When it comes to bringing my City of Heroes characters to life, I know of an actual, real hero, and his name is Alex Dai. Like any true hero, Alex is patient, kind and very skilled, and he has already graced me with two amazing pieces. I actually should have posted this first one a long time ago, but I didn't really have that much presence on the Titan Network at the time.
A while ago, Alex helped render Xanta, my "Troll Girl" how she was always meant to be, and it came out a little something like this:
(https://images.weserv.nl/?url=imageshack.us%2Fa%2Fimg51%2F5825%2Fxanta00photobucket.jpg)
Now, I love City of Heroes, but as you can clearly tell, it could never give me THAT kind of character. Well, Alex Dai could, and this became my favourite pic in all the world. This is just so much... Her. Big, chunky, imposing and wearing half a car's worth of boots, gloves and shoulders, with a sword wider in the blade than most people are at the shoulders and as long as she is tall, rife with magic runes. This, to me, is simply amazing.
But that's not what I actually came to talk about. Beautiful as Xanta is, I actually have another pride and joy to show off. This time, Alex gave life to 13, my "alien robot," and for as much as I liked her in-game model, this:
(https://images.weserv.nl/?url=imageshack.us%2Fa%2Fimg833%2F539%2F1300photobucket.jpg)
This is better! I don't know that I'll ever play a game which lets me have a character like this, but HOT DAMN if I wouldn't love to! In City of Heroes, 13 was basically a Praetorian Clockwork with a custom helmet and a paintjob loud enough to wake the dead, but I could never shake the feeling that I was just using a set. Alex gave her life, however, because this rendition of 13 is simply breath-taking. He even pioneered that "hair," which I hadn't even thought about, but it all works so well.
---
In both cases, I couldn't be happier with the results, and in both cases, I get the sense that Alex hates my guts for being a nit-picky, stubborn pest like you all know I am :) I'm surprised he ever wanted to work with me a second time, but I'm glad he did. Now my only hope is I haven't burned him out this time...
Alex is da f&%$!ing man. Period.
Great stuff bro!
Quote from: ThorsAssassin on December 31, 2012, 03:28:36 PM
Alex is da f&%$!ing man. Period.
Great stuff bro!
He is my hero, indeed :) And thank you. I'm really proud to have both of those.
I have had quite a bit of art done by Alex over the years. Great guy and great artist to boot.
Recommend him whenever I get the chance to.
they are rather fab!
thanks! I think both came out great, and I knew the job was dangerous when I took it...the second time! We'll work again someday I'm sure!
Why no artist site plug? I want MOAR!
Click the globe under imagesbyalex's icon.
http://imagesbyalex.deviantart.com/
Globe? Click? What kind of effort do you want me to uti--oh, thanks for the link.
or I could have put it in my signature...didn't even know about that globe thing. Live and learn!
I'm so glad the art community didn't die when the official forums died. I love you all to death.
Quote from: Imagesbyalex on January 06, 2013, 05:36:00 AMthanks! I think both came out great, and I knew the job was dangerous when I took it...the second time! We'll work again someday I'm sure!
Some day, when you're not sick of seeing my e-mails, yes :) I'm sure something else equally weird will come to me that demands it be made "flesh." Because going through my character concepts, I really can't find any others with designs interesting enough to deserve such attention. I don't know... :)
Speaking of "made flesh," I'm in the process of getting those two pics printed up so I can hang them on my wall. I'm always looking for more ways to show off your great art, and having them present in my room for guests to fawn over would be a great idea. I'm currently trying to figure out how large I can get them.
What kind of "DPI" would you say is good for photo paper quality print? Does anybody know? Because that would determine size.
Quote from: Samuel Tow on January 10, 2013, 01:18:03 PM
Speaking of "made flesh," I'm in the process of getting those two pics printed up ...
What kind of "DPI" would you say is good for photo paper quality print? Does anybody know? Because that would determine size.
