A little professional help....please
Dann
have been asked to perform some semi professional acts of cartoonery.
At the moment, I'm set up using Gimp 2.4.4 and a Wacom Bamboo MTE-450A
tablet.*
The final cell size should be 7" x 3" high.
I'm playing around with a single character that will be performing
examples for users [physical stuff....not like the ubiquitous
Microsoft paperclip]. Think Marcel Marceau.
I'm currently stuck in that my plan was to draw everything at a 1:1
ratio. That way I won't lose a lot of detail due to a reduction
process. At the same time, a lot of the 3rd grade quality of my
"artwork"** is pretty evident at 1:1.
Is there any advantage to working at a larger scale [1.5:1, 2:1] and
then scaling everything to fit later on?
I guess the larger question is will scaling the image later cover up
any of my illustrative sins?
Part of the reason for the question is that at a 1:1 scale, my pencil
tool size is kind of limited. I keep jumping back and forth between 3
pixels and 1 pixel. It is rapidly becoming clear that any level of
detail is going to be hampered if those are the limits of my tools.
Thanks in advance.
--
Regards,
Dann
* More on the set up later.
** If you saw the preliminary images, you'd agree with my use of scare
quotes.
Mike Marshall
line width will change accordingly...
http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~hubcap/d.weekly/init.html
Without detailing all the things that are wrong with the above cartoon's
execution, you can see how the two panels I resized are even worse
than the other panels...
-Mike
Beefies
"Dann" <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fc5ea8dd-7ad0-4d1b...@l35g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> Even though most 3rd graders have better drawing skills than me, I
> have been asked to perform some semi professional acts of cartoonery.
>
> At the moment, I'm set up using Gimp 2.4.4 and a Wacom Bamboo MTE-450A
> tablet.*
>
> The final cell size should be 7" x 3" high.
>
> I'm playing around with a single character that will be performing
> examples for users [physical stuff....not like the ubiquitous
> Microsoft paperclip]. Think Marcel Marceau.
>
> I'm currently stuck in that my plan was to draw everything at a 1:1
> ratio. That way I won't lose a lot of detail due to a reduction
> process. At the same time, a lot of the 3rd grade quality of my
> "artwork"** is pretty evident at 1:1.
>
> Is there any advantage to working at a larger scale [1.5:1, 2:1] and
> then scaling everything to fit later on?
>
> I guess the larger question is will scaling the image later cover up
> any of my illustrative sins?
>
> Part of the reason for the question is that at a 1:1 scale, my pencil
> tool size is kind of limited. I keep jumping back and forth between 3
> pixels and 1 pixel. It is rapidly becoming clear that any level of
> detail is going to be hampered if those are the limits of my tools.
>
Hard to answer without being able to see the linework and ultimate use for
the art (do you intend to print it on paper or display it on a monitor,
etc.?). In general, as you know and imply, working larger and then reducing
allows more detail and hides flaws. So my basic answer is yes, there is an
advantage to working at a larger scale: it makes the art look better. The
scales you suggest, 1.5x to 2x, are what I'd recommend trying. At those
scales, I'd expect you to get the benefits of working larger without losing
any detail when you reduce. That 1-pixel/3-pixel deal is a wild card you'll
have to play with. For example, it seems to me that reducing a 1-pixel line
will yield a choppy dashed line that looks terrible (if it doesn't disappear
completely), so you may need to go with 3 pixels.
My other fundamental bit of advice is work at the highest resolution you
practically can. Even if the ultimate use for the cartoon is a 72 dpi
monitor, work at 300 or 600 dpi if possible, and then reduce the image
resolution as the final step.
If you can point us to some examples, that would help.
Brian F.
brianfies.blogspot.com
JC Dill
> Part of the reason for the question is that at a 1:1 scale, my pencil
> tool size is kind of limited. I keep jumping back and forth between 3
> pixels and 1 pixel. It is rapidly becoming clear that any level of
> detail is going to be hampered if those are the limits of my tools.
I haven't worked much with GIMP[1], and I don't draw cartoons. But I do
know something about resizing. If you need to draw lines that are
effectively 1 or 2 pixels wide, and *especially* if you need to draw 2
pixel wide lines but only have a choice of 1 pixel or 3 pixels, then it
would be a big benefit to work in a larger scale and resize the images
after you are done drawing and let the software resize to smaller lines.
If you need the final lines to be 1 pixel, ~1.5 pixels, 2 pixels, and
~2.5 pixels, then try working in 5x the size you ultimately need, with
the smallest brush set at 5 pixels (will produce a 1 pixel line when
resized to 1/5 size), 8 pixels, 10 pixels, and 13 pixels.
