PDA

View Full Version : Photograv- need some help



Scott Shepherd
12-28-2007, 10:11 AM
We broke down and bought Photograv several weeks ago and I apparently look like a monkey trying to learn Chinese sitting in front it it. I've emailed the Photograv people and didn't really get any great advice/help from them. I thought Photograv was pretty much a plug and play item, but either I was wrong, or I'm a moron (or possibly both).

I see photos people do and I can't get anything remotely close to it. I look at things like the LaserTile samples and they look amazing. I look at my work and it looks like a hack did it.

So I'm hoping we can walk through the process on a specific photo or two and see if some of us mentally challenged can get some help from those who have clearly mastered it.

So to start, here's the photo I'd like to start with on black granite http://www.customengravingandsigns.com/photos/Photograv001.JPG (note, it's the original photo I took and is a very large file- didn't want to resize it, wanted to give others the original as well)

I have resized and resampled it in Photograv at 10" wide, using 250DPI (we have a ULS sytem and the book says we can use 250 or 500).

Can someone look at the photo and tell me what we need to tweak on the photo before processing? Color level adjustments?

45W machine. I have a 1/2 box of black granite left and I'm more than happy to burn through them to go through this with someone who will help us all learn.

Tom Bull
12-28-2007, 10:33 AM
There is a fabulous tutorial on www.coreldrawpro.com (http://www.coreldrawpro.com) the June 2007 issue that does a step by step on both granite and marble. I keep a printed copy at hand to refresh me on my granite jobs. I think a real key is the contrast, you have to be careful to have plenty. And a real challenge is doing dark images (seems like everyone has a black dog to engrave). Hope this tutorial will help you.

Derek Kern
12-28-2007, 11:34 AM
Scott,

The photo looks like it will turn out OK without any color adjustments. I can run it on my machine and see how it turns out if that is OK with you. Then I could post a pic of the results.

I typically use black marble when I do photos, they seem to come out clearer for me.

Ed Lang
12-28-2007, 11:54 AM
Scott, thanks for posting this. I am having the same kind of trouble but using wood. Maybe after you get all fixed up we can start to talk about doing the same thing but on wood. Baltic Birch and Cherry.

Tom, thanks for the link to the pdf files. I have downloaded them all and am reading them. They look like a good resource for Corel and Photograv.

John Stephens
12-28-2007, 12:20 PM
Tom, thanks for the tip on the tutorial at http://www.coreldrawpro.com/.
I could use it for my applications now also. Do Im have to be a member to see it? It looks like it cost $60.00 to join.

Thank you, John

Ed Lang
12-28-2007, 1:16 PM
Scott,
I downloaded the picture and ran with my Photograv 2.11. Here are the results. This is the first time I have ever put granite in my machine. One is baltic birch processed with cherry parms and the other is the granite I had here processed with the ULS granite/marble parms I downloaded from USL.

Scott Shepherd
12-28-2007, 1:51 PM
See, that looks much better than I get. Here's a couple of photos of what I get.

Forgive the poor light and color. Forget to set my white balance for the light.

Frank Corker
12-28-2007, 3:36 PM
Steve, give this a try. By the way I have included a file of the picture (still original size and not 10" wide like the included ready to burn bmp 49 power to 100 speed) where I have removed the background. The background removed will enhance the picture much more than yours and make it appear to be more contrasted. Can you give it a try and post the results?

Fantastic photograph by the way. Love the depth of field.

http://rapidshare.com/files/79705306/Desktop.zip.html

Choose the free option. The next page will take you to a choice of download sites. You can choose any.

Frank Corker
12-28-2007, 3:53 PM
Strangely enough I ran this through Photograv 2.11 and it gives a recommended power of 23 power to 100 speed but Photograv 3 says 100 power to 83 speed. If that went into my machine I'd guarantee it would be washed out and mine is a 45 watt laser! Still haven't got to grips with version 3 yet, it gives some very weird settings. I would normally engrave black granite on my machine at 33 power to 100 speed, no if's and no but's about it.

Scott Shepherd
12-28-2007, 7:29 PM
Thanks Frank, I'll give it a go on Saturday morning and take some photos of the results.

You're getting exactly the same problem I am with the power. It seems to tell me to run darn near everything at 80-90P. Even clear acrylic it tells me to run it at 90P or something like that.

That's where I'm getting confused.