Generally speaking, 300-360dpi is preferable for high print quality. However, you can't just take a standard screen resolution image (usually 72dpi) and 'blow it up' by increasing the dpi. It's like pumping air into a cake; you're not adding substance. The print will look awful, even if it doesn't show that way on screen. If Alex did not provide you with the full size files, you'll have to talk to and possibly negotiate with him for them.
Quote from: syrusb on January 10, 2013, 07:03:57 PMGenerally speaking, 300-360dpi is preferable for high print quality. However, you can't just take a standard screen resolution image (usually 72dpi) and 'blow it up' by increasing the dpi. It's like pumping air into a cake; you're not adding substance. The print will look awful, even if it doesn't show that way on screen. If Alex did not provide you with the full size files, you'll have to talk to and possibly negotiate with him for them.
He did. I have huge JPG files ~4000x4000 in size. I've dealt with DPI before, many of my University colleagues posting articles had magazines make very specific requests for them for pictures they provide. Why I ask is they were required to supply 300 DPI for black-and-white pictures and 1000 DPI for colour ones, AND supply files in TIF format, which ballooned file size ridiculously. In fact, the reason I have a JPG from Alex and not a BMP is the bitmaps are, I think, ~100MB in size and next to impossible to transfer over e-mail.
So, 300DPI is good, then? Yeah, those pics should be more than large enough to account for that. I guess my next question is... Is a high-quality JPG good for print, or must I specifically use a BMP or a TIFF or some other uncompressed format? And yes, I know TIFF can technically have JPG compression in it. The files I have are both ~2-3MB in file size, so they're big for JPGs. Would those be good enough?
Quote from: Samuel Tow on January 11, 2013, 10:04:24 AM
So, 300DPI is good, then? Yeah, those pics should be more than large enough to account for that. I guess my next question is... Is a high-quality JPG good for print, or must I specifically use a BMP or a TIFF or some other uncompressed format? And yes, I know TIFF can technically have JPG compression in it. The files I have are both ~2-3MB in file size, so they're big for JPGs. Would those be good enough?
JPG format is made to compress, even at minimum compression; you lose valuable data that can be essential for getting high quality prints. JPG is perfect for web/electronic display. I would never send a JPG as a high quality print file.
TIF is the standard print quality/archival file, assuming you don't compress it (Most programs offer the option to compress/not compress when saving as TIF). Yes, the images can be quite large, but the trade off is no loss of file quality, data such as color algorithms or bit depth.
BMP is kind of like TIF, made by Microsoft. Personally I've never been a fan as BMPs tended to be unnecessarily large, clunky and always displayed oddly for me. I've never trusted how they compressed data. JPG, PNG, TIF are all universally recognized image types able to be viewed by just about everything. I gave up on BMP a long time ago, either trashing or converting them when I could.
If you only have JPGs from Alex, you might ask him for TIF versions instead; full size TIFs are your best bet for high quality prints.
This conversation is hurting my brain because I am also named Alex and I am like "Buh buh I didn't give anybody any images!"
Well, I'll see about acquiring larger files then, but that might be problematic. Still, it's my egg to stand on so I'll figure it out. But you're certain that a JPG, even a high-quality one, won't be good for print? I ask this because they're actually very nice, and at 300 DPI as a benchmark, I can get them quite large without ever getting close to that. 13, for instance, can get to half a metre by half a metre at 300 DPI, and there's no way I can even store something this large, let alone get it printed. The largest I think I can get printed around here is whatever fits on an A4 page of photo paper, which is right around 600 DPI, and that's actually higher than the resolution of any printer I had access to.
I guess my point in asking about JPGs is is compression going to be a problem if I don't get anywhere near the DPI of the actual printing device?
JPGs are compressed by definition, while TIFF is not.
And the more a JPG is modified, the worse the compression gets, and the more artifacted the image gets.
I stand by the get high-DPI TIFFs from your artist whenever possible statement.
Fair enough, I'll look into it.
Quote from: Samuel Tow on January 12, 2013, 05:07:57 PM
...But you're certain that a JPG, even a high-quality one, won't be good for print? ...I can get them quite large without ever getting close to that. 13, for instance, can get to half a metre by half a metre at 300 DPI, and there's no way I can even store something this large, let alone get it printed. ...
