PDA

View Full Version : PhotoGrav or not...which looks best?



Linda Kroeker
03-01-2010, 10:33 AM
Hello everyone,
I was playing around with a photo on acrylic...haven't done a job like this yet.
I have had good success with using photograv photos on granite...but when I went to do a photo thru photograv to laser on the back of an acrylic
it didn't look as good...so I tried to just ajust the grayscale picture and invert it and try that...it gave a more realistic looking picture...
where the photograv gave it a totally different look...almost makes them look a lot older.
I thought that the top left looked the best...or would you say the bottom right which was photograv with a soft edge...?
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Linda

Dave Johnson29
03-01-2010, 10:42 AM
Wow, Linda,

That first one is great. Not as sharp as the PG one but definitely a much nicer pic to look at.

I have not yet been able to get good picture results. I don't have PG but I have read and re-read all of the advice given here over the months but good results still allude me.

Would it be too much to ask you to post the original pic and the one you sent to the laser after your adjustments so I can see the differences.

I am still struggling with what the pic for the laser needs to look like. I am not an artistic person and what seems obvious and simple to some is a real struggle for my damned ordered engineering brain. I think I have two Left sides. :eek: :)

John Noell
03-01-2010, 3:17 PM
I am pretty much a newbie on this as well but I think the first one is better -- and would be greatly improved with a bit more unsharp mask to emphasize the edges. Not so much as the PG version but a bit more. I might even do it selectively to keep both faces looking as good as possible.

Linda Kroeker
03-01-2010, 5:13 PM
Dave...here is the original photo that I scanned...grayscaled it, put a feather edge around it...inverted it, looks like a negative...
engraved 600dpi 100s 40p (i think)...ran the grayscale through photograv...I noticed that the photograv looks different here than the original.

John...I'm still learning new things in corel, but I'm not sure what you mean or how to unsharpen the photo...the original is a very soft almost a bit blury copy.

Dave Johnson29
03-01-2010, 8:36 PM
Hi Linda,

Thanks for the little tutorial. I am enthused to give a photo another try. You make it sound so simple.

The "Unsharpen" is in Corel PhotoPaint "Effects" menu, then the "Sharpen" menu option.

In Corel Draw it is in the "Bitmaps" menu, then the "Sharpen" menu option.

I know how to use all this stuff as software just not apply it to real world items. Computer geekdom, it's a curse. :D:D

Lee DeRaud
03-01-2010, 9:09 PM
Note that "unsharp mask" is one of the more misleading names ever given to an algorithm, since what it actually does is emphasize edges.

Ken Liversidge
03-01-2010, 11:59 PM
I prefer PhotoGrav myself. Turn 'Enhance Edges' off and you'll get a softer engraving with all the detail you want. Check these. http://www.picturesinstone.com/categories/Photo-Engraving-and-Engraved-Gifts/Clear-Acrylic-Engravings/

Frank Corker
03-02-2010, 4:37 AM
Although close results can be made with alternatives, Photograv gets results much quicker and personal settings are saveable, but version 3.0 I think is quite buggy. Working and settings for clear acrylic is fast and stable.

Dave Johnson29
03-02-2010, 11:15 AM
Photograv gets results much quicker and personal settings are saveable, but version 3.0 I think is quite buggy.

Hi Frank,

Given the cost of Photograv and Photoshop being around 40-bucks difference, (Discount Mountain Software) where would you rate Photograv and the Gold Method application for Photoshop?

For an extra 40-bucks, I'd rather be buying Photoshop and all the other features it has and using the Gold Application if it is near enough to the same.

Frank Corker
03-02-2010, 7:04 PM
That's a difficult one. You can get very acceptable results using photoshop and the Gold method and with the added work of Doug Griffith, it really couldn't be easier.

George Perzel posted a very fine example of work done with Photograv and the Gold Method. Incidently on page two you will see some extremely fine examples of how a subject should be photographed, I really wish I could take photos like that.
http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=93559

I think if it were me wondering about which would be the better to choose from, there are a few things in favour of both.

Photograv, incredibly quick and great picture dithering for a number of different substrates. Negative side is that it's about £300 and with version 3.0 as I have mentioned, there were quite a few 'iffy' settings compared to the earlier version 2.11.

The Gold Method, gets great results, just as fast. You can make adjustments to the picture in the same environment as using it. Results sometimes not as good a quality. Plus side, it's FREE !!!!

