Reply With Quote
I forgot to scale it down. I've done that and increased the brightness of the land layer:
new kassandria.jpg
Oh - you really are coming along in leaps and bounds, Straf
Why don't you view this last one, and then also open one of your earliest versions of the same map side by side and you will see the startling differences for yourself.
I think, for my next suggestion (and it is as always only a suggestion) I might look at the possibility of thinning down the mountain lines just a tiny amount, adding a few much finer lines for shading the way that you did before, and also consider lightening the background just a little to increase the contrast between the velum and the ink - just a tad, that's all. It is a very beautiful golden colour, but if the ink is always going to be a few shades lighter than black for authenticity you will be in danger of losing the finer details as you add more and more to the map unless you make that background a bit paler
Well, that was more than just one suggestion, I know! Sorry about that. You might be thinking that I'm finding an awful lot of faults with your map, but really I'm quite excited about the enormous progress you are making with each turn.
@ Kacey - well timed and very useful information on map sizes and preparing images for upload. I'm all at sea when it comes to technical knowhow with anything other than CC3. I never realised you used compression at all. Just goes to show what a master you are! And - stop that you! I'm red enough already! LOL!
I forgot to scale it down. I've done that and increased the brightness of the land layer:
new kassandria.jpg
Oh yes - that looks much better already with the contrast tweaked up a bit
What are you scaling down? I know I went on a bit about traditional reasons for scaling stuff down to 50%, but I thought Kacey (who knows a heck of a lot more about PS and GIMP than I do) suggested that with the size of map you are working on you didn't really need to scale down at all? I must confess to now being more than a little confused about the production process! LOL!
I'm working with the smallest ink blob size I can (2 for the main lines, 1 for the lesser ones - no units though) at 2250 x 3000 and then scaling down to 1800 x 2400 to try to make the lines less heavy.
There are many things I have to learn about graphics software. The jargon for a start - it's like learning a new language. I've tried quite a few settings to get my lines thinner but nothing seems to work. I'm working on 400 ppi so maybe that has something to do with it. I wonder if I set it higher would I get thinner lines?
If I was floundering before I'm totally sunk right now. I think you will need someone like Kacey to help you with this, but it does sound to me like you might need to enlarge your map again to more like the size that Kacey uses - no less than 5700 wide, did she say? Mind you, Kacey's maps are usually landscape, so you could apply that rule of thumb to the height of your map, rather than the width.
This would allow you far more scope with the line width variations, but you will almost certainly have to redraw your coastline. I know that seems like a lot of hard work, but the end result would definitely be worth it.
I would suspect (and it is only a suspicion because I really don't know) that most of the images uploaded here by PS and GIMP users are more like 300 ppi, which is a sort of standard graphic resolution.
Oh yes - and I do believe you call that 'blob' thing you draw with, a 'brush'
I've been using ink because I got better results that with the brushes, but I've been fiddling with some of the brush settings trying to get better effects. It seems rather than give a thinner line it gives a lighter one, like a lighter touch. But the lines look pixelated and jagged.
I dread to think how much memory a 5700 image would take. I don't think the 8GB (6 available) that's in this system would be sufficient. Still it's better than trying to draw maps on a ZX81
I read somewhere that 360 ppi is the minimum requirement for graphics printing, but that may be for graphics that are inserted into a word processor document.
I really like the new line colour. I don’t know if changing any settings will make you’re lines thinner, the only way I know how is to redraw them, but I’ll wager that you don’t really want to do that. If you started at a bigger canvas size you’re 2 pixel brush would probably appear smaller in relation to the space.
I think Mouse is right about the ppi, I’m not very tech savvy, I just know what works for me, and forgive me if I’m wrong, but I think a common setting is 300ppi, this seems to work for me for web, and for print.
I wouldn’t worry too much about you’re canvas size right now, changing it too much at this point can muck up you’re lines, maybe try a bit bigger on the next one...If you’re computer can handle it, mine chugs a bit at 5700px across. A general rule for me personally is no smaller then 3000 px across, but every one has different preferences, and what works for me might not work for you. I know my last computer really struggled at 3000 pixels across, it wasn’t until I got a better computer with more ram that I could do anything bigger....With experimentation you’ll figure out what size you’re computer will allow you to work with comfortably.
I would suggest shading the dark side of the mountains instead of using lines, but I know you’re working with a mouse and not a tablet so that would be asking an awful lot of you, if you could pull that off I’d probably be bowing down at you’re feet in praise.
Keep doing what you’re doing, this map has come a long way in a short time, it’s easy to get too nit picky. Give yourself a chance to learn the software, with each map you’ll learn something new, and improve. I think you’re off to a good start, and it’s been nice to have you on the forum you’re posts are always fun to read.
I like Mouses idea about lightning the land colour, but at some point you just need to move on, and get things done, and btw I really like the water colour it’s very nice.
I’m rambling on now, sorry about that, I’ll stop I didn’t intend to write a book this morning.
Thanks, I was up half the night grinding and mixing the pigments for the ink
I just tried to scale it up and it said 1.3GB. I then checked my RAM usage and I'm only using 3.7GB so it looks like I have some scope to increase. However I'll also need to take into account when GIMP starts using the swap file and increase that quite a bit. But as you say that's for future projects or reworks of this map. I might do some more regional maps of this one when I need my characters to go somewhere, although they tend to ignore me and go and do what they like anyway. Still I can't have them turning left in the wrong place and falling down a cliff!
For the shading - I sort of wanted to make a map that was drawn entirely with a pen or a quill or something. I'm going to try something - BRB...
Just between you and me, Straf, I'd go with Kacey's ideas if I were you. If her maps are anything to go by she really does know her PS and GIMP stuff - no matter how modest she is about it!
EDIT: Ninja'd by the thread owner. I really must pick up my chatter speed!
Just a quick note to help clearing up the issue with 300 ppi / 400 ppi...
ppi (or dpi) stands for "pixels per inch" / "dots per inch" - and it only means something when it comes to printing. On the screen, no matter how much dpi you set, 1000 pixels is always 1000 pixels. Images will have a certain pixel size, dpi settings tell the printer how much space that image needs to be squeezed /stretched into.
I did some clicking and it seems anything above 300 dpi, for raster images, is "a waste of data". But say you have a 3000 pixels wide image, at 300 ppi, that's already some healthy 10 inches when printed (around 25cm if you prefer)
Posting Permissions
