Damien Symonds Posted June 27, 2018 Share Posted June 27, 2018 6 minutes ago, Jamie Brown said: I have NOT heard back from CYMK, what I think is happening is there is a 3rd party selling these fabric tracks who is not the actual company printing the panels... so they don't know as much as they need to. The gentlemen I've been communicating with is sweet as pie and I've been grateful for his help with giving me more info and troubleshooting along the way. (Even if it's limited knowledge.) He thought the default CYMK SWOP v2 was appropriate profile. Yeah, in the absence of any other information, it's generally the one everyone uses. It's nerve-jangling, though. 7 minutes ago, Jamie Brown said: Let's pretend for a min that this company doesn't know what they're doing. What would YOU do next to prepare the file? The best possible scenario is when the company is truly skilled in colour-management, and accept your sRGB file. I wrote a bit about this here: https://www.damiensymonds.net/cmyk-rgb-files-press.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Brown Posted June 27, 2018 Author Share Posted June 27, 2018 1 minute ago, Damien Symonds said: Do you understand why this is not correct? (It's the only thing you could have done here, but it's not correct.) Because now that you've done that, you can no longer adjust any of the layers below. Please confirm your understanding of this. It IS the lowest layer. Most all of the sensor dust is located in top portion of the images (which is the bottom layer) the new layer of wheat is layered over the top of this image and the sensor dust specks were above (that has been masked off)... But in other situations where this may not be the case I will use your workflow steps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Brown Posted June 27, 2018 Author Share Posted June 27, 2018 2 minutes ago, Damien Symonds said: Yeah, in the absence of any other information, it's generally the one everyone uses. It's nerve-jangling, though. The best possible scenario is when the company is truly skilled in colour-management, and accept your sRGB file. I wrote a bit about this here: https://www.damiensymonds.net/cmyk-rgb-files-press.html "All of this assumes that they are competent Truth is, they might not have a damn clue. Make sure you read as many reviews as you can before choosing a printer for your press products. Make sure people are saying that they produce good work. The fact is, no matter what kind of files they ask for, you’re taking a massive leap of faith about their color-management. Some labs just have NFIWTF they’re doing. If they ask for RGB files, cross your fingers and hope it’s because they have very accurate CMYK profiles that they convert to. If they ask for CMYK files, make sure you ask all the right questions about the conversion." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damien Symonds Posted June 27, 2018 Share Posted June 27, 2018 9 minutes ago, Jamie Brown said: It IS the lowest layer. Most all of the sensor dust is located in top portion of the images (which is the bottom layer) the new layer of wheat is layered over the top of this image and the sensor dust specks were above (that has been masked off)... But in other situations where this may not be the case I will use your workflow steps. Oh, right. ALL PIXEL LAYERS MUST BE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE STACK. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Brown Posted June 27, 2018 Author Share Posted June 27, 2018 Just now, Jamie Brown said: It IS the lowest layer. Most all of the sensor dust is located in top portion of the images (which is the bottom layer) the new layer of wheat is layered over the top of this image and the sensor dust specks were above (that has been masked off)... But in other situations where this may not be the case I will use your workflow steps. Hmmm... maybe I'm not understanding the pixel edits needing to be on the bottom... so why won't this layer work? Do I need to heal directly onto the background? Or how would I actually heal the background in a blank or merged layer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damien Symonds Posted June 27, 2018 Share Posted June 27, 2018 10 minutes ago, Jamie Brown said: Hmmm... maybe I'm not understanding the pixel edits needing to be on the bottom... so why won't this layer work? It's not that that layer won't work. It's that any adjustment layers under pixel layers won't work any more. You can't re-adjust them, because they're obscured by pixels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Brown Posted June 27, 2018 Author Share Posted June 27, 2018 14 minutes ago, Damien Symonds said: It's not that that layer won't work. It's that any adjustment layers under pixel layers won't work any more. You can't re-adjust them, because they're obscured by pixels. Oh, yes, then I do understand. This may have worked for this specific photo scenario if I don't need to make any adjustments to the background or stack any layers between them. But if I do, then I'm screwed. Alright, well I guess we are done here at this point? I have submitted a sample to them and without knowing any more about how best to crop or resize or what resolution to set it at or specific CYMK color profile I'm not sure how to proceed. Would you agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damien Symonds Posted June 27, 2018 Share Posted June 27, 2018 No, I don't agree. We do know exactly how to crop, and we can make some educated assumptions about the resizing and the resolution. However, if you've already submitted it, we might as well wait and see how the sample looks, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Brown Posted June 27, 2018 Author Share Posted June 27, 2018 2 minutes ago, Damien Symonds said: No, I don't agree. We do know exactly how to crop, and we can make some educated assumptions about the resizing and the resolution. However, if you've already submitted it, we might as well wait and see how the sample looks, eh? Ok, let's move forward then so I have an image that is printer ready if they ask for that. That way if they are unable to take the image to the printers as is, they have a solid final draft they can make the strike off from. The tech looked at it and said he thinks the image I submitted looks good, as compared to my previous sample. But I have not heard an official, "this is perfect we will print as is" yet. If you have time I'd love to take the next step then, based on your educated assumptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Brown Posted June 27, 2018 Author Share Posted June 27, 2018 22 hours ago, Jamie Brown said: I'm sorry I have an appointment in about 15 min. I may need to pick up later. If you have any more