I will leave you with those few points, but what does stand out is £300 vs FREE, unless you are doing loads of money making stuff, recouping your money is decidedly 'iffy' if you choose Photograv. I really wish some sort of representation by Photograv had been shown here on the Creek, or at least some sort of upgrade to iron out issues that a lot of us have encountered, but alas, you pay your money and you're stuck with what you get. Not really great customer satisfaction, but hey, what do I know.

Dave Johnson29
03-02-2010, 7:31 PM
Thanks Frank.

The Gold method is free, but I would have to buy Photoshop to use it. Currently that is $430 and Photograv is $400.

I am not so concerned about recouping the money as my laser makes some money and it is basically a hobby thing anyway.

I guess I am just being ornery about not being able to do good pics. I don't have a demand for them, I just hate not being able to do what others can. I need all the help I can get given my artistic abilities. ;):) Maybe that should be liabilities. :D

I think I will go for the Photoshop as I occasionally see some other things it will do that my Corel will not.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Dee Gallo
03-02-2010, 8:38 PM
Dave,

I think that's a smart decision - PhotoGrav is a one-trick pony whereas PhotoShop is the whole circus. Just don't think you'll be mastering it in a couple of days, it's a pretty deep program.

I did a test once with about 50 people voting on 2 granite tiles, one photoshop and one photograv (identical photo)- it was 50/50, so you're good either way.

It would be more valuable for you to master photo prep and manipulation, which will enable you to move on to that "artistic" level you seek.

cheers, dee

James Jaragosky
03-02-2010, 9:19 PM
Thanks Frank.

The Gold method is free, but I would have to buy Photoshop to use it. Currently that is $430 and Photograv is $400.

I am not so concerned about recouping the money as my laser makes some money and it is basically a hobby thing anyway.

I guess I am just being ornery about not being able to do good pics. I don't have a demand for them, I just hate not being able to do what others can. I need all the help I can get given my artistic abilities. ;):) Maybe that should be liabilities. :D

I think I will go for the Photoshop as I occasionally see some other things it will do that my Corel will not.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

I use photograv all the time. I charge .50 sq inch in .124 bb, I made the cost of the PG software back in about two weeks. I have done hundreds of PG photos in wood. I use to fuss and tinker with them for hours to get them just right. No more.
I require a decent photo from the customer. This will get you 90% of the way to the results you need.
Now I can run a "good photo" through Corelpaint tinker with it, cut it out, size it, then save it in just minutes. next is a few minutes in Pg and I am ready to print to the laser.
My costumers are truly excited with the product they get for the money the spend.
When I use to work so hard for the perfect photo the costumers were no happier than they are now.
I don't send out trash by any stretch, but I no longer fuss over the minor stuff.
Whatever method you use remember that you are your own worst critic.
Best Regards
Jim J.

Martin Boekers
03-02-2010, 10:29 PM
I use Photograv as well as photoshop. For me its a one two punch.

Photograv's quick and I can see in a matter of minutes if it will work satisfactorally or not. If not it's time to dig into Photoshop and start working it.

Photoshop or Photopaint or GIMP does take time to learn (time well spent)

One thing to consider, If you are doing enough work to justify even talking about it, buy it! Charge a surcharge for photo engrave (You should any way because the take longer to laser.) Add say $1 or $2 a piece the software will be paid of in no time. If you consider prep time saved you'll pay for it even sooner.

No matter what you use or prefer, if you don't have a halfway decent photo to start with. it will look poor. Best to turn those jobs away with bad images as the final piece always reflects your work.


Marty

Dave Johnson29
03-03-2010, 11:20 AM
Thanks Dee, James and Marty

I would only be buying Photoshop at this point for the ability to plug in the Gold Method (GM) application. Corel Photopaint outstrips my current skills so learning Photoshop other than using it for the GM is not really a consideration. I would be just using Photoshop as a vehicle for the GM.

I am spending about the same on the circus as Dee mentioned, instead of just the pony. Given the results I have seen using the GM, I think that will be the best avenue for me.

The quality of the original photo struck me as soon as I saw Linda's little tutorial. The even contrast of the original jumped out at me. I think this is where I have been going wrong mostly. I have not been spending time to get the contrast levels correct before moving to the gray scale etc. I am hoping with a better pic and the GM in Photoshop, it will be much easier to compensate for my Left, Left side brain. :D

Thanks guys.

Martin Boekers
03-03-2010, 12:06 PM
[QUOTE=Dave Johnson29;1361605]Thanks Dee, James and Marty

I would only be buying Photoshop at this point for the ability to plug in the Gold Method (GM) application.

