Printing a copy of the Greenwood

Laura Borealis said:

OK people... I didn't realize I had these when the conversation started. Or rather, I realized I had them, but I was thinking they were the same as the ones Mi-Shell shared. But they're not.

I have high-resolution scans of the whole deck. (600 dpi, which is kinda overkill, but hey. Gift horse and all that.) Someone from here gave them to me a while back, and I can't remember who.

They are not perfect; some are a wee bit crooked and there are black corners. They're not all put into a document so they can easily be printed. So they'll take a little work. They DO have the titles. And they're big. They should print about 3 inches wide I believe.

I uploaded them here to Box. Please let me know if there is any trouble downloading, and I'll fix it right away. It's been a long time since I uploaded anything to Box.

The file sizes are big and they'll take some time to download. I tried zipping them to compress a bit, but honestly it didn't make much difference, and then the zipped file timed out while uploading anyway... plus I figured not everyone would know how to unzip etc. So they are what they are.

Remember they're for personal use only!

Click to expand...

WOW! These pictures are absolutely gorgeous (quality)! A borderless version? Looks great! I'd place 4 cards on a page, having them printed one by one would cost a fortune! Thanks for posting them!

...I did not know they don't sell Photoshop any more. About 2-3 years ago I was looking to buy a newer version - they were available at that time - what stopped me was the costumer's reviews - apparently dealing with them (if there is a problem with the program) is a pain - but I was still playing with the idea to take the risk and buy one. Now this dream is gone...

Sorry Michellehihi about your experience with that guy...

...

@rylla. What Adobe has done is to package ALL of their various design apps under different subscription assortments--and manage it all with a "Creative Cloud' interface. I have the Photography plan and it is a monthly $10.49 recurring billing. Other plans are up to $50 a month, and include more than a dozen creative design applications--including the full version of Adobe Acrobat.

When one signs up, the CC interface allows you to download a full and functional version of the software in your plan. Then one can manage those installations--and keep everything up to date with the very latest versions. The 'catch' is that ET does indeed "phone home" regularly, and if you are 30 days past due on a subscription payment--the apps are disabled and rendered fairly useless unless the bill is paid. This is called "Software as a Service" ( SaaS), and is the way all the heavy hitters--including M$ with Office 365 Suites, and other applications have gone.

No more the standalone disk that you install and run for 8 years without additional cost. It works for me, as I was shelling out over $700 every three years or so to keep current versions on my workstation. Doing it this way is about a $300 savings. In 15 or so years, I have never really had any difficulties with Adobe support--with the exception of the number of machines it was registered as being installed on. A short phone conversation always fixed this. A link of interest:

http://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/photography.html

For those that want a 'free' reasonably full function photo editor, check out Pixlr. It is offered by AutoDesk--the professional company that produces AutoCAD and a host of 3D imaging and architectural tools. It seems based on the old PhotoShop 4 GUI design schema--and will do what you want to do!

https://pixlr.com/

Well, all I have to say about that (for this post ) is that I have PS7 - have had for YEARS - and I am not paying to upgrade it. It works brilliantly. I do also have their free version, aka White Rabbit, which also works fine and is a newer one but I forget which. (ETA just looked - 12, from 2010, apparently. I actually like 7 better.) It isn't REALLY necessary to have the must up to date of everything, it really isn't, unless you are a graphic design pro or something. People here for whom I have printed decks in my time (the myce and so on) will know they got good stuff (and I use a colour laser, and it's FINE, papa. And it has never chipped or flaked or anything.

(I also run on Office 2003 - but that's because I truly loathe all versions since - not least the nasty ribbon interface.)

