able to spot what you'd done. Well done. But I think the area circled in green is oddly darker than the area circled in red:

Right. So, for future reference (for these maps), here's a rough guide: For anything under 12 inches (12 grid squares) wide, use 300ppi. For 12-16 inches, use 250ppi For 16-20 inches, use 200ppi For 20-30 inches, use 150ppi For anything larger than 30 inches, use 100ppi (Please note, this does not apply to photography - I'm only providing it for these maps.) Make sense?

Do you mean there are twenty six grid squares across, and sixteen and a half grid squares down?

Linda?

Wonderful. Let me know what you hear.

I cannot stress strongly enough the danger that lurks here. You need to find out exactly which CMYK they need. It will be the difference between lovely posters, and shit you wouldn't line a wardrobe with.

My cousin's daughter has Alopecia <3 She's so amazing.

Please read: https://www.damiensymonds.net/2011/05/please-be-wary-of-cmyk.html Also this: https://www.damiensymonds.net/cmyk-rgb-files-press.html Regarding file format, it will be PDF. You must read this also: https://www.damiensymonds.net/2010/05/making-pdfs-from-photoshop.html

Oh, there are a thousand issues to worry about here. I'm SO glad you posted. First, can you show me exactly what instructions the lab gave you? About CMYK, about resolution, about file format, about bleed ... everything.

Please please PLEASE answer the question. How many grids are there? How many inches across and down?

That's right. Each one with exactly the same settings (don't forget to look at the blend modes). Don't bother selecting first. Just start by adding the layers to the whole photo (making it all blue) then go back and mask the B/C layer later.

Let me ask the question a different way. Did you know the biggest size somebody could possibly want to print it?

Just add these layers on top of your other layers. No need to re-do anything.

Here you go: Download PSD file It's not perfect, but it's the best I can manage for Elements.

This is such a complex issue, but it boils down to this: No matter what the size or pixel dimensions or resolution, the print will only ever be as good as the poorest-quality element of it. And I can see from what you provided that the quality of some of the elements is pretty poor. This would have been an issue no matter whether you began with a 72, 240, 300, 600, 1000 or 3000 ppi file. The smallest, crappiest graphic in your collection is still the smallest and crappiest, no matter what. On screen, and in print (at any size) it will still be crappy. Am I making sense so far? Now, we could make this argument: Make the file at the same low resolution as the smallest crappiest element. Shrink all the other elements down to match it. Then, when you come to print, enlarge it all really aggressively. It'll all look terrible, but at least it will all be exactly the same amount of terrible. It'll be perfectly consistent. Or, you could do what you appear to have done - made a high resolution file, allowing the best elements to look their best, and the small crappy elements to continue to look small and crappy. This approach means everything is wildly inconsistent, but at least some parts of the image are sharp. Am I still making sense so far? I have another question for you - did you know, before you started making this, what size it would be needed to be printed?

How about this?