Dave, You may check with Photoshop Elements a shorter and cheaper version to see if it supports the action. Corel may support it also not sure.
If not do a trail version and recreate it in Corel as I'm sure Corel supports it's own actions.

Also check with Rodne to see how far back in Photoshop his action will work, you may be able to find and older version cheaper.

Marty

Dave Johnson29
03-03-2010, 1:40 PM
Also check with Rodne to see how far back in Photoshop his action will work, you may be able to find and older version cheaper.


Thanks for the tip Marty,

I bought Photoshop 6 in about 1998 I think and it does not support the action, but you make a good point about getting a lesser package that does. Since I only need it as a vehicle for the GM, that's a lot of beer I would save. :)

The other thing that made me slap my forehead is I have been a programmer since 1976, I will take a look at the GM action code and see if I can convert it for Corel. DUH, why didn't I think of that before?

I am old I forget stuff. :o

Jack Burton
03-03-2010, 2:17 PM
I prefer the left

Dan Hintz
03-03-2010, 2:23 PM
It won't accept the Gold Method plug-in directly, but I used Paint.NET to accomplish the same basic steps (before I even knew what steps the Gold Method took). It's free, but requires a little more thought about what's going on with the image... if you don't care how it does what it does, buy PG. If you spend a few minutes thinking through the process, you can get the same (usually better, IMO) results with free tools.

Dave Johnson29
03-03-2010, 5:33 PM
It won't accept the Gold Method plug-in directly

Dan,

I realize it won't plug straight in, I meant checking the GM Action and see if it was written in a macro language then emulate those instructions into a Corel Add-in or Macro. However I have just looked at the GM ATN file and it is complied or a non-text format of Macro language.

{EDIT}
OK, found the JSX file programmed by Doug Griffith, I'll see what I can do with it for Corel v10 as an Add-in.

Darren Null
03-03-2010, 5:46 PM
Tony Severenuk from Corel drops past here periodically...maybe he could take the script and give it to the Corel boffins to incorporate. Definitely better than the existing dithering methods in corel at the moment.

Stuart Orrell
03-04-2010, 4:46 AM
In my opinion you can do a lot more with Photoshop and since you can get the gold method for free.

There are also a lot of free tutorials and actions that are available and these can lead to all kinds of options.

So bottom line is....... more for your money.

Bill Cunningham
03-04-2010, 10:49 PM
Whatever method you used to make the 4th one over in the top row, is the one you want to keep using...

Linda Kroeker
03-05-2010, 4:18 PM
Thank you everyone for your suggestions and input on the Photograv...I love the program...does a great job on granite...
someone suggested turning off the enhance edges in photograv, didn't care for the results.
Maybe I need more time learning both procedures.
Bill that woud be the photograv version...
I will post the end result after this weekend.

Linda

Tim Bateson
03-05-2010, 6:03 PM
GM doesn't work with the CS version either. I'm glad I own an Epilog. It mediates the need for GM & totally eliminates the need for PG. In fact I find PG nearly useless. I have versions 2.x and 3.0 I'm willing to part with.

Linda Kroeker
03-07-2010, 6:56 PM
Hello,
Here is the final result to the photo I was doing and gave a sample run in a post earlier
I'm not happy with the results...the method of using the photo inverted with some sharpening did fine...ran samples looked good...ran the photo
on the acrylic heart, which is a wedding gift and I got all those dumb banning lines...
what did I do wrong...used the same settings as the samples and didn't get the banning...
Linda

Dee Gallo
03-07-2010, 7:19 PM
Did you resize the photo, Linda? You can get bands from that.

Martin Boekers
03-07-2010, 7:27 PM
Note that "unsharp mask" is one of the more misleading names ever given to an algorithm, since what it actually does is emphasize edges.

Unsharp mask is what we did in the "old film" days of photography where to enhance sharpness and contrast we did a black and white film mask of the original that was slightly out of focus (unsharp) and sandwiched it with the original. When you printed through them you could control contrast (apparent edge sharpness) by the density and softness of the mask. It needed to be slightly out of focus to help with registration issues and to have a slightly smoother transition rather than harsh edges.

That's one thing Photoshop and others has done is keep much of the non-digital terms in the digital process. It can be confusing for those without much of actual darkroom experience as you can see. I agree that some of these terms such as this can really be misleading.


Marty

Linda Kroeker
03-07-2010, 7:27 PM
Hi Dee,
I did resize it to be a bit smaller than the scanned copy...if you look at my original photo of the different samples there is no banding????
That photo is the same as the finished one I did on the heart...I'm so disappointed in my first photo on acrylic....

