PhotoGrav or not...which looks best?

[Martin Boekers]

[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]

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.

[Jack Burton]

I prefer the left

[Dan Hintz]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Whatever method you used to make the 4th one over in the top row, is the one you want to keep using...

[Linda Kroeker]

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]

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]

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]

Did you resize the photo, Linda? You can get bands from that.

[Martin Boekers]

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]

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]

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