Comic Publishing: Understanding Resolution and File Formats for Optimal Printing

[JasonRox]

I read this about comic publishing. I'm not familiar with it.

- comics (when placed on the page) must be at least 200dpi, 10”x2”, CMYK
*.tif
files with no layers.

I'm going to simply create the comic on Paint. The basic program you get.

I know I can save it in terms of inches and as a file of *.tif.

What's with the layers and 200dpi?

 

[Mk]

200 dpi is concerning to print quality, how many ink "dots per square inch."

They want files with no layers, as in, don't do it in Photoshop, I am guessing, because tiffs aren't layered.

 

[JasonRox]

200 dpi is concerning to print quality, how many ink "dots per square inch."

They want files with no layers, as in, don't do it in Photoshop, I am guessing, because tiffs aren't layered.

Since I'm drawing in Paint, I probably don't have to worry about that.

 

[Moonbear]

All of that could be done in PhotoShop. If you created it as layers in PhotoShop, you just have to flatten the image for the final copy.

Can you convert it to CMYK in Paint? That's important for the printing. It'll look like crap on the screen, because your monitor displays best in RGB mode, but for commercial printing, they need to separate the colors differently for their printers. That's what CMYK is referring to.

dpi is the resolution, and again, I know you can change that easily in PhotoShop, but I don't know about Paint.

 

[Mk]

All of that could be done in PhotoShop. If you created it as layers in PhotoShop, you just have to flatten the image for the final copy.

Yeah, and if you're saving at is tiff and not psd, than what do you worry about the layers for?

Can you convert it to CMYK in Paint?

Can you do that in Photoshop? I remember the color choices as monochrome, greyscale, and RGB. I'll check later. I would be glad to convert it if you want. I thought CMYK was for printing, and it did not matter what the file said about it.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I just took an image to paint, put some graffitti on it and then hit file--->save as. A window comes up which gives you a drop down menu as to what type of image you want to save it as. Tiff is one of the options, so you can do this with paint.

 

[JasonRox]

Well, I hope it's good enough.

I'll try to get a copy of photoshop somewhere.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I can't figure out if CYMK is a kind of file or just a printer setting.

 

[JasonRox]

I can't figure out if CYMK is a kind of file or just a printer setting.

I think it's a color configuration thing on the computer, so that the colors you want print out as the colors you see on the screen.

 

[Anttech]

Well, I hope it's good enough.

I'll try to get a copy of photoshop somewhere.

Use 'The gimp' Its free and as powerful as photoshop, plus you are supporting open source.

 

[shmoe]

I think it's a color configuration thing on the computer, so that the colors you want print out as the colors you see on the screen.

They won't look quite like you see on the screen. Your screen uses Red, Green, Blue to make the images, the printer uses Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, and blacK, you won't be able to get a perfect match. The advantage of working in CMYK is you wouldn't be relying on the printer converting from rgb->cmyk, so you do at least know what will be sent to your printer. If you really want to know what colour it will be when printed you could get printed cmyk colour samples.

The gimp doesn't have cmyk support built in, but there are plug-ins available that appear to be somewhat in the testing stage (I haven't tried them). It's free though, so that's nice of course. Places like kinkos will have photoshop you can use (pay for computer time) if you don't know anyone who has it. Either will let you adjust the dpi and image size. Though of course you can't really add more resolution without looking like garbage, so if you are making your image in paint, make sure to have enough pixels (I don't think it has any options except essentially the pixel count).

 

[Moonbear]

Yeah, and if you're saving at is tiff and not psd, than what do you worry about the layers for?

I'm not sure what it does for printing, but it reduces the file size considerably not to save all the layers. But, I always do that as the very last step, because of course you create the layers so you can move them around as you're editing. Once in a blue moon, I've had trouble with layers that seemed to disappear when printed even though they were clearly visible on the screen, so flattening the image prevents that from happening.

Or are you unaware that layers are preserved in tiff files as well as psd files? You only lose the layers in more compressed formats, like jpeg files.

I don't know what Paint does, but I'm assuming if you can move around all the elements in an image independently, it's including layers.

Can you do that in Photoshop? I remember the color choices as monochrome, greyscale, and RGB. I'll check later. I would be glad to convert it if you want. I thought CMYK was for printing, and it did not matter what the file said about it.

Yes, you can do that in PhotoShop, and it IS for printing. It's the way commercial printers separate out the colors in color images, so if it's already saved that way, you'll know what you're getting and can adjust it better. You can convert to CMYK at the end, but I've never liked the result, so anything that's going to be used entirely for publishing, I prefer working in CMYK right from the start.

 

[DaveC426913]

Yes, you can do that in PhotoShop, and it IS for printing. It's the way commercial printers separate out the colors in color images, so if it's already saved that way, you'll know what you're getting and can adjust it better.