I'll give it a go and report back. Thanks for the kind words about the photograph :) I did plan on getting rid of the background, but that darned hair got in my way :)

Frank Corker
12-28-2007, 7:53 PM
I thought it might have, that's why I took a bit of time and removed it, I think you'll be happy with the result. I agree with you about the speed and power settings for acrylics, having tried one or two of the settings I ended up getting quite frustrated. I think I'm going to need some time to tweak them about a bit.

Larry Bratton
12-28-2007, 9:42 PM
Dang Scott, you been around Frank so much your beginning to talk like him:D. "Give it a go", I didn't know you said that in Virginia! I thought it was.."I'll give it a try". :rolleyes:

Scott Shepherd
12-28-2007, 9:48 PM
Funny Larry :) I worked for a UK based company for years and years, so I've been around them "foreigners" for years :) I have a ton of English friends and I have to communicate with them in ways they can understand, so I guess it rubs off. Also went over and worked outside London for a short while.

Guess it all rubbed off :) At least I didn't call him "mate" or anything :D

Actually, if it were true Virginian, it would have been more like "Hey y'all watch this" :)

Larry Bratton
12-28-2007, 10:12 PM
Funny Larry :) I worked for a UK based company for years and years, so I've been around them "foreigners" for years :) I have a ton of English friends and I have to communicate with them in ways they can understand, so I guess it rubs off. Also went over and worked outside London for a short while.

Guess it all rubbed off :) At least I didn't call him "mate" or anything :D

Actually, if it were true Virginian, it would have been more like "Hey y'all watch this" :)
Hahaha! Thanks Scott,,I needed that! You know those are usually "famous last words" in the redneck vocabulary "Hey y'all-watch this!". That's for all of us also that think the end of the national anthem is "Gentlemen, Start your Engines".

Scott Shepherd
12-29-2007, 10:22 AM
Here ya go Frank, this is as per your file and 49P 100S on 45W machine, 250DPI.

This is shown next to the original one I did that I wasn't really happy with. PhotoGrav 3.0 shows 75P and 100S, which would have surely been way too much power. I'm really disappointed in the speed/power settings with PhotoGrav.

Any ideas on what to try out next or are these typical of what would be acceptable?

Sorry for the small photos, but since it's all black, the KB's are huge.

Frank Corker
12-29-2007, 12:49 PM
It definitely looks washed out. Faster speed and less power is the only way to go I think.

Bill Cunningham
12-29-2007, 9:42 PM
Hahaha! Thanks Scott,,I needed that! You know those are usually "famous last words" in the redneck vocabulary "Hey y'all-watch this!". That's for all of us also that think the end of the national anthem is "Gentlemen, Start your Engines".

We have a similar famous last quote here: "Hold my beer and watch this Eh!!!"

My favorite has always been: "They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..." - John Sedgwick (General)

Bob Cole
12-29-2007, 10:08 PM
I would be willing to run it through my machine on laser marble at a smaller size and post a pic.

I spent a couple weeks when I first got the laser working with Photograv and HD granite. I then got some laser marble and the difference is huge. I could never get the granite to look that great.

What optics are you using (1.5, 2.0, HDFDO)?

I used:
pwr 20
spd 100
ppi 500
img density 5

Stephen Beckham
12-30-2007, 12:20 PM
Scott - It just dawned on me to look back at your original post... Got a question for ya... Have you tried your pictures on Black Marble yet?

I'm sure you'll have others tell you both sides (:mad:&:)) about Granite, but I'm one of the :mad: with granite. I've never gotten a clean and dark burn in Granite. I always got washed out look no matter what I tried. I started using mostly the black marble and I've gotten a lot better look. Some really close to those on the LaserBits web site... I don't go out looking for granite pieces to use anymore for that reason...

When I use granite, I always reduce my DPI to 150 or 200 for the image. I also move my white balance to 255 and my black to 15-20 on the PhotoGrav Interactive Grey Scale to force larger pixels and spread them out for less chance of overlapping of the pixels in the Granite. I just don't think the Granite holds together enough for fine print. Seems that small chips come out between the pixels where there should not be etching. You shouldn't have any solid white spots in the PG file around the face - if so, you'll need to take more white out in the interactive screen.

Leads to another question - Have you looked at your etching through a high powered magnification? Check to see if you're getting dimples only or if you are getting dimples and break away chips in between the dimples? If you can see rough edges like chips - you'll need to reduce the power and or the DPI to get the pixels further apart...

If you do decide to try some Marble from Laserbits, get the heart tile or the oval tile. They both come with front and back polished - gives you two shots to figure it out... Most of the other tiles come with one side polished and the other rough...

