Sharing some artwork

Samuel Tow · December 31, 2012, 01:15:15 PM

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...

ThorsAssassin · December 31, 2012, 03:28:36 PM

Alex is da f&%$!ing man. Period.

Great stuff bro!

Samuel Tow · December 31, 2012, 03:30:00 PM

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.

ThorsAssassin · December 31, 2012, 03:40:02 PM

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.

Riff · December 31, 2012, 10:05:57 PM

they are rather fab!

Imagesbyalex · January 06, 2013, 05:36:00 AM

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!

mikoroshi · January 06, 2013, 05:50:02 AM

Why no artist site plug? I want MOAR!

Aggelakis · January 06, 2013, 05:51:11 AM

Click the globe under imagesbyalex's icon.

http://imagesbyalex.deviantart.com/

mikoroshi · January 07, 2013, 06:01:01 AM

Globe? Click? What kind of effort do you want me to uti--oh, thanks for the link.

Imagesbyalex · January 08, 2013, 06:57:09 AM

or I could have put it in my signature...didn't even know about that globe thing. Live and learn!

Turboski · January 08, 2013, 07:53:57 AM

I'm so glad the art community didn't die when the official forums died. I love you all to death.

Samuel Tow · January 10, 2013, 01:18:03 PM

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.

Bliz · January 10, 2013, 07:03:57 PM

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.

Samuel Tow · January 11, 2013, 10:04:24 AM

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?

Bliz · January 12, 2013, 07:26:37 AM

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.

mikoroshi · January 12, 2013, 08:38:52 AM

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!"

Samuel Tow · January 12, 2013, 05:07:57 PM

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?

mikoroshi · January 12, 2013, 07:06:12 PM

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.

Samuel Tow · January 12, 2013, 07:50:40 PM

Fair enough, I'll look into it.

Bliz · January 12, 2013, 11:35:09 PM

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.