Photoshop Gurus Forum
Welcome to Photoshop Gurus forum. Register a free account today to become a member! It's completely free. Once signed in, you'll enjoy an ad-free experience and be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Output for a typical, printed magazine.
- Thread starter Wetstuff
- Start date
Tom Mann
Guru
- Messages
- 7,222
- Likes
- 4,343
You may think that this is an odd, round-about way of answering your question, but my first question back to you has to be, "Does the final, printed version in the magazine look almost identical to what you see on your monitor?"
If the two don't look almost identical, do you regularly hardware calibrate the monitor and the video system on the computer that you use to design the advertisements? If your workflow IS color managed, do you use the "soft proofing" feature in Photoshop? Are you trying to get away with using a laptop or some cheapo desktop monitor that simply can't be brought into spec with respect to color and tonal accuracy?
The reason I had to start with these questions is because if your monitor (and video system) is lying to you (ie, is not telling you what the printed output will look like), you won't have a clue whether the "lack of pop" that you are experiencing is because (a) your design is lacking, versus, (b) problems in exactly how you prepare files to send to the printer (eg, choices of color space + printing profile + soft proofing issues, etc.) versus (c) exactly how the printer processes the files you send him (eg, what kind of press (eg, offset, web fed vs sheet fed, etc.), what inkset he's using, *exactly* what kind of paper, "dot gain" and other somewhat obscure settings for offset presses, etc.
You probably can't change (c) (unless you change printers), but you certainly can change (a) and (b). However, if you don't have an accurately calibrated system, you won't even know if you actually should change (a) and/or (b).
If this is the state you are in, you essentially have three choices:
(1) learn all about hardware calibration and all the printing-related aspects of PS that you intentionally have previously avoided;
(2) you can post a few samples of your PS files here and we'll take a look at them and give you our opinion on their "pop" (and/or anything that we find amiss); and/or
(3) find someone or some organization to act as your "pre-press man" - you send your PS files to him/her and they tweak it as needed and serve as an intermediary between you and the magazines. It's unfortunate, but as a cost-saving measure, over the past 5-10 years printing houses have greatly reduced the number of pre-press specialists on staff, shifting this task right onto the lap of the designers. :-( .
The bottom line is that there is no magic set of "tips" I can give you that will solve all your printing problems. To ensure that your readers actually get good quality images and graphics delivered to them, there are many, many things that need to be done correctly. If just one of them is done wrong, the quality of the final product suffers. This is why large advertising, news, and other firms employ people who specialize in such issues and serve as intermediaries between the designers and other "creatives" and the pressmen. Very few consumers and very few advertisers have a clue exactly what it takes to consistently get good color to the readers.
HTH,
Tom M
If the two don't look almost identical, do you regularly hardware calibrate the monitor and the video system on the computer that you use to design the advertisements? If your workflow IS color managed, do you use the "soft proofing" feature in Photoshop? Are you trying to get away with using a laptop or some cheapo desktop monitor that simply can't be brought into spec with respect to color and tonal accuracy?
The reason I had to start with these questions is because if your monitor (and video system) is lying to you (ie, is not telling you what the printed output will look like), you won't have a clue whether the "lack of pop" that you are experiencing is because (a) your design is lacking, versus, (b) problems in exactly how you prepare files to send to the printer (eg, choices of color space + printing profile + soft proofing issues, etc.) versus (c) exactly how the printer processes the files you send him (eg, what kind of press (eg, offset, web fed vs sheet fed, etc.), what inkset he's using, *exactly* what kind of paper, "dot gain" and other somewhat obscure settings for offset presses, etc.
You probably can't change (c) (unless you change printers), but you certainly can change (a) and (b). However, if you don't have an accurately calibrated system, you won't even know if you actually should change (a) and/or (b).
If this is the state you are in, you essentially have three choices:
(1) learn all about hardware calibration and all the printing-related aspects of PS that you intentionally have previously avoided;
(2) you can post a few samples of your PS files here and we'll take a look at them and give you our opinion on their "pop" (and/or anything that we find amiss); and/or
(3) find someone or some organization to act as your "pre-press man" - you send your PS files to him/her and they tweak it as needed and serve as an intermediary between you and the magazines. It's unfortunate, but as a cost-saving measure, over the past 5-10 years printing houses have greatly reduced the number of pre-press specialists on staff, shifting this task right onto the lap of the designers. :-( .
The bottom line is that there is no magic set of "tips" I can give you that will solve all your printing problems. To ensure that your readers actually get good quality images and graphics delivered to them, there are many, many things that need to be done correctly. If just one of them is done wrong, the quality of the final product suffers. This is why large advertising, news, and other firms employ people who specialize in such issues and serve as intermediaries between the designers and other "creatives" and the pressmen. Very few consumers and very few advertisers have a clue exactly what it takes to consistently get good color to the readers.