But one thing MS and the rest never take into account is people with very slow, and - worse - capped internet. I have that in Canada. There is no way I would EVER subscribe to on line programmes, as I couldn't use them there without breaking the bank on over the cap data. It gets to a point - quite soon - where it is $10 PER Gb used.... NOT FUNNY. WE have to ban the grandson from using youtube when he visits (he is very very good about it, but still.)

gregory is right, there is such a thing called "bloatware," and it's what happens when companies try to justify their continued existence and ever increasing size. For example, a simple music player does a simple thing, play music and maybe feature a library or equalizer. But some music players are huge, with tons of features most users will never use.

Microsoft did this with their new Office, with the polished look, the "ribbon" of features and a host of other things that just made me stop using it. Something like Open Office was everything Word was in its "golden age" but without the bloat.

Photoshop is another example. Even if you're a professional it has tons of stuff that is added "just because,' because there really is a limit to what you can do with graphic editing. Newer isn't always better and some older versions of programs are stronger, more robust, easier to use and have all the features one could use.

I believe I said some time back that the new versions are not really cost effective or appropriate for those who are not photographers, graphics designers, media creators, or engaged enthusiasts. For us, these tools are indispensable. Because you are not using the latest releases, I am guessing that you have no idea how much easier a whole lot of processes have become--and the improvements in output quality and performance.

My last standalone PS was v5. Along with the NIK filter collection and a number of other filters--things rocked along just fine. Then last year, I upgraded my entire digital kit around a new Nikon D7100 body. Guess what? The RAW/NEF converters needed for this would not install on v5. Practically though, if one is not shooting RAW/NEF and JPG meets their needs--this will never be a problem Sorry, but the costs of subscription for me are a professional expense and are not a game I can play with freeware or 6 year old proggies anymore. Not if I expect to continue making an income from it...

No need to apologise - but remember that not everyone here NEEDS that level of bells and whistles. And DO remember all the people who simply CANNOT use on line subscription software. It is easy for those of us with good internet to forget those who haven't it. I am in the unique (probably !) position of having two homes, one with good internet, and one with slow internet capped at 3Gb a month for basic - I do go up to the 10Gb level, when I am there, to be honest - but after that it really is prohibitive, and to have to be on line to letter writing, photoshopping, databases - no way I would ever get to surf ! I am acutely aware of the difference, and occasionally slip up over there and forget how things are...

White Rabbit is v12, and should have everything you need though

Not to change the subject but can I ask for a clarification here?

Papa Tango said:

Trouble with pasting images to Word and converting to PDF, or structuring directly as PDF is that the image is resampled and loses some quality. Nature of the beast. The cleanest strategy is to composit the images in a table on Word, then port in highest quality ( 200dpi or greater--300dpi is sublime!) to PDF--if one cannot print directly out of PS or a suitable clone.

Click to expand...

I am surely missing something, but the "bad" and "good" methods here sound almost the same. Pasting images to Word and converting to PDF vs composit the images in a table in Word and port to PDF - what is the difference? I don't grasp the jargon sorry. Is composit different from paste, and convert different from port? Is putting the images in a table the key? Basically I want to avoid the image loss you spoke of.

I appreciate any help you can give

As always, AT rocks!!! So many useful info and interesting point of views.

Is there any advantage of using Word vs doing everything in Photoshop?

Is there any advantage of converting a file (i.e. of 400 or 600 dpi) to PDF before printing?

THANKS!

IMHO there's no real advantage to upping the dpi after scanning; scanning it AT a higher res - yes.

Why I did mine in word - it was the easiest way of separating the cards to make cutting easier, was all. A tab between each and a few para breaks and they were lined up EXACTLY on the page. Also I know my EXACT printer margins for word; pdfs are a bit harder to judge (for me, anyway.)

BTW I agree, once you have a version (of any program, cellphone, etc) good enough for your expectations you don't really need the other improvements (especially if you won't use them), they just complicate things. My Photoshop has some flaws (only for a while - I can't write texts) and that was the only reason I was looking for a new one (a simple re-installation of the disc might fix the problem - but isn't it easier just to surf the net for a new one?! - just joking because it was/is quite expensive for an amatheur use).