Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

don't cartoon on fluorescent paper

Scanning this week's strip turned into quite the two-hour epic. I finished it (if you're wondering what it's about, adding the words "famous for" to the title might help), slapped it onto the scanner and what (to the human eye) looked like subtle opaque shading layers over an almost glowing background came out as an oversaturated mess, the lines burned to blurredness, most of the colours almost black. After trying to use a digital camera instead (couldn't get decent focus) fiddling with the gamma (changed it, but still destroyed the colours), giving it a piece of normal paper for contrast (didn't help, did leave a mark on the original, f*** it) and closing everything down and starting again (it's an old scanner) I gave up and we went out to get food. Cowley road was looking very shiny and got me thinking about the quality that make fluorescent things special, which is that they return a bit more light than everything else. Now, a scanner has a white background, so that some extra light can come back on the bounce-back through whatever you're scanning. Perhaps there was just too much light returning?

I got home, dug out a piece of black card and produced a much better result. But it's still nothing like as good as the orginal. Kids -- don't cartoon on fluorescent paper.


( 7 worms — Feed the birds )
11th Mar, 2005 11:57 (UTC)
Never trust a scanner
Scanning is a black art, and there's a huge difference between different scanners. Compare these two scans:
old scanner (http://www.caption.org/gallery/album16/aae) and new scanner (http://www.flickr.com/photos/adrian_cox/5702435/).

- Adrian
11th Mar, 2005 12:20 (UTC)
Hm...Looks really nice, actually. I'd like to see the original!
11th Mar, 2005 16:14 (UTC)
maybe we'll be in another exhibition together or something. It is kind of infuriating -- the colour won't even photograph properly ...

I'm trying to work out ways of working faster/improving my lettering. The next few may be kind of experimental ...
21st Mar, 2005 23:15 (UTC)
Re: well,
Beautiful. Loved it.
21st Mar, 2005 23:19 (UTC)
dem, is that you?
Are you back? [google google] hey-yeah, you are!

Uhhhhhh if you're not Dem, sorry. Please, introduce yourself ... and thanks very much :)
22nd Mar, 2005 23:53 (UTC)
Re: dem, is that you?
I'm not Dem. I'm anon, which I know is naughty in internet terms.

The strip's still beautiful though.

How much would you charge to design wedding invitations?
23rd Mar, 2005 17:09 (UTC)
about the wedding invites -- it'll depend on what you want doing. I usually only do cards as favours for friends, but if I like the idea (you do have an idea, right?) I'll be happy to oblige. One colour designs are £30-50 depending on size/complexity. Anything more than that, ask.
( 7 worms — Feed the birds )