And of course, that's just process colours. There's also spot colours...

But stick with process for what you're doing.


Process colours: every colour, shade and tint is created from a blend of just a few primary colours. Usually, those are CMYK, but sometimes there are more. eg. It's very hard to make a good green from C and Y, so a printer might have 5 or even 6 primary colours (the new photoprinters that come with digital cameras are often like this). Look on the flap of your nearest cereal box for a calibration pattern and see how many primary colours they use. Process colours are used whenever there is a wide range of colours needed - such as an illo or artwork.


Spot colours: specific, exact colours are chosen. This is how business cards and stationery are made and almost always how corporate logos are printed. You don't blend colours to make the blue you want, you pick Blue #47B. Spot colours are exactly the same every time.

Sorry, maybe that's TMI.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Your screen uses Red, Green, Blue to make the images, the printer uses Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, and blacK, you won't be able to get a perfect match. The advantage of working in CMYK is you wouldn't be relying on the printer converting from rgb->cmyk, so you do at least know what will be sent to your printer.

shmoe, does this mean that if you're working in CMYK that the screen shows you how it will come out of the printer?

I don't seem to have the option of working in CMYK with my photoediting software and there is always a discrepancy between the screen image and what I print.

In any event, it isn't at all clear to me why anyone ever thought it was a good idea to manufacture CMYK printer cartridges if everyone's screen displays in RGB.

 

[Pythagorean]

photoshop is the way to go. I think you can even chose your dpi on there.

 

[shmoe]

shmoe, does this mean that if you're working in CMYK that the screen shows you how it will come out of the printer?

It will never quite match exactly, but you don't have to worry about having RGB colours that a CMYK printer can't approximate well causing potentially unexpected hideous results.

Does your photoediting software come with some kind of monitor calibration setup to try to match your printer?

In any event, it isn't at all clear to me why anyone ever thought it was a good idea to manufacture CMYK printer cartridges if everyone's screen displays in RGB.

I think the end product is better quality. It might use less ink overall as well, but I don't know for certain why it's used. I don't really work with any of this, I'm just usually standing in the line of fire when my girlfriend is in need of some computer assistance.

photoshop is the way to go. I think you can even chose your dpi on there.

It can change dpi. Photoshop is expensive though.

 

[zoobyshoe]

It will never quite match exactly, but you don't have to worry about having RGB colours that a CMYK printer can't approximate well causing potentially unexpected hideous results.

I wish I had a way to try it. Color is a big issue for me when I print out photographs of my colored pencil drawings. So far they have always been noticably altered from the original images.

Does your photoediting software come with some kind of monitor calibration setup to try to match your printer?

Not that I'm aware of, but I've also never looked for such a feature. I use Corel Paint Shop Pro X which was reccomended as being almost as powerful as Photoshop but considerably cheaper and easier. I haven't remotely begun to exhaust all the things it seems to be able to do, so I'm pretty happy with it.

 

[DaveC426913]

In any event, it isn't at all clear to me why anyone ever thought it was a good idea to manufacture CMYK printer cartridges if everyone's screen displays in RGB.

OK, the question is more rightly:

" why anyone ever thought it was a good idea to manufacture RGB screens if all the printers in the world are CMYK."

Since printers were around many decades before cathode ray tubes.

Anyway, if "light-based screens" and "pigment-based papers" could use the same colour spaces, you can bet they'd make them that way. (And if you invent one you'll be an instant billionaire).

 

[zoobyshoe]

OK, the question is more rightly:

" why anyone ever thought it was a good idea to manufacture RGB screens if all the printers in the world are CMYK."

Since printers were around many decades before cathode ray tubes.

Anyway, if "light-based screens" and "pigment-based papers" could use the same colour spaces, you can bet they'd make them that way. (And if you invent one you'll be an instant billionaire).

I don't really understand this because I seem to be able to go to my photoediting program and make patches of perfectly authentic looking cyan, magenta, and yellow on a screen that supposedly can only display in red, green and blue.

How can my screen display yellow at all if the closest thing to yellow at it's disposal is green, a mixture of yellow and blue?

 

[shmoe]

Yellow on screen is made from red+green light. It's not the same as blending paint on paper, this is a good looking explanation:

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_344.html


There are colours your rgb monitor can display but you can't print with cmyk. Photoshop has a 'gamut warning' that will show you which colours fall out of the range of whatever profile you've set up. An example:

http://www.myjanee.com/tuts/safecolors/safecolors.htm

The greyed out part of the picture of the flowers will not be printed properly.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Yellow on screen is made from red+green light. It's not the same as blending paint on paper, this is a good looking explanation:

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_344.html

I have been vaguely aware of the difference between color mixing with light and color mixing with pigments but never paid much attention since I only work with pigments. That explanation is what I need to study. Thanks.

