Full Version: Granite Pet Memorial
From: Ken D. (KDEVORY) [#1]
13 Jul 2005
To: ALL
From: basehorawards [#2]
14 Jul 2005
To: Ken D. (KDEVORY) [#1] 14 Jul 2005
Ken,
Do you cut your own granite? Or, where did you get triangles?
Message 1609.3 was deleted
From: Ken D. (KDEVORY) [#4]
14 Jul 2005
To: basehorawards [#2] 14 Jul 2005
From: Ken D. (KDEVORY) [#5]
14 Jul 2005
To: Bill (BILL_S) [#3] 14 Jul 2005
It was a 12x12 LaserSketch super black granite. I hand picked one of the best pieces from the shipment. The sides of the triangle were between 8" & 9.5".
I used the majority of the tile to fine tune my settings. Thirteen gray scales, twenty 1.7" squares showing part of the face and back, and another half dozen eye/nose engravings. (All at the proper zoom/dpi)
333 dpi, 1.5" lens, ULS advanced driver: halftone, Image prep using Photoshop: including a fair amount of trial and error with Unsharp Mask and the shadow and highlight adjustments. The eyes required special attention with the shadow/highlight feature.
From: Upacreek [#6]
14 Jul 2005
To: ALL
I've been fortunate and have had great success with most all the granite I engrave. (See thread 1489.33 in Where can I find? - Pet Memorials for my sample pictures.)
I do not use Lasersketch granite, but tiles I have purchased through a local marble & granite supplier. Several other suppliers in my State also sell this exact same tile.
There are two types of Black Granite tiles that I use. An Absolute Black & a Super/Supreme Absolute Black. One engraves slightly better detail then the other. (I can't tell you which one as I didn't notice until I unloaded the cargo that the boxes were not labeled anywhere! I can tell which one is which by looking at the back-side and comparing the two tiles.)
I engrave at 600 dpi most of the time. In tests 1200 dpi looked the same. 300-400 dpi lost some of the detail I wanted - eyes & faces. I've experimented with Photograv & without and found I like the Photograv output much better.
Michel
Message 1609.7 was deleted
From: Ken D. (KDEVORY) [#8]
15 Jul 2005
To: Bill (BILL_S) [#7] 15 Jul 2005
Would I get the 1.5" lens again, yes. I find it does make a difference. I know people will debate how significant the difference is, but unlike photo editing it does not add to my time.
I have PhotoGraV. When I engrave a photo in wood, I use it. I'm finding that I use PhotoGraV mostly for its dithering. On this memorial I felt any difference between PhotoGraV and the driver was not worth the added time/effort of using another program.
I expect exploring when/how to use PhotoGraV will continue to be an ongoing process for me. I use its pattern dithering, but I don't fully like how it's implemented. The dots get smaller as they should, but then they disappear in a pattern, as the image gets lighter. I find that pattern undesirable. Its Adjust Gray screen does not allow you to set the output range.
The time you spend learning the different programs really comes into play. In the past I probably would have been more pro-PhotoGraV, then I started learning PhotoShop; I might use PhotoGraV more in the future. The saying "there's more then one way to skin a cat" really applies.
When I spend this much time on an item its because I'm learning how to do it better/faster for the future.
For a material like granite the lighting and angle viewed really make a big difference.
Message 1609.9 was deleted
From: Ken D. (KDEVORY) [#10]
15 Jul 2005
To: Bill (BILL_S) [#9] 15 Jul 2005
Bill,
Reading about your purchase of PhotoGraV, I could have written that. I wouldn't use it on anodized either. (May I ask what you're doing with the anodized, and how you market/price it.)
I use PhotoGraV when the effective resolution of the substrate is low: wood, absolute black granite, glass...
It would be great if ULS added 2 parameters to their halftone function.
1) Lines per inch. It is now a function of engraving resolution. - Sometimes I want a higher engraved LPI, lower halftone LPI combination, than the driver's defaults.
2) Maximum spot size. - This can be simulated by shifting the grayscale away from black, so it's just a convenience.
From: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#11]
15 Jul 2005
To: Bill (BILL_S) [#9] 16 Jul 2005
As I have said before, I am very inpressed with what the XP driver from Universal can produce. By spending 1/2 hour doing it by hand and converting it to B/W I can get it faintly better, but not much.
I began doing it manually before that USL driver upgrade, tried the upgrade when I went to WinXP, and never thought about going back.