private_di wrote:Edit:
It's a little tricky for me to understand what you are saying, and the guy was also having trouble and used language that made his frustration obvious. I sometimes feel that way when I'm trying to help someone but it's clear we aren't speaking the same language. I say don't sweat it. 


Regarding your arched stroke..........I'm still trying to grasp it.  

Cross-posted to the "Graphic Designers Ho" thread...

Hey guys, I'm having Photoshop CS4 issues...I posted a problem I'm having to this stupid forum here, and the final message to me gets a bit snippy saying my answers are "cryptic".  Could some of you guys take a look at the thread (take a look at the message where I post images to the problem), and tell me if I'm being "cryptic"???

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
nothing else checked.

 JrzyTmata wrote: 
Any of those other things checked?
 
I googled "Photoshop Save As EPS Dialog" and it looks like most printers want the jpeg encoding, not ascii or binary. Hmm.
 
I was always told to save as binary too, back in the dark ages, but it always brings up a warning that some images contain binary data and might puke on my shoes. I always ignore it and it's always fine.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
ASCII makes the final files huge. we use binary.

 JrzyTmata wrote: 


What are your settings here? ASCII85 encoding is the default, I think.

 JrzyTmata wrote: 
If I had to not save as .psd now, I don't know what I'd do. So cool to bring in layered transparent files without that hard clipping path edge...
 
but I should run some tests to see how different formats print.

 Manbird wrote: 
AI is too slow for stuff that doesn't absolutely require it. IMO. Seriously clunky, especially with images and effects etc. I go in, do whatever I have to that ID won't do, and get out.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
no specifications on screens on my end.
this may not matter anymore. I figured it out years ago and got in the habit of saving files as EPS.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
AI is my drug of choice. But hey, good to know about the noise thing. 

 JrzyTmata wrote: 
Hmm. I wonder what's going on. I'm thinking that the RIP is set to downsample or otherwise mangle raster data (tiff, jpeg) but the raster data is hidden when it's in an eps? maybe. It's been so long, I can't remember, but when you save the eps in photoshop, are you specifying the halftone screens? Maybe your RIP's default screens are dumb.

 rosedraws wrote: 
I don't know if it's our RIP or a general thing, but I find that saving photoshop images in EPS format gives a much smoother look in the final output. this is especially noticeable in images with sharp angles (in my case, wood furniture details, patterns in fabric)
I have no idea if this would affect gradients. YMMV

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
I started out with the composite in InDesign, but I wanted more control over the fades... It ended up doing what I wanted in PS , it's just that the brushes weren't behaving as I expected them to, and wondered if it was a CS4 thing.

And noise is a good idea. Don't know how I forgot about that.  

 rosedraws wrote: 
You might consider running the background at a lower dpi  and only keep the product shot layer hi-res, and composite the whole thing in InDesign. In fact, consider building the gradient fade in ID.

By the way, putting a little noise in the fades will help them print more smoothly.

 rosedraws wrote: 
It has something to do with your profile. Don't do this work in CMYK or a narrow spectrum RGB (ie: sRGB). There's something critical I'm forgetting but can't look it up right now. If you don't get a solution, let me know, and I'll see if I can find it.

 swell_sailor wrote: 
I have only noticed it since switching to CS4.  I haven't gone back to see if it's better in CS3... but the brushes feel different.

The document is huge.  25" x 37", 300dpi, lots of layers and masks.  I probably don't need that high a resolution for a poster, but, well, why not.  

 rosedraws wrote: 
That looks like a good candidate for the gradient tool to me. Then go back and refine the mask with the brush. Unless I'm not seeing it right.

Edit: Or possibly blur the mask then refine it afterwards.

And by the way, I really like what you've done.

 rosedraws wrote: 
Do you think this happened with your upgrade to CS4. I'm still using CS3 and haven't noticed any odd behavior with the brushes. 

I'll often change the size of the brush when I change the hardness. This combination usually works well for me. I'll also use the gradient tool, or apply a gaussian blur to the mask when necessary. We all have our little tricks but if you are using your same tricks while getting a different outcome I'm not sure what would cause that. Have you considered resetting photoshop?

Hmmm, is the document size out of the ordinary? 

not a straight fade, as you see.  
Man, the colors got whack when uploaded to flicker.   

And God only knows how my subtle little fades are gonna print.  

I just created a 1.3G photoshop doc.  

This is why i have the worlds heaviest computer.  It's still complaining.

But PS4 seems to really be struggling with brushes and fades at the light end of the spectrum... I can't get my mask to feather the way I want.  I've tried different brushes, but they keep giving me a hard line once it gets around 7%.  I'm trying to fade off to zero... not drop suddenly to zero.  It took a lot of back and forth... using the white brush on the mask, then the black brush.  I got it to work, but clearly it's not working as well as it used to.   

Anyone else noticed this?