HTH,
Tom M
Wetstuff
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 52
- Likes
- 4
Wow.. thanks Tom. Where to start... I've made these ads for years on a variety of Macs. I still keep PSH2 and 3 on other iMacs and Powerbook.. CS5 on this one; a 2010, iMac 27". I calibrate the screen to Gamma 2.2 at 1920 x 1080, etc. But, I am a superficial user.
I am someone who can do about the first 10-20% of anything I attempt. Often that is enough to get me by. I am limited by my ability to concentrate and frankly to care too much about one aspect of a product, as I am responsible for all my various projects from start-to-finish.
One of the things I do is make covers for planes.. this is a typical type ad (reduced size here) I send over to the magazines, who I am quite sure, simply 'plug-and-print'. These are short run publications. Years ago there were things called 'separations' and the cost of even ROP color was in the trees.. today 4/C is dirt cheap for us small advertisers.
My ads seem to come out OK.. but one should always look for an 'edge'. I send these off as 300dpi JPGs. I keep thinking however that I can up the 'crispness' without overuse of Unsharp Mask. If there is an easy task (within the top 10% of Photoshop) I would love to know about it.
Thanks again for taking the time. Cheers.
Jim
I am someone who can do about the first 10-20% of anything I attempt. Often that is enough to get me by. I am limited by my ability to concentrate and frankly to care too much about one aspect of a product, as I am responsible for all my various projects from start-to-finish.
One of the things I do is make covers for planes.. this is a typical type ad (reduced size here) I send over to the magazines, who I am quite sure, simply 'plug-and-print'. These are short run publications. Years ago there were things called 'separations' and the cost of even ROP color was in the trees.. today 4/C is dirt cheap for us small advertisers.
My ads seem to come out OK.. but one should always look for an 'edge'. I send these off as 300dpi JPGs. I keep thinking however that I can up the 'crispness' without overuse of Unsharp Mask. If there is an easy task (within the top 10% of Photoshop) I would love to know about it.
Thanks again for taking the time. Cheers.
Jim
Tom Mann
Guru
- Messages
- 7,222
- Likes
- 4,343
Since you are a businessman, I'm going to be direct:
a) You were fighting an uphill battle right from the start because you took this photo at probably THE absolute worst time of the day to take such a shot, ie, on a clear day with the sun high in the sky. To make matters worse, you took it from the shadow side of the plane. This decision essentially forced you to make some fairly major adjustments in PS to deal with the resulting high contrast and deep shadows.
You did a pretty good job working around this problem, but images made with major post-processing (aka, PP) adjustments *never* look as good as getting a good image right at the start, in your camera. Forget the really interesting possibilities that would open up if you had shot around dusk with supplemental lighting, but, if you had done nothing more than positioned things so that you could shoot from the sunlit side of the plane, there would immediately have been vastly more "pop" in your photo. FYI, I've attached a copy of one of my photos from a shoot for an Annapolis publication of midshipmen training in a glider. Notice, in this photo, I didn't try to shoot into the sun.
b) In your photo, the viewers' eyes are not led to where you want them to be, ie, on the plane, and especially, on the cover you are trying to sell. There are several reasons for this. First, there is way too much detail and texture in the sky and on the ground, and because the viewer can see a bit of the hanger under the belly of the plane -- the viewers' eyes keep getting pulled to these areas.
Second, there is a pale blue/cyan color cast over just about everything in the image, so there are no good color contrasts to help guide the viewer's eyes. Part of the reason for this is because on a day like this, shadows will always have a blue cast because these areas are receiving their illumination from the blue sky, not the yellow sun. Below, I've also attached a little quick and dirty demo that shows the beneficial effects of minimizing the overall blue cast to provide color contrast (not just brightness contrasts) in your image. This little example introduces it's own problems (eg, 1 second masks ;-) ), and certainly does not purport to address all of the problems with the image, but is just to suggest how better color correction generally gives more impact / pop.
c) With respect to the post processing you did, in addition to there being too much detail in the sky (which I suspect you added or enhanced), there are also various odd pixellated and streaked areas in the sky. Also, the edge between the plane and the sky (and other background elements) was done poorly, so it left this odd boundary -- soft and with a dark halo in areas. Both of these issues might seem to be minor, but I can assure you that they really will detract from an overall impression of quality, and "pop" to the image.
If you want more details about my suggestions, don't hesitate to ask.
Best regards,
Tom
Attachments:
1. For immediate reference, here is the photo part of your advertisement (down-rez'ed for in-line display):
2. Same as #1 except simplified the sky and removed the overall blue cast in order to provide color contrast against the blue cover.