I guess my point in asking about JPGs is is compression going to be a problem if I don't get anywhere near the DPI of the actual printing device?
You can always print smaller without affecting quality. If your native file size is 300dpi, 9x12" you can print at that size or smaller; you can generally safely go up about half as much without image blurriness, too. I don't usually advise it, but it's an option. (If you've ever seen a printed image that is blurry or severely pixelated, chances are the source file was too small to print at that size and it was compressed as well.) If you have a large canvas size you are not required to print that large if what you're looking for is a 5x7" print. But you can't take a 5x7" canvas size file and print at twice that size without incurring blur and/or artifacts as your computer/printer's computer tries to compensate for data that isn't there.
I know back in the day JPGs would also lose quality over time as they were moved, uploaded, downloaded, resaved, etc. So a file uploaded, then saved elsewhere, passed around, takes a quality hit over time. I'm not sure if jpg algorithms have changed much since then, it's certainly possible. It's kinda like passing around an image on paper; each hand it passes to will degrade the material over time in small doses. (See also, how finger oils corrode metal over time.)
So, to get the best print quality you want a source file that does not include compression or loss in its format.
Of course for the sake of ease we've been speaking with DPI but strictly speaking, images are PPI and prints are DPI; PPI: pixels per inch, or density of pixels, and DPI: dots per inch, or the density of colored dots from a printer/how fine the dots of a print head can be. Anyway, you need a sufficient quality base of your source file to achieve a high quality print. That's not just DPI/PPI but also lack of compression (metadata and image artifacts). It is possible the JPGs you have are sufficient but they could end up being problematic at the printer itself. (I didn't see these color artifacts in my source file, what's up with this print?)
Archival quality files/scans are why I have a couple separate drives for storage. (Main drive +2-3 back ups.) I get not everyone has the ability to have extra space, including myself. Before I switched to hard drives I archived everything on CDs, which I have only recently begun to destroy. Thumb drives are also terribly cheap these days for an extra 2-4GB in a pinch.
I'm still mulling this over. Alex is too polite to admit it but I pretty much abused his patience so I don't want to bother him with what is, frankly, going to turn out to be a pain in the ass. A roughly 4000x4000 uncompressed image - and two of them - are not easy to transfer over the 'net. I also actually tried printing the JPGs once already. My father has a large office printer and a colour toner her apparently doesn't mind wasting so much, and we did actually quite a few prints of the two JPGs I had, both on regular paper and on a stack of photo-quality paper he apparently had lying about. I actually end up seeing the printer's pixellation - and that's a 600DPI machine - before I see the JPG artefacts, and that's with me basically rubbing my face on the paper.
Trouble is, the colours are very muted and much darker an I don't know that a printer built for an office is a good substitute for that. There are a few "photo shops" around town that I could ask around in, but I doubt they have actual photographers working at them. Even back in the days of physical film, the girls at the counter just took your canisters and sent them to be developed, and these days they just snap, print and cut. I doubt many of them know much more about image quality than I do. You guys have been invaluable :)
Basically, I want to exhaust all my options locally before I bug Alex again. The pics he sent me are quite good quality. They do show some JPG artefacts, but one's 5792x5100 and the other's 4952x6320. If it doesn't end up too expensive, I might just have to go ahead and have one printed out to see if I can't see any artefacts, basically as a test run, but your concerns about quality are well justified. One way or another, this has to happen, though. I want physical media of those two :)
The muted/dark colors on the print could be because they don't have a color profile or have an inferior one. It could also be they are a different color profile or calibration from your monitor. And some printers just print either too light or dark before adjustment.
I would google for local print places (not photo developer labs) and make a few calls and ask what their assorted rates and services are. A print shop will have the software needed to do the color/contrast corrections you need on your pieces. A local printer would be willing to make a few test runs for you on cheap paper so can get the look you want, and charge you little to none for them knowing you want to get a high quality print or two from them. (Plus, supporting local business, yay.)
