I placed an image on an 8.5x11 piece of paper and saved it as a PDF. Once it was printed directly from Acrobat the image was printed slightly larger than when I print directly from Photoshop. Why is this and is there any way I can fix it?
By the way I've already checked to see if "scale to fit page" was checked and it was not.
I was wondering this b/c I'm sending a pdf to someone and I'm worried it's going to print larger than the actual size I want it at.
I made something exactly 14 inches in illustrator according to the AI ruler. When I print it, it is larger than 14 inches - over 14 1/4 in. Print settings are set to do not scale.
when i am saving into save for web & devices .. images are slightly blurring . when i'm seeing in photoshop images are good quality . after saving web & devices images are slightly blurring.
Photoshop 5, (not CS5, but version 5). I was using it on a Windows XP computer, but my new computer, running on Windows 7, would not run Photoshop 5. So, I bought CS6.
There's one problem. I use Photoshop primarily for coloring comics. Which means I create images in CMYK color. And I'm noticing a slight difference in certain colors in this new version. Most noticeably, in a color combo I use for coloring average "Caucasian Flesh".
My settings for this shade would normally be:
C-3 M-25 Y-25 K-0
This, in the old version of Photoshop, would produce a pretty average "beige" color. However, when I use this same color setting in the new version, the shade is noticeable pinker. Strangely, when I open documents in CS6 created in the older version, they retain the old, proper "beige" look. But the same color settiing in a new document produces this "rosey beige" color. (By the way, this isn't a "monitor issue"...... I have printed out the documents, and it's just as apparent in the printed versions.).
I suppose I could just use an altered color setting with less magenta, but I'd like to find out why this is happening, and why I can't use the same color settings I did in the old version of Photoshop.
I paint the background the same exact color as my layer background, the canvas color is not exactly the same. I'm assuming it's a color management/profile kind of issue, but I keep that stuff off.
I sometimes need to access my parents' PC for various reasons (ie. changing colour settings/fixing email probs) when I'm away from home. On our old Mac we used to use Timbuktu, which was quite good, but now we have a PC I believe there are better PC-PC remote access tools.
I'd be grateful for any tips anyone has for processing some photos to look in some way like these photos from the 1940s (including any possible effects aging has had) :
To begin with, I've read in various places that desaturating is not always the best way to change a colour photo to B&W, depending on the results you're after, and I'm thinking that perhaps this might be one of those times ?
My client and I are going back and forth on different computers and versions of Photoshop (cs4 for him and cs6 for me) and we are using the exact same font files. (I have quadruple checked this!!) We are also using the same settings and preferences both on screen and when we "save for web.
Also, all fonts are set to "crisp" -- BUT when we look at the files both on screen in photoshop, and on an ipad or screen as a .gif -- the cs6 version looks a TINY bit bolder/thicker. I'm working with various fonts and they're all doing this. See the two images below, I know the difference is almost insignificantly small, but this is an issue for the project we're working on.
With the burn tool one can use it several ways. The direct way is to just click on the tool and select whether you want highlights, mid-tones, or shadows. Each option changes the burn shade slightly. Also there are a host of blend modes which again changes the burn shade.
One can also create a burn layer and change blend modes, all with different effects. Then you can also use the brush tool and select color burn or color dodge, with the foreground color changing the shade of the burn.So all of these options give a great deal of control, but frankly I am just burned out on the process.
All I want is to have the burn deepen the color to more closely match the color in the shadows of the picture. It seems to work better on flesh and soft colors than on bright colors. In those cases I give up and resort to a brush in normal mode with color selected by eyedropper. But that can make the image more muddy as it covers up rather than intensify.
So wilh all the man-years of experience out there is there a more simple way to get the correct burn shade than going though 49 different variations? Or should I just stick with the brush and use a different blend mode?
I've been experimenting with syncing audio and video in a precise way (something like URL....), and have found that in every output format except "MPEG Optimizer...", the sync is a little off... or at least different than the preview.
Through experimentation, I have found that you can be off by one frame and not really notice, but two frames and things look "amateurly" synced. Given that there is one frame leeway, I figured that rounding due to frame rate differences are accounted for, but this is not the case.
In some cases, I have also noticed transition and F/X changes, depending on the output format. For example, I have an image of a statue with "AutoSketch" applied. In the preview, everything looks wonderful. In HD MP4 output, the statue is drawn top to bottom, then the base of the statue disappears and is re-drawn. In DV and WMV format, the drawing is noticeably different, even though the resolution is the same.
What gives? If we can't count on the output to be like the preview, then all that time spent making a killer sync is just wasted
I'm using Maya to render out a greyscale image TIFF 16bit for use in Mudbox as 'Sculpt Using displacement'. The background is set to 0.5 grey and rendered as TIFF 16 from Maya. However, when applied as a sculpt using 'displacement' in Mudbox, the mesh slightly inflates (or deflates actually) every so slightly.
Is the issue cuases by my mid grey from Maya , tiff format or something else ?
For very slight angles, Revit 2008 seems to INSIST that all walls be precisely orthographic in plan. I need to make some walls that are ever so alightly angled away from the cartesian (90 degree) grid. This is maybe 1/2" to 1" over 12' or so. It's a very small angle and Revit will not allow me to grab the corner and move just that end to the underlying plan that I imported. Lines, reference lines, reference planes all seem to follow this maddening restriction. I am working off of a survey that shows the existing building as non-orthographic so I must follow it. .
Also I have tried creating the walls by picking the angle on the underlying plan, but as soon as I do a wall cleanup, it snaps the wall back to the cartesian 90 dree grid system and the slight angle is gone..Is there something simple like the F8 command in ADT/AutoCAD to turn off the damned ortho constraint???