3. One of my shots from a shoot for a USNA publication showing midshipmen training in a glider. I put the sun to my right, instead of in front of the camera, to intentionally give plenty of "pop" and a feeling of depth to the photo. (Note: putting the sun in this position isn't something I would recommend for a portrait -- unless you also used a fill light).
a) You were fighting an uphill battle right from the start because you took this photo at probably THE absolute worst time of the day to take such a shot, ie, on a clear day with the sun high in the sky. To make matters worse, you took it from the shadow side of the plane. This decision essentially forced you to make some fairly major adjustments in PS to deal with the resulting high contrast and deep shadows.
You did a pretty good job working around this problem, but images made with major post-processing (aka, PP) adjustments *never* look as good as getting a good image right at the start, in your camera. Forget the really interesting possibilities that would open up if you had shot around dusk with supplemental lighting, but, if you had done nothing more than positioned things so that you could shoot from the sunlit side of the plane, there would immediately have been vastly more "pop" in your photo. FYI, I've attached a copy of one of my photos from a shoot for an Annapolis publication of midshipmen training in a glider. Notice, in this photo, I didn't try to shoot into the sun.
b) In your photo, the viewers' eyes are not led to where you want them to be, ie, on the plane, and especially, on the cover you are trying to sell. There are several reasons for this. First, there is way too much detail and texture in the sky and on the ground, and because the viewer can see a bit of the hanger under the belly of the plane -- the viewers' eyes keep getting pulled to these areas.
Second, there is a pale blue/cyan color cast over just about everything in the image, so there are no good color contrasts to help guide the viewer's eyes. Part of the reason for this is because on a day like this, shadows will always have a blue cast because these areas are receiving their illumination from the blue sky, not the yellow sun. Below, I've also attached a little quick and dirty demo that shows the beneficial effects of minimizing the overall blue cast to provide color contrast (not just brightness contrasts) in your image. This little example introduces it's own problems (eg, 1 second masks ;-) ), and certainly does not purport to address all of the problems with the image, but is just to suggest how better color correction generally gives more impact / pop.
c) With respect to the post processing you did, in addition to there being too much detail in the sky (which I suspect you added or enhanced), there are also various odd pixellated and streaked areas in the sky. Also, the edge between the plane and the sky (and other background elements) was done poorly, so it left this odd boundary -- soft and with a dark halo in areas. Both of these issues might seem to be minor, but I can assure you that they really will detract from an overall impression of quality, and "pop" to the image.
If you want more details about my suggestions, don't hesitate to ask.
Best regards,
Tom
Attachments:
1. For immediate reference, here is the photo part of your advertisement (down-rez'ed for in-line display):
2. Same as #1 except simplified the sky and removed the overall blue cast in order to provide color contrast against the blue cover.
3. One of my shots from a shoot for a USNA publication showing midshipmen training in a glider. I put the sun to my right, instead of in front of the camera, to intentionally give plenty of "pop" and a feeling of depth to the photo. (Note: putting the sun in this position isn't something I would recommend for a portrait -- unless you also used a fill light).
Attachments
Wetstuff
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 52
- Likes
- 4
Well said Tom. Time of day is important as you say. I don't always have the luxury of staging during the Golden Hour. No workie - No eatie.
The original background was a tin hangar. I have a ton of 'skies' that I clip from place like this while checking the surf: http://video-monitoring.com/beachcams/jensen/index.htm The sky in Florida changes daily. I have saved many of the best/dramatic. In this case, I did a sloppy job of masking it.
To your point.. I often take my blur brush and beat the the hell out of the background on many of the internet pages I make; I should have here. You are correct to-a-point about focus on the cover. Having been around these guys for a few decades, the whole concept of covering needs a healthy sell before you get to "who/what with".
Good tips - thanks.
(I have done some work for the NA Flying Activity. The nicest guy, Frank Kennedy, runs it - when he's not flying a specially oversized, Boeing 747 between China/U.S. ..full of iPhones and iPads)
Jim
The original background was a tin hangar. I have a ton of 'skies' that I clip from place like this while checking the surf: http://video-monitoring.com/beachcams/jensen/index.htm The sky in Florida changes daily. I have saved many of the best/dramatic. In this case, I did a sloppy job of masking it.
To your point.. I often take my blur brush and beat the the hell out of the background on many of the internet pages I make; I should have here. You are correct to-a-point about focus on the cover. Having been around these guys for a few decades, the whole concept of covering needs a healthy sell before you get to "who/what with".
Good tips - thanks.
(I have done some work for the NA Flying Activity. The nicest guy, Frank Kennedy, runs it - when he's not flying a specially oversized, Boeing 747 between China/U.S. ..full of iPhones and iPads)
Jim
Tom Mann
Guru
- Messages
- 7,222
- Likes
- 4,343
BTW, I'm not sure how well this would go over with your potential customers, but depending on how you want to strike a balance in your advertisements between realism and eye-catching (but always featuring your covers), don't forget that there are a million funky looks such as these...
