making patterns

[woodchip]

I not sure what I'm doing wrong but, everytime I try to make a pattern it comes out looking like it has bullet holes in it and is real ragged. Can someone point me in the wright direction? The patterns we buy are nice and smooth and I'd kind of like to do that.
THANKS
DON

[dltccf]

Are you talking about making a pattern from a graphic? If so, then there are several tutorials posted that you can follow. One of the keys to getting rid of the "bullet holes" is use a program like paint.net and apply a Gaussian blur before importing. The holes and the raggedness come from the individual pixels that a far apart in the grey scale from those around. You don't notice them looking a a graphic but the machine does.

[woodchip]

Thanks, I'll try it.

[mtylerfl]

I not sure what I'm doing wrong but, everytime I try to make a pattern it comes out looking like it has bullet holes in it and is real ragged. Can someone point me in the wright direction? The patterns we buy are nice and smooth and I'd kind of like to do that.
THANKS
DON

The following Tips & Tricks may be helpful, as well...

ISSUE 11 August 2008 – The Pattern Editor – De-Noise and Quantize

To make really nice (smooth) carveable relief patterns, some of us use programs like ZBrush, Moi, Aspire, ArtCAM, and even "plain old" photo editing programs, which in skillful hands, can produce some nice patterns.

As an example, I created the Victorian House project using ZBrush to create a few turned posts, but everything else for the house itself, was created in a cheap photo editing program called Ulead Photo Impact (which I don't think is available anymore, but no matter, any photo editing program would work the same way). It took me just over 50 hours to complete the entire pattern set for the house in Photo Impact (the bottom plaque was laid out in Designer using patterns I made scanning clay models I sculpted). I did it just to "see if it could be done." I have my answer now, but I will likely NEVER attempt something that major again in a photo editor - far too time-consuming and tedious - much better tools are available. The 'downside' (if you want to call it that) is the "better tools" often have a significant initial investment cost. After a period of time, price is long forgotten, though.

[woodchip]

Mike, I tried using the pattern ed and I'm getting closer to what I want but have a long way to go. I;m trying to work with photoshop elem 9 which (please correct me if I'm wrong) I guess is where I need to start before I put it into the pattern ed.
Don

[woodchip]

Mike, I forgot to mention I'm using the aug2008 tips & tricks.

[jpaluck]

MT with PS I am sure that took every bit of 50 hours...painful

[mtylerfl]

Mike, I tried using the pattern ed and I'm getting closer to what I want but have a long way to go. I;m trying to work with photoshop elem 9 which (please correct me if I'm wrong) I guess is where I need to start before I put it into the pattern ed.
Don

Hi Don,

That's probably what I would do - take it as far as I could in the photo editor, then finish up in the Pattern Editor. The Pattern Editor really has some great tools. Jeff Birt is the expert on that. He gave a wonderful presentation at the CW Conference and opened a lot of eyes!

[mtylerfl]

MT with PS I am sure that took every bit of 50 hours...painful

Hi John,

Yes indeed - I thought that one would "kill" me. I REALLY got tired of using the eye dropper tool to choose the correct greys (since humans can only actually discern between 40 to 50 of the total 256 grey shades that Designer uses), then a ton of trial and error going back and forth between the photo editor/make a PTN/look at it Designer/go back to the photo editor...and repeat ad infinitum until I was finally satisfied with the result. It was worth it in the end, but that wore me out for sure!

[woodchip]

By the way, you guys are great. THANKS for all the help.
DON