If you take the images on thumbdrive (I have even taken images in on my phone and used a usb to usb cable to connect to their computer), they would probably also be willing to save your files with their corrections in TIF format so you at least have somewhat better files to work with in the future. Mind you, any flaws that are there will remain but the files will not degrade further.)
Oh, local businesses don't have web pages or call numbers. You basically have to know it exists and walk in to ask questions, and many either don't know or wouldn't bother with too much in terms of detail. But yes, I'm thinking the printer I used just printed too dark. That's been a running problem in our office, as both large machines just print much darker than what's on your screen. We don't print colour often, but when we do, it never matches the monitor. I know there are colour calibration issues, but all of our monitors match each other, it's the printer that's errant.
I'll let you know when I find anything out.
Well the Thirteen file is 5792x5100 so if you uploaded it to Imagekind, they could do a 36x48 print, they suggest 6000 for 44x60: http://www.imagekind.com/printing.aspx
The file is 19x17 at 300dpi, so that size or smaller would look fine, you could probably go bigger but probably not more than 1/2 up like Liz said, but the blurriness might take a really really close up viewing, and most posters should be viewed further then a few inches away...I do drive museum guards nuts because I like to get almost within licking distance to some paintings, but that's totally another discussion.
I've used Imagekind and they are pretty good, I've also done prints with Deviant. I'd like to hear what others have used and had good results with.
While jpeg is lossy, unless you're editing and then saving the file again, you shouldn't have any loss. I save the jpeg from the photoshop file once, if I made any changes, it would always be in the original file, and I would save a new jpeg. I always wondered if any artists would actually edit jpegs and then resave them(unless they didn't have the original, but since I made the pic in the first place, I guess hard drive crashes...but then I would do the image again vs using a jpeg....)
If you do get a cool print, I would love to see a photo of it on your wall, you can even stand next to it!
(https://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l259/g3macboy/city%20of%20heroes/my_poster_zpsbd0a10c8.jpg)
Got that one from Deviant, pretty sure I uploaded a jpeg, and Liz is even in it!
Sorry I didn't respond for so long, guys. Finding a place to print this for me has been a pain in the ass, but I did score a pretty good business. Sadly, the largest they did was A4, more or less, so I couldn't blow this up to a poster, but I did get a couple of very nice desktop images that I'm going to showcase in my home. I even made a photo of them!
(https://images.weserv.nl/?url=img585.imageshack.us%2Fimg585%2F7407%2Fgalleryyg.jpg)
I'm not in the photo, however. So maybe I'm a bit camera shy :) I also apologise for the image quality, it's the best my phone could do without an SD card (long story) and with my unsteady hands. This is basically the only shot out of a dozen that wasn't either blurry or off to the side, so I went with it.
I chose desktop frames instead of wall-mounted because I don't feel comfortable hammering nails into my wall. It's all brick on the other side and the last time I tried it I chipped a large chunk out of the paint. Besides, I couldn't get those printed large enough to mount to the wall - they just don't offer large prints where I live, or at the very least don't do so for a reasonable price. I've seen my colleagues print out whole posters, but I'm not confident in the image quality and I don't actually have room in the house for large posters. There are very few bare walls. Hell, I barely made shelf space :) I need to disassemble the Millennium Falcon and the Galactic Enforcer to make some more. They're gathering too much dust to leave them assembled for as long as I have. But, yeah, most of the room I'm likely to put anything in is either floor-to-ceiling bookcase, window or light switches and lamps.
In either case, though, thank you kindly, Alex! :) I spent half an hour... Probably closer to 45 minutes at the photo studio while the guy there worked on this, and the artwork was turning heads left and right. Everyone that came in after we got one framed and upright stopped to look at it like I'd parked a million dollar Ferrari outside (I don't actually own one of those), it was awesome. Few people commented as people here are generally not inclined to do so, but everyone was stopping to check it out. Makes me proud to own it! :)
Again, thank you kindly.
*edit*
I'll probably get better frames for them in time. That ought to be the easier part.