Happy New Year...


Just saw Bob's post and agree with him - sorry to repeat the Granite saga in another post...

Scott Shepherd
12-30-2007, 1:02 PM
Haven't tried the marble yet (or found it). There's a tile store about 3 blocks from me and I went in there several months ago to get some (When we first got our new machine, and found a page in the manual on calibration and how to fine tune the settings). So I go in, head to the "broken box back room" and I pick up 2 pieces, then walk into the showroom and pick up 1 more piece. I walk up to the counter, the fat pig who was stuffing her face looked at me like "What?" with a mouth full of food (No, I'm not kidding). I said "I'd like to pay for these". She says "You can't buy singles unless they are from the back room. Otherwise you have to buy a full case". I said "Okay, well, these two (sitting them on the counter) are from the back room, so I'll get those and I'll put this one back". She looks at me and says "We don't sell singles, you'll have to buy a case".

So I left them on the counter and walked out. Haven't found anyone local that sells singles of black granite yet, but I'll try and find someone and try your settings.

I am making good progress on clear acrylic today. I hope to post a photo shortly.

Thanks for all the help from everyone so far. I might not respond to all the posts, but I am reading them and I do appreciate the help.

Lee DeRaud
12-30-2007, 2:01 PM
There is a fabulous tutorial on www.coreldrawpro.com (http://www.coreldrawpro.com) the June 2007 issue that does a step by step on both granite and marble.I'm not seeing anything on that site for downloading back issues...is there another URL for that?

EDIT: Ah, found it...you have to join the ACDRP to get access to back issues. Is that tutorial really "fabulous" to the tune of $60?

Scott Shepherd
12-30-2007, 3:02 PM
Lee, wait for it to open in your browser and you'll see the file name is something like CDP-1107.pdf . Once it's loaded, edit that to be 607 or 707 and it'll bring it up.

Also, here's my latest with PhotoGrav. It's Frank's edited photo and done on green edge acrylic. I'm quite happy with it. Any thoughts on it? The base is just an oval with a slot cut in it that the top piece fits tight in.

James Jaragosky
12-30-2007, 4:16 PM
nice work and nice job getting all the hair in the engraving. that had to take some time.

Frank Corker
12-30-2007, 4:28 PM
Now that's a nice image. Excellent. Looks very good on the edgelit

Lee DeRaud
12-30-2007, 4:29 PM
Lee, wait for it to open in your browser and you'll see the file name is something like CDP-1107.pdf . Once it's loaded, edit that to be 607 or 707 and it'll bring it up.Ah, got it (finally). For anyone else having trouble, the links you need are:
http://www.coreldrawpro.com/Library/CP-607.pdf
http://www.coreldrawpro.com/Library/CP-707.pdf
One is for granite, the other for marble.

Bob Cole
12-30-2007, 7:23 PM
I ran it on the laser marble from laserbits but I need to adjust the contrast. Her face is washed out without a lot of detail especially where the lips are.

The acrylic pieces you did look excellent. I haven't done a lot of picture work so obviously I need much more practice.

Scott Shepherd
12-30-2007, 10:34 PM
Thanks for the kind words on my project :) Man I tell you, I'd go broke if I had to do Photograv work. I have several family photos (including the one above) on my work PC that I use all the time to play around with various things. The other one I have is a mother and daughter, one wearing a light gray shirt and the other wearing a dark maroon shirt. So, the resulting image is one person wearing a shirt that looks normal standing next to the head of the other person. The dark shirt is all but invisible.

I just don't see how you can take photos that people bring you and make them work and make money. I know some of you are doing it, and those who are, let me be the first to say that you have a tremendous amount of knowledge and experience and you should be commended.

If I had to deal with photos from everyone else all day, I'd go bonkers. I took that acrylic piece and gave it to my brother (his birthday today!). While people were over at his party, they commented on how nice it was and they wanted to know how much it would cost to have one done. I kept saying "It depends". Well, it does depend. Bring me a 2" x 3" school photo with a white face and a black shirt and want to put in a 8" x 10" piece, then it's going to cost you. Bring me a good image, the right colors and it'll only take a minute.

Ahhh.....so much to learn......every time I start to feel smarter about the business, I get kicked in the groin :)

Stephen Beckham
12-30-2007, 11:11 PM
Scott - I feel you...