advice, a checklist for me that I can pick up where we left off when I return that would be awesome! I promise once this is all said and done I'll send you a photo of me standing in front of this GIANT 53 foot wall as proof your techniques work! Should I start from the original RAW files (narrowing it down to 2 since you've said I don't need more images stitched to get better resolution)? Should I use the edited sRGB files I posted originally for this? Or is there noise that I did not remedy when I converted them from RAW to JPG? Once I (stitch) edit those together, what's the next step? After all edits are made, flatten and save as what format? How do I sharpen, resize and crop to those specific measurements and at what ppi? Oh and WHEN do I convert to CYMK, I'll find out from them WHICH one specifically. Thanks for troubleshooting... I should have approached you THREE WEEKS ago when I started! You would have saved me a lot of time and headache and heartache. No good free deed goes unpunished, right? Dude, wait, how do YOU get paid? I left off with the layered psd file, including the bottom layer being the healing layer I just removed all the dust specks with. Should I flatten this now or leave it as is for the next step? Still not sure what the best order of events is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Brown Posted June 27, 2018 Author Share Posted June 27, 2018 A while back they had suggested that I actually create multiple images like a triptych (because I couldn't create one file large enough). I felt this was too daunting of a task at the time. I'm hoping with your help we can take this one single image and stretch it to the max!! Otherwise I don't know what I'd do! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Brown Posted June 27, 2018 Author Share Posted June 27, 2018 Just now, Jamie Brown said: A while back they had suggested that I actually create multiple images like a triptych (because I couldn't create one file large enough). I felt this was too daunting of a task at the time. I'm hoping with your help we can take this one single image and stretch it to the max!! Otherwise I don't know what I'd do! Forgot to attach the screen shot of their idea on making each panel a separate photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damien Symonds Posted June 27, 2018 Share Posted June 27, 2018 11 minutes ago, Jamie Brown said: A while back they had suggested that I actually create multiple images like a triptych (because I couldn't create one file large enough). I felt this was too daunting of a task at the time. I'm hoping with your help we can take this one single image and stretch it to the max!! Otherwise I don't know what I'd do! Yeah, that's not easy. And I see no particular benefit in it. Let's just give them one file and let them worry about the strips. 24 minutes ago, Jamie Brown said: Ok, let's move forward then so I have an image that is printer ready if they ask for that. That way if they are unable to take the image to the printers as is, they have a solid final draft they can make the strike off from. The tech looked at it and said he thinks the image I submitted looks good, as compared to my previous sample. But I have not heard an official, "this is perfect we will print as is" yet. If you have time I'd love to take the next step then, based on your educated assumptions. First, flatten the layers. Second, convert to 8-bit. I noticed earlier that you're in 16-bit. That's not really necessary for a well-lit photo like this, but it doesn't do any harm either. But it definitely needs to be 8-bit for the output stage. Third, choose your Crop Tool and enter the height and width of the whole print. It has to be in inches, so you'll need to convert your feet to inches. Make sure you leave the Resolution field blank. Please show me a screenshot when you've entered these values, so that I can check them before you crop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Brown Posted June 27, 2018 Author Share Posted June 27, 2018 Ok... they asked for 16bit, which is why I switched it from 8 bit to 16 bit in the first place. I do not remember how I did this nor do I remember how to change it back down to 8. Let me do some research... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damien Symonds Posted June 27, 2018 Share Posted June 27, 2018 Image>Mode>8bit 1 minute ago, Jamie Brown said: Ok... they asked for 16bit, which is why I switched it from 8 bit to 16 bit in the first place. Yet another strike against them. I've never heard such nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Brown Posted June 27, 2018 Author Share Posted June 27, 2018 1 minute ago, Damien Symonds said: Image>Mode>8bit Yet another strike against them. I've never heard such nonsense. Thanks! Am I cropping at 100% size or 50% size? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damien Symonds Posted June 27, 2018 Share Posted June 27, 2018 100%. The real size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Brown Posted June 27, 2018 Author Share Posted June 27, 2018 These were the last measurements I received (I believe they are NOT accounting for the 4" bleed I will need to double check) Full size: 636 inches by 189inches + 3/4" Half size: 318 inches by 94 inches + 3/8" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Brown Posted June 27, 2018 Author Share Posted June 27, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Brown Posted June 27, 2018 Author Share Posted June 27, 2018 Damn, most of the wheat is going to be cropped out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Brown Posted June 27, 2018 Author Share Posted June 27, 2018 Trying to retain as much wheat in foreground on bottom landing area as possible... I wonder if I should go back to layers and "lift" the wheat up higher in the scene to keep it more visible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damien Symonds Posted June 27, 2018 Share Posted June 27, 2018 13 minutes ago, Jamie Brown said: No, don't put 0 in the Resolution. Just leave it completely blank. Does it allow you to do so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Brown Posted June 27, 2018 Author Share Posted June 27, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damien Symonds Posted June 27, 2018 Share Posted June 27, 2018 Good. You must also make sure the "Delete Cropped Pixels" box is checked. NEVER uncheck that box. Once you've done that, go ahead and crop where you've decided you want it. Then open the Image Size dialog to see what the resultant resolution is. In fact, may I have a screenshot of that too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Brown Posted June 27, 2018 Author Share Posted June 27, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now