So whenever I plot a drawing the W's and M's are slightly stretched. Regardless of font. So far I have only noticed it among a few drawings in the same project.
I'm writing down some names & seeing how they'd look like when I use a different font but just now, I've realized that the text slightly blurs when it's rotated.
Original text: [URL]
Rotated: [URL]
I know this isn't much of a big deal but I'm just wondering if there is a way to prevent the blurring or anything like that. I tried 'sharpening' the selection but as far as I'm concerned, it didn't change anything.
I'm trying to crop a rectangle that is slightly off square, so the cropping rectangle is either clipping part of the image or not enough of the empty space. Is there a way to clip a non-rectangular area?
The images are actually parts of a map as a specific projection, and need to be clipped non-rectangular so they match up.
I am trying to combine these two images (I want to keep the very top of the first image but I like the second image better...there is just not enough of her hand). How would I be able to accomplish this while also getting the perspectives to match up? I can get the hand looking ok, but then the rest of the image is funky because nothing else matches.
Often I find that if I have a bitmap within coreldraw and click edit bitmap, do some edits, and then save and return to draw, the dimensions have changed very slightly.
For example I just edited a bitmap that was 24.25" x 9.5" by clicking edit bitmap. I then made some tone adjustments and brushed out a spot, and hit save in photopaint. Now back in draw, I find the image has been scaled slightly down to 24.25" x 9.477" (9.447 instead of 9.5)
Typically a door hadle lever comprising initially circular geometry at the rose (fixing point) with round bar (x place)geometry up to and around the initial lever bend. Then the lever elongates in section and curves along a y plane and possible twists along its sweep path. Ive tried mass and create solid using a path with worlplane aligned geometry with fail every time, Also tried in face based generic. The problem is a bit abstract in that only trying to take an image in a manufacturers catalog of a manufactured component and recreate the design phase. Can this be done (sucessfully) simply. If only there were a way to do a swept bleand withj sveral profiles on the path. Hosting circles and then curved profiles is not working for me - cant get uniformity in the way the circles sweep into the curved parts
I cannot get an added layer to show slightly transparent. I like the effect of bringing the main layer to the front and having most of the focus there with a slightly transparent layer for text, etc. Every time I try to use the transparent/opaque slider in the layer panel, it does nothing until I cross the 50% threshold and then the layer just disappears if I go below 50%. I originally had a .gif, but I tried saving it as .png, and .xcf (gimp file) and it still would not work.
Interestingly, I tried it on another .png I had and it worked.Why would it not work sometimes and then work other times? I have attached an example file. I wam trying to make the new layer with text slight transparent.
EDIT: it will not let me upload the file, it eeps saying "undefined", but if you want an example of what I'm doing check out [URL] ...., my website with previous example of slightly transparent layers made in paint.net
I have a Photoshop file with a transparent background and when I place it on the Illustrator against a colored background, it's still transparent on the screen, but when I print it, the transparent part comes out slightly white.
When i copy an artboard, sometimes the objects on both the original and the duplicate artboard have slightly moved. See sreenshots below what i mean (you have to look closely).
The right artboard was copied to the left by alt-dragging the artboard. This happens to me a lot, but not all the time, i can't really predict when it happens... At first i thought it came by an accidental mouse click or something, but the strange thing is that after the copy the objects slightly moved on both artboards.
We just did a :30 commercial spot and delivered it to several outlets for regional broadcast. Most of them accepted our compressed output just fine (an H.264 QT, 1080 @ 29.97, PCM audio) but one outlet kept rejecting the file for being TOO LONG. We measured the file in several programs on the Mac (AE, FCP, QT 7, QT X) and it always came up as exactly 30 seconds every time. Even AE pegged it at 899 frames, so we definitely weren't over.
AUDIO was running long, not the video. He sent us a screenshot from Vegas Pro (I guess their system is all PC-based) and it showed the video stream at :30.00 and the audio stream at 00:30:29 -- nearly a full second longer than the video! How could this happen? I always thought the length of each stream was identical, so why woudl the audio come out slightly longer?
One clue: the actual AIFF file used in the output comp is itself 00:31 long. I shortened it in the composition to fit within the time, and every setting for 'Duration' that I know of was set for 00:30, but it's like it just ignored the duration on output of the audio and exported the entire length of the track into the audio stream.
Here's my workflow -- I did use other programs to make the file so maybe something else is the culprit:
Finish in AECS6, render out to ProRes 4444 Master @ 23.98; re-import the file and drop into 29.97 comp to correct the frame rate for broadcast, render out to another 4444 Master file @ 29.97; dropped that into Apple Compressor to make H.264 file with PCM audio.
I created some shape with line tool and added extrude modifier to it. After being converted to editable poly I want edges to be slightly softer. But turbo smooth creates a big mess. Swift loop won't work. Is it because sides are single polygons? Is there an easy way to add edges inside them?
I just upgraded to LR4. I have a number of images that I converted to black and white using Silver Efex pro directly from Lightroom 3. I also have scans of images from black and white negatives in my catalog. When updating these images from process 2010 to process 2012 in LR4 each image becomes ever so slightly warmer (dirtier) on the screen. I noticed this because when updating the process I checked the review changes via before/after box. Some of the images where tweaked a bit in lightroom 3, others not. Strange thing is that when I run the cursor over the images the RGB values in the histogram are exactly the same in the before and after images.
I would have to say the before looks cleaner and more neutral. I don't mind using process 2010 for previously worked on images; however, it does seem to defeat the purpose of upgrading.
I cant find solution for my polyline plotting problem, because I cant really define it, so google wont give me proper answer.
I have made object by joining polyline and part of a circle, which I turned into polyline by using pedit. But when I try to plot it to pdf it shows as slightly offset combination of elements.