One quick tip that I learned with PG and doing photos... Don't try to name your files cute little file names like "jonnies daughter" or "don1" "don2" etc... You'll go mad trying to find the last photo you did when the alphabetical order start kicking in.

I rolled over 1600 images Friday last week (since summer of 06). I don't play family over customer over testing - I give each file the next consecutive number. 1.bmp, 2.bmp, 3.bmp etc. Then when I convert it - I save it right back in the same directory with 1 e.bmp, 2 e.bmp for 'engrave ready version'. If I save a Simulation I put 1 s.bmp (sim file) and a 1 e.bmp (engrave file)... I then go back and import the file number with the 'e' on it for etching.

Clear as mud? Well, I hope so - the key is that it keeps every picture in order - so when you're looking to import or export - you always have it as the last photo in the directory.

Not sure if that is the most effective way, but it has seemed to work well for me and I don't look goofy trying to find the picture while a customer is standing there looking.

Another tip - watch your wedding photo's - Bride in a white dress in front of a white wall will kill you - dime to a dollar the guy next to her is in black tux... Now you're going to need to put a grey background behind them so both have something to contrast against...

As far as going goofy? Not likely - you'll get quick with it and be converting files in minutes not hours after a couple hundred.

As far as learning? Frank's helped me a lot with his graphics pointers - but even after doing over 1600 images - I'm still picking up thoughts like "wow - now I know why it does that!"

Here is another one for you - when you get a B/W photo and saved as engraved - I would remove the white background so I could see the placement of items behind it - with the image as a object versus an image and missing the white background, it would give me varied results. I'll still convert the file to a Greyscale and edit it sometimes, but I don't remove the background anymore.

Well - that was more than I intended on typing - sorry to drag it out... I'm not the expert and these are some of the things that has helped me.. Enjoy...

Scott Shepherd
01-02-2008, 3:00 PM
Ahhhh a new year, a fresh start, nothing but positive thoughts this year. PhotoGrav is easy, PhotoGrav is easy, PhotoGrav is easy.

Nope, didn't help any :)

Here's the latest efforts on a piece of Baltic Birch. I read on another post about how people with 45W systems use 80-90P and 100S (or something like that) on Baltic Birch. I use it and it burns everything in sight. I get the end result looking like the Grand Canyon and the Colorado River running through it.

Here's what I have so far : Baltic Birch (I just like saying Baltic Birch), 80P 100S, 250PPI, Image Density of 3. I think it's way overburned. I lost a lot of detail. Look at the top right corner, you'll see some odd curves there. Watch that spot on the next few photos. Also, look at the detail of his eye ball and watch that area. No detail on this photo, nice detail on #3, left hand one.

Click to enlarge:
78418

Next is the same photo with the settings of 60P, 85S, 250PPI, Image Density of 3. Note the same area in the corner. I also thing this is way overburned.

Click to enlarge:
78419

Next are two together, one on the left is what I think is almost right. It's a little light, but you begin to get detailed shading in his eye, which isn't around on any others. Also, you can finally see the top left corner is not just and odd shape, it's the face of another Tiger.

Left one is 23P, 90S and the right one is 31P, 90S, both at 250PPI and Image Density of 3.

Click to enlarge:
78420

Any thoughts or direction? I'm a bit confused on why PhotoGrav tells me a power setting of 90 and others tend to be in the same area, yet I have to come all the way down to 20-30 to get the detail to show up. What am I missing?

Original Photo is here, click to enlarge
78423

Scott Shepherd
01-02-2008, 3:35 PM
Here's one more. It's a Wood Duck.....literally :) If you know your ducks, then that was funny. If not, look it up :)

27P, 90S, 250DPI and Image Density of 3. Still looks a little too dark for me. Too much burned area. Any thoughts on it? Good/Bad? What changes to make?

Original Photo included, but resized to fit on the forum.

Stephen Beckham
01-02-2008, 4:02 PM
Scott - I gave it a shot off of your image posted. I'm not sure it's much better than yours - I ran this at 400 at 100 speed and 60 power. I converted the file to 200 DPI before running in PG. I like to run my images at twice the DPI when actually lasering.

Mike Mackenzie
01-02-2008, 4:20 PM
Scott,

I sent a PM but I am not sure if you got it. Anyway send me your e-mail address I have a large pdf file that may help you with what you need.

Larry Bratton
01-02-2008, 6:51 PM
Scott:
Here is a Photograv simulation. I ran this file at 25s/100p 300dpi and the results were very much like the simulation. I took the low res image into Photoshop, cleaned it up, removed the background, color corrected and converted to a 8bit greyscale after resample to 300ppi.