There are colours your rgb monitor can display but you can't print with cmyk. Photoshop has a 'gamut warning' that will show you which colours fall out of the range of whatever profile you've set up. An example:

http://www.myjanee.com/tuts/safecolors/safecolors.htm

The greyed out part of the picture of the flowers will not be printed properly.

This is an excellent feature. I'm going to hunt around my software and see if they have an analagous one.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't really understand this because I seem to be able to go to my photoediting program and make patches of perfectly authentic looking cyan, magenta, and yellow on a screen that supposedly can only display in red, green and blue.

If you look very carefully, you'll see that your cyan pixel is not cyan at all. It is really a 3-pixel - one red, one green and one blue. To show a cyan pixel, you maximize the green and blue, making cyan.
Magenta is red and blue, yelloe is read and green.

 

[brewnog]

Trivial lesson in printing technology:

The K of CMYK stands for 'key', which comes from the days of letterpress printing where the "key plate" was used to impress details surrounding illustrations and images, usually in black ink.

 

[zoobyshoe]

If you look very carefully, you'll see that your cyan pixel is not cyan at all. It is really a 3-pixel - one red, one green and one blue. To show a cyan pixel, you maximize the green and blue, making cyan.
Magenta is red and blue, yelloe is read and green.

Regardless of how these colors are created on the monitor, the fact they can be created on it at all makes me wonder why there's no built in program to faithfully imitate the output of a printer that will be using those pigments on paper. I suppose it is because this would be more complex than it sounds, requiring feedback hardware, like a scanner built into the printer, monitoring what's actually printing out.

schmoe's "gamut warning" seems to be the most useful tool there is for achieving this, but I checked and my photoediting program doesn't have that capability. I can't work directly in CYMK either, although I can split an image into four CYMK greyscale layers in preparation for a professional printer. I can only directly work in RGB, or in HSL (hue, saturation, lightness).

 

[shmoe]

I don't think all extremes of CMYK can be displayed accurately on RGB, though it's worse the other way around- there is a wider range of RGB that you can't produce with CMYK. But it will depend on the devices. See the picture under 'colour gamut' on http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/Articles/colormanagement/index.htm the cmyk range isn't contained in the rgb one.

Photoshop has colour management options to try to get monitor and print to match as closely as possible. There are also monitor calibration tools you can get that suction cup onto your screen as part of the process (can't say I've used one though), like these things http://www.ausmedia.com.au/calibration.htm

 

[zoobyshoe]

I don't think all extremes of CMYK can be displayed accurately on RGB, though it's worse the other way around- there is a wider range of RGB that you can't produce with CMYK. But it will depend on the devices. See the picture under 'colour gamut' on http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/Articles/colormanagement/index.htm the cmyk range isn't contained in the rgb one.

Photoshop has colour management options to try to get monitor and print to match as closely as possible. There are also monitor calibration tools you can get that suction cup onto your screen as part of the process (can't say I've used one though), like these things http://www.ausmedia.com.au/calibration.htm

I discovered I could calibrate my monitor since windows has a built in color management capability that Paint Shop Pro-X alerted me to. I think all this achieves is to get the monitor closer to the universal parameters that come with Windows. It is only a first step toward squaring the monitor with the printer.

The kit in your second link seems to offer better, systematic, tools for the latter task, but also look like more fiddling than I'm willing to undertake.

My printer produces normal color photos as good as any I used to get from the drugstore from 35mm negatives, so I don't have any complaints about that. The problem arises in how much it alters my colored pencil drawings. It seems to select certain hues at random and either juices them up or washes them out. The more I poke around Paint Shop Pro the more I'm seeing there are already ways to compensate for this. I just have to build up the patience to fiddle with it.

 

[JasonRox]

Good news.

The print copy turned out good. I haven't seen it, but the Illustrator liked it. That's good news.

I'll check it out tomorrow in the paper.

 

[DaveC426913]

Regardless of how these colors are created on the monitor, the fact they can be created on it at all makes me wonder why there's no built in program to faithfully imitate the output of a printer that will be using those pigments on paper.

They do. It's called PhotoShop.

 

[Anttech]

You need a professional to calibrate a printer. That is why Graphic designers use professional "printers" (companies that print for you). And they make you "sign" the graphics before you send it to them (rinse them through an application that will make everything compatible and on the same settings as what print shops use), so that they can verify what you sent them won't be or hasnt be changed. its very expensive.

Unfortunately in an earlier life I had to help configure some computers to do all this

 

[turbo]

Use 'The gimp' Its free and as powerful as photoshop, plus you are supporting open source.

I downloaded "The Gimp", the runtime environment, and the user's manual, and the program works very well. I highly recommend it to people who want all the "bells and whistles" but don't want to have to buy Photoshop.