If the (undesired) childish nature of your drawing stems from not being
able to draw smooth/straight lines, they will also straighten out quite
a bit if you work in a much larger ratio then resize smaller. You can
also smooth out your lines thru selection or filtering processes. I
don't know if this is what you were looking for, and I don't have any
idea how to do it in GIMP, but I bet that some GIMP user forum could
help with the details. Obviously it would help to have an example
drawing that shows the undesired issues, so that others can work with
the example to see which techniques will fix the image to your specs.
jc
[1] I would love to use GIMP instead of Photoshop, but in my periodic
testing I've found it's nowhere near ready for regular users. It's a
geek tool, written by geeks for geeks. My #1 issue is that I can't
record an action, I need to write a script!
Carl Fink
to paper) first draws in a vector program, then imports the result into
PhotoShop (yes, every one of them uses PhotoShop) for coloring and inking.
Since you're using The GIMP, I assume you're planning on free software.
Both OpenOffice.org Draw and Inkscape work fairly well. I've used OOo Draw
to create banner ads, myself.
One advantage of vector drawing: resizing doesn't cause any distortion or
change in line weights. Another: you can create a library of anatomical and
background components and reuse them easily. See:
http://www.cheshirecrossing.net/howto/howto.php?page=16
Actually, if you're just starting out you should read the whole howto.
--
Carl Fink nitpi...@nitpicking.com
Read my blog at blog.nitpicking.com. Reviews! Observations!
Stupid mistakes you can correct!
Dann
news:a3_Om.37873$We2....@newsfe09.iad.
> "Dann" <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fc5ea8dd-7ad0-4d1b...@l35g2000vba.googlegroups.com.
> ..
>> Even though most 3rd graders have better drawing skills than me, I
>> have been asked to perform some semi professional acts of cartoonery.
>>
>> At the moment, I'm set up using Gimp 2.4.4 and a Wacom Bamboo
>> MTE-450A tablet.*
>>
>> The final cell size should be 7" x 3" high.
>>
>> I'm playing around with a single character that will be performing
>> examples for users [physical stuff....not like the ubiquitous
>> Microsoft paperclip]. Think Marcel Marceau.
>>
>> I'm currently stuck in that my plan was to draw everything at a 1:1
>> ratio. That way I won't lose a lot of detail due to a reduction
>> process. At the same time, a lot of the 3rd grade quality of my
>> "artwork"** is pretty evident at 1:1.
>>
>> Is there any advantage to working at a larger scale [1.5:1, 2:1] and
>> then scaling everything to fit later on?
>>
>> I guess the larger question is will scaling the image later cover up
>> any of my illustrative sins?
>>
>> Part of the reason for the question is that at a 1:1 scale, my pencil
>> tool size is kind of limited. I keep jumping back and forth between
>> 3 pixels and 1 pixel. It is rapidly becoming clear that any level of
>> detail is going to be hampered if those are the limits of my tools.
>>
>
First off....thanks to everyone for their responses. It was all very
helpful.
> Hard to answer without being able to see the linework and ultimate use
> for the art (do you intend to print it on paper or display it on a
> monitor, etc.?). In general, as you know and imply, working larger and
> then reducing allows more detail and hides flaws. So my basic answer
> is yes, there is an advantage to working at a larger scale: it makes
> the art look better. The scales you suggest, 1.5x to 2x, are what I'd
> recommend trying. At those scales, I'd expect you to get the benefits
> of working larger without losing any detail when you reduce. That
> 1-pixel/3-pixel deal is a wild card you'll have to play with. For
> example, it seems to me that reducing a 1-pixel line will yield a
> choppy dashed line that looks terrible (if it doesn't disappear
> completely), so you may need to go with 3 pixels.
Thanks. That was the answer I was hoping to get. I don't really need a
1-pixel line. Unfortunately, 3 pixels is about the max that will work in
1:1 scaling. Any larger than that and the line weights are too thick.
I'd like to take advantage of the pressure sensitive aspect of the Wacom
tablet, but a scale from 1 to 3 seems a bit silly.
>
> My other fundamental bit of advice is work at the highest resolution
> you practically can. Even if the ultimate use for the cartoon is a 72
> dpi monitor, work at 300 or 600 dpi if possible, and then reduce the
> image resolution as the final step.
>
I'll have to go back and check my setup. IIRC, Gimp either asks you to
define the size of the image in pixels or in inches. Then there is a
separate box for resolution.
> If you can point us to some examples, that would help.
I'll see if I can sneak my mockup character home and post a link to it.
--
Regards,
Dann
blogging at http://web.newsguy.com/dainbramage/blog.htm
Freedom works; each and every time it is tried.