Larry Bratton
01-02-2008, 7:07 PM
Haven't tried the marble yet (or found it). There's a tile store about 3 blocks from me and I went in there several months ago to get some (When we first got our new machine, and found a page in the manual on calibration and how to fine tune the settings). So I go in, head to the "broken box back room" and I pick up 2 pieces, then walk into the showroom and pick up 1 more piece. I walk up to the counter, the fat pig who was stuffing her face looked at me like "What?" with a mouth full of food (No, I'm not kidding). I said "I'd like to pay for these". She says "You can't buy singles unless they are from the back room. Otherwise you have to buy a full case". I said "Okay, well, these two (sitting them on the counter) are from the back room, so I'll get those and I'll put this one back". She looks at me and says "We don't sell singles, you'll have to buy a case".

So I left them on the counter and walked out. Haven't found anyone local that sells singles of black granite yet, but I'll try and find someone and try your settings.

I am making good progress on clear acrylic today. I hope to post a photo shortly.

Thanks for all the help from everyone so far. I might not respond to all the posts, but I am reading them and I do appreciate the help.
Scott:
Have you tried Lasersketch? Nice people and nice stuff. http://www.lasersketch.com/

Scott Shepherd
01-02-2008, 7:54 PM
Thanks Larry, I'll check them out. I did find a place this afternoon that sell marble and they sold me a piece of it. It's running my tiger photo right now. I'll post the photo when it's done.

Here's two photos on the same piece of marble. The one on the left was done at 90P 70S 500PPI Image Density 5. I made an adjustment about 1/2" down, hence the mark there. The one on the right was run twice at 70P 100S 250PPI and Image Density 5. The photo doesn't do the one on the left justice. It's simply stunning.

Ran the first one (one on left) through Photograv at default settings for black marble. Didn't think there was enough light colors between his eyes, so I pushed the black,white, and gamma a little to make it have more white in that area.

Only reason I'm posting all of this is because I'm documenting my learning process and hopefully it'll help someone else in the future. Otherwise I wouldn't be sharing my scrap pile ;)

Larry Bratton
01-02-2008, 8:20 PM
Scott:
One trick that DOES work on marble, is to use Armorall on it before you laser it. Don't ask why, but it makes your contrast between the black and the white engraving be better. The white is more intense.

Frank Corker
01-02-2008, 8:48 PM
Steve from the photo the duck looks good to me. I think if it were to have a coat of varnish the depth of the wood would most certainly come to the surface. I think the same applies with the tiger though.

Stephen Beckham
01-02-2008, 10:07 PM
Scott,

Tiger looks great in the photo - I bet it does look better in person. Looks like you're there - don't get discouraged on your next one if it comes out bad again. You can do the exact same thing next time and as the nature of the target may have it - you might get a really good image - you might be adding to our pile of learning...:rolleyes:

Scott Shepherd
02-04-2008, 1:37 PM
Well, with an appointment with a customer tomorrow who wants some photographs engraved, I thought I should revisit this topic.

I thought I had it all dialed in on clear acrylic. That is until I messed with some settings and actually got close to it being what it's probably supposed to be.

I'm using a Universal, which has a little different settings, but I'll post them.

First photo is what I thought was as good as it would get on acrylic. It was rendered at 250DPI and engraved at Image Density of 5 and PPI of 500. Silly me, I thought that's what it was supposed to look like.

Second one is done the same way, just adjusted the black/white/gamma settings to try and get some more black into it as opposed to the first one. I thought it was horrible while sitting in the laser, but once I took it out and got something card behind it, I was very happy.

Third one is the same as second, except Image Density of 3 and PPI of 250. Although it runs a lot quicker, I think it's too coarse.

I think the second one needs just a tough more white. It's just a little underburned, but not by much, I don't think.

Click to enlarge

Stephen Beckham
02-04-2008, 2:09 PM
Steve,

I actually like the third one the best. The coarse adds a bit in the photo for me to make it seem darker. The second seems to grey or too much white from my look at it...

Don't get me wrong - both look great! Just picking Door #3 - Good luck with the customer.

(the other) Steve

Scott Shepherd
02-04-2008, 2:39 PM
Thanks Stephen, I have no idea what it's "supposed" to look like, so it's all a guess on my part. I love photography, so I guess I'm always trying to get something that looks like a real photograph. The 2nd one, from a few feet away actually looks just like a photograph.