Dee Gallo
03-07-2010, 7:56 PM
Linda, resizing is probably your culprit. You should set the size before doing any processing to avoid moire patterns and/or banding.

Don't give up! Your photo came out really well, especially for your first one - a lot of people wish they had that much success. You're being a bit hard on yourself, kiddo.

:) dee

Linda Kroeker
03-07-2010, 8:42 PM
Thank you Dee...I will remember that next time I'm working with photos...I tried to fix the look of the photo...what do you think?

Stuart Orrell
03-08-2010, 10:10 AM
GM doesn't work with the CS version either. I'm glad I own an Epilog. It mediates the need for GM & totally eliminates the need for PG. In fact I find PG nearly useless. I have versions 2.x and 3.0 I'm willing to part with.

Hi Tim,
Just for the record, GM seems to work fine for me in CS3. What version are you using?

Linda,
Your photo looks good.

Doug Griffith
03-08-2010, 11:42 AM
Dan,OK, found the JSX file programmed by Doug Griffith, I'll see what I can do with it for Corel v10 as an Add-in.

Here are the base elements stripped out of the fairly complex script. The functionality is pretty straight forward.

The Photoshop scripting guide is available online and may help determine how these functions work.

//*Adjust vars are tied to sliders
ChangeMode.GRAYSCALE; //convert to grayscale
ResampleMethod.BICUBIC; //change resolution
shadowHighlight(40,gAdjust,30,0,50,30,bAdjust,0,.0 1,10); //adjust contrast
autoLevels(); //adjust levels
applyUnSharpMask(500,3.5,0); //unsharp mask 1
applyUnSharpMask(150,sAdjust,0); //unsharp mask 2
BitmapConversionType.DIFFUSIONDITHER; //convert to bitmap

Dee Gallo
03-08-2010, 2:18 PM
Thank you Dee...I will remember that next time I'm working with photos...I tried to fix the look of the photo...what do you think?

Wow - a world of difference - what did you do to fix it?

Perseverance pays off - Good going!

cheers, dee

Linda Kroeker
03-08-2010, 5:16 PM
Dee you are going to laugh...I just took a very fine emory board and very carfully and lightly went over the dark banding area....:D
It worked, so that I wouldn't have to re-laser a new acrylic.

Dee Gallo
03-08-2010, 5:34 PM
Dee you are going to laugh...I just took a very fine emory board and very carfully and lightly went over the dark banding area....:D
It worked, so that I wouldn't have to re-laser a new acrylic.

NOT laughing, I'm impressed! I thought I was the only one who resorted to low tech solutions, especially if a piece is going to be trash anyway. And hey, you saved the piece, which is what counts - I can't tell you how many "discards" I've created whilst trying to get the right combination of settings and art.

Nice save! :D dee

Tim Bateson
03-08-2010, 8:42 PM
Hi Tim,
Just for the record, GM seems to work fine for me in CS3. What version are you using?.

I'm using the original version CS.

Tim Bateson
03-08-2010, 9:10 PM
I still contend that for Epilog owners, PhotoGrav isn't worth more then $50. Anything over that price is way too much. :p OK, maybe that's a bit opinionated, but I was very disappointed with the low quality of this program. The tool is buggy, unreliable, large learning curve, with very little in results - as compared to a good driver with dithering.
Like it or not that's my review of 3.0. That's a glowing review compared to what I thought of 2.3.

Dave Yanke
03-09-2010, 9:12 PM
Thanks Frank.

The Gold method is free, but I would have to buy Photoshop to use it. Currently that is $430 and Photograv is $400.



Have you looked at the ULS photo driver?

Bill Cunningham
03-09-2010, 9:31 PM
Hi Dee,
I did resize it to be a bit smaller than the scanned copy...if you look at my original photo of the different samples there is no banding????
That photo is the same as the finished one I did on the heart...I'm so disappointed in my first photo on acrylic....

Linda as Dee said, even resizing the photo a tiny bit after running through photograv will give you banding. One other thing to watch is that your engraving dpi is the same as your photo dpi. If you change the size of the pre-processed photo using Corel by dragging a selected corner, the dpi of the photo will change. You need to change it by re-sampling (under the bitmaps heading) once sized and positioned, then export it to a greyscale file (.bmp for the old version) then process it through PG and import it back into corel, place it, and engrave using the generic black granite settings. I use 100% speed, 75% power.