Now also on Facebook in case you just can't get enough of me!
Dann
news:slrnhgp2f4...@panix2.panix.com.
> Almost every cartoonist I'm aware of who draws directly on a PC (as
> opposed to paper) first draws in a vector program, then imports the
> result into PhotoShop (yes, every one of them uses PhotoShop) for
> coloring and inking. Since you're using The GIMP, I assume you're
> planning on free software. Both OpenOffice.org Draw and Inkscape work
> fairly well. I've used OOo Draw to create banner ads, myself.
I can't see asking the company to spend a metric butt load of cash on
Photoshop for this project. At least, I can't see doing that given my
particular skill level. If I had any real talent, I'd ask.
I have OOo Draw already, but I've never tried it out. So thanks VERY
much for suggesting that. Gimp has some serious limitations in a couple
of areas. One easy one is the lack of a tool to draw circles.
> One advantage of vector drawing: resizing doesn't cause any distortion
> or change in line weights. Another: you can create a library of
> anatomical and background components and reuse them easily. See:
> http://www.cheshirecrossing.net/howto/howto.php?page=16
>
> Actually, if you're just starting out you should read the whole howto.
Thanks again to everyone that responded.
Dann
167b12...@l35g2000vba.googlegroups.com.
> At the moment, I'm set up using Gimp 2.4.4 and a Wacom Bamboo MTE-450A
> tablet.*
I ran into one problem that I'd like to document here just in case
someone else comes along with the same issue. A little Googling will
find the solution, but it is a royal PITA.
The above software and hardware have a rough time working together.
There is a definite compatibility issue. I'm using Windows XP
Professional as an OS.
What happens is that the tablet stops finding the new location for the
stylus if it is picked up out of the sensing zone of the tablet.
Everything just stops. You put the stylus down in a new spot and the
cursor never moves to meet the new location. You can use the keyboard to
access the menus, but you cannot use the tablet for anything. If there
is an alternative mouse attached, that is still usable as well.
To make matters worse, the Wacom tablet works great as a mouse in every
other application...except AutoCAD. That is another story. [short
version - the tablet works OK, but it isn't as handy as my Logitech
marble for CAD work, IMO]
After much cussing and procrastination, I did a little Googling and found
the following solution:
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=496958#c24
The short version is that the Gimp build of one of the dll files is
hosed. If you download a hex editor, you can correct one value [from 32h
to 00h] in one dll file and the damned thing works great.
This has been a known problem for at least a year an a half. I
downloaded Gimp last August and it wasn't addressed at that point.
Peter B. Steiger
> One easy one is the lack of a tool to draw circles.
I can answer that one. There is a way to do it. It's a pain in the
mouse, but it works.
1) Use the circle-select tool to draw a circle outline
2) Open the Paths dialogue and choose "Selection to path"
3) Also within the Paths tool, choose "Paint along path"
You are given a chance to choose brush size and shape; I think it uses
the currently selected foreground color.
Totally agree that it's tedious, but it does get the job done.
--
Peter B. Steiger
Cheyenne, WY
If you must reply by email, you can reach me by placing zeroes
where you see stars: wypbs.**1 at gmail.com.
JC Dill
> I have OOo Draw already, but I've never tried it out. So thanks VERY
> much for suggesting that. Gimp has some serious limitations in a couple
> of areas. One easy one is the lack of a tool to draw circles.
There are versions of Photoshop you can download and use for free for a
10 day or 30 day free trial.
jc
Freezer
> I have OOo Draw already, but I've never tried it out. So
> thanks VERY much for suggesting that. Gimp has some serious
> limitations in a couple of areas. One easy one is the lack of
> a tool to draw circles.
YOu might want to look into Artweaver (known in some circles as
Photoshop Lite) or Paint.NET, if you don't really need ALL taht
Photoshop gives you.
--
My name is Freezer and my anti-drug is porn.
http://freezer818.livejournal.com/
http://mst3kfreezer.livejournal.com/
Dann
news:Rv6dnbz8a7D7IJHW...@bresnan.com.
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 03:30:22 +0000, Dann sez:
>> One easy one is the lack of a tool to draw circles.
>
> I can answer that one. There is a way to do it. It's a pain in the
> mouse, but it works.
>
> 1) Use the circle-select tool to draw a circle outline
> 2) Open the Paths dialogue and choose "Selection to path"
> 3) Also within the Paths tool, choose "Paint along path"
>
> You are given a chance to choose brush size and shape; I think it uses
> the currently selected foreground color.
>
> Totally agree that it's tedious, but it does get the job done.
>
Ooo....not easy, but doable. Thanks!