The 3rd one, from the same distance, doesn't have the same gray "tones" that the 2nd one has. But from a few feet further back, it also does look good. I guess it all depends on how far away you plan on being. I can see handing the coarse one to a customer and having them freak out a little by the poor quality. Yes, it looks poor from 6" away, but from 10 feet away, it looks fine. I guess I need to prepare the customer in advance for that moment :)

Sure would like to use #3 as a standard because it's a lot faster.

Don Necaise
02-04-2008, 2:55 PM
Can anyone suggest some settings for a Xenetech 30 w for Photogav 2.11
using marble and Cherry or oak wood ? I am about to go crazy trying to do these photos

Scott Shepherd
02-04-2008, 3:15 PM
Don, can you post your settings, and perhaps a photo (if possible) so someone here can look at the settings to see what needs to be adjusted?

Stephen Beckham
02-04-2008, 4:26 PM
I have no idea what it's "supposed" to look like,

That's easy - it's supposed to look like what the customer wants! And it's supposed to be cheap... and it's supposed to be done yesterday!


Seriously, I agree. I seem to do a lot of people who have passed away of all ages and reasons - my biggest fear is that I know deep down a grieving person will see what they want. It may not be right - and they may not realize it for sometime down the road. You know they will recognize them - you could eliminate every third pixel and their mind will fill in the dots to see what they want. But is it right???

My rule of thumb is to look at the picture and look at the job seperate. I want to be able to recognize the person without seeing it side by side. After I'm confident that I can recognize them - then I compare the two to make sure.

Sure hate to make that call sometimes - I just leave it up to the customer to make sure they're happy... Again - good luck with your upcoming meeting....

Scott Shepherd
02-05-2008, 2:37 PM
After 6 hours of working on samples to present to the guy who's about to pop through the door, I have determined that the guy who invented PhotoGrav has stock in the beer industry.

I've never wanted a beer more than I do right now. I had the settings from the photos I posted the other day. It was a black and white photograph, and I thought I had it all dialed in just where I wanted it.

So, I have the guy send me two files, both black and white, in advance, so I don't look like a complete moron when it comes. I take the 1st photograph, it's a portrait, professionally done, in black and white. I apply the exact same settings as I used above and it looks like crap. Face is totally blown out.

So fast forward $30 in material and 10 tries later. Still looks like crap. Either I'm way too picky about what I expect it to do (having seen their demo pieces), or I'm just not meant to figure this out.

It's beyond my comprehension on how you can make money with it. I can't spent 4 hours and 10 sample pieces to get the image right and then charge them $30 for it. And I'm pretty sure they have no plans of paying me for the time it takes. At this point I have determined anyone who's using it and getting good result surely needs to visit the eye doctor :)

It appears that if the face or detail is large, then it works perfectly, but put a 3/4" or 1" tall face in the picture and it's no way to get that level of detail at 250dpi.

Plug and Play, it ain't.

Sorry for the rant, just tired of fighting with something you're supposed to be able to open and image, run it through, and burn it. Ain't that about what it's supposed to be doing?

Stephen Beckham
02-05-2008, 3:03 PM
Man - those growing pains... I went through it and kind of have an idea now of what to expect. It's kind of like watching and understanding the MATRIX...

I did all of my practice on my partner's scap glass (framing shop). He just throws pieces away that's smaller than 10X10, so I pick them up cut them in half and practice.

Hope things work out for you...

Scott Shepherd
02-05-2008, 3:12 PM
Hope things work out for you...

Samuel Adams is going to make sure it's all better very soon ;)

I'm thinking Microsoft surely must have had a hand in it somewhere :)

Ray Mighells
02-05-2008, 11:26 PM
Scott, I ran the set up Frank did on your photo on the ivory colored acrylic just to see how my settings would work with Frank's magic touch. The pics are not great, I just held it in my hand, one with flash, one held to the light. Paper is still on the back. I used 300 dpi, 75 Sp 85 pwr on my 35 W Epilog If you want this sample, PM your mailing addy and I'll ship it off to you. You are getting some great results on your efforts.

Sam Gardner
02-06-2008, 2:11 AM
My method of testing quality is to crop the image around a critical part e.g. the face ( for that is where we identify the person) and test engrave only that part on a scrap piece of the same final plaque or on the back of damaged plaques (I use a lot of Mahogany). If this looks OK then I undo the crop and engrave image to final good plaque. SO no wastage of expensive blank pkaques.