JimmyJack

.... And what app(s) are you using? AP has a Mirror filter. (destructive, but it's there).

Yeah, it does look a little funny. It's just one curve profile.

Yours should have worked too. I wonder what the problem was.

If you want all the dots to be just touching each other, then the diameter of the dots has to divide evenly (as much as we can) into the circumference of the circle right? And the diameter of the dots is the line width in the all touching scenario. So πD/#circles=the line width that will work. If you're working with an oval, I'd suggest using an oval circumference calculator.

Ha! Thanks . Yeah, reshaping will knock things out of whack. For that, the text option mentioned by @R C-R does much better. With that method, I just can't get the dots to go all the way on either end. They get close but not all the way (which makes sense). Certainly something that can be worked around though.

I don't think you need to think too much here. Just once really. The only math you need is the ability to subtract 1 . My two dots, er, I mean cents : 1) Pick a stroke width (This, sort of, can be adjusted later... but with limits. Best to do it first.) and make sure all fields are Zeros in the dash settings. 2) Now adjust the second number field so there are just two dots. One at the beginning and one at the end of your curve. Takes a couple seconds.... I went to two decimal places (see the first curve below. My number ended up being 23.74). --- the hard work is over --- 3) Whatever X# of dots you finally want, just type into that second field "/" and X-1. So, for three dots: "/2", for four dots: "/3", for five dots: "/4", for seventeen dots: "/16" etc. All will be evenly spaced. (the number you are dividing by is actually the number of spans in between points)

If you want an EXACT match, why not use the font itself on a text curve (I used the dash....play with spacing and baseline shift). Or, at the very least.... (and especially if you eventually need to do something with curves) Make a brush from the font itself (2nd pic). I used a couple different straight sections end to end to create a little more variety (of course you can also play with pressure too).

Hmmm. Not really sure what's going on now. The Affine shift all by itself introduced the blurriness, not the stretching. Maybe it is a pixel align thing, but everything looks fine pixel wise in the transform panel (and yes both pix align & whole pix are on). Yet a similar image is fine run through the filter. Something is happening.... It just feels beyond my control.

Yeah. Most can be done in AD. The composite, the clip, the dodge tool. But you would really need to use the warp tool to push things into place (in this particular instance). Unfortunately thats only in photo.... right now.

No real secret. I think the same method outlined in other posts. Except now all of the elements needed are there. I used the image above (the one with the ruler) to create a full image with everything needed. (it took three images) Used a clip (illustrated here by the black outlined box....made by eye and some guides) of the composite as a start to the tile. Took that into APhoto and used the gawd awful Affine filter (50% and 50% shift), and stretched some things to fit with the warp tool. (The last step is necessary because this is a photo. The lens warp makes even identical elements slightly different. Wouldn't have been needed if it were a flat scan.) Oh. and I used the dodge brush (midtones) a little to match lightness along some edges. Edit: if I were to do it again I'd skip the Affine and just move things manually....

Certainly it would help to have all of the imagery. This more complete image was easy to find. I don't think it would be too much of a problem now. Maybe not the one button magic that @MaryLou is looking for.... but doable. Edit: This was pretty quick (.....certainly not super perfect). BTW... look at the quality degradation from the Affine filter. The internal Nearest Neighbor rasterization has got to go. Basically it's Auto Destroy.

How about a vector mask on the shape (or hands, but that requires a second image layer).... totally non-destructive and flexible. Here's what the mask looks like.

If, on object A, you click "scale with object" in the stroke panel you will get the the result seen in B. Which makes me think that object A was scaled up with "scale with object" UNchecked before applying the stroke and object B was created at size? This at least recreates the issue and might get us closer to an answer (which in the end is probably.... bug). @firstdefence: Yeah I saw that too. While I don't think its causing the difference it is interesting that it's there which would seem to indicate a different starting point and/or process of creation. Which is even weirder because @Jan specifically mentions that "they are created exactly the same as the original"....

And now....once again....for some reason... Going from consolidated to separate and back is unchecking Show Right Studio. So i think it all just FUBAR.

So the fact that the right panel changes I made don't translate between the modes got me thinking.... What if other settings are specific to each state? And in fact the Show Tools setting is!! Having it checked in consolidated does not mean its checked in separated. They are independent. That's what I thought might be the issue. The Show Toolbar and Show Context Toolbar do seem to be universal. So I can't explain those appearing in one state and disappearing in the other.

Yes more is missing. Which confuses the problem. I CAN REPRODUCE @DianeF's problem when it come to the tool bar.... but not the others. @DianeF can you post a picture of the same thing in non-separated mode please? Don't touch any other settings...

Well, I'm back to report that clicking Show Right Studio seems to have fixed the whole thing on my end. From time to time though it seems to get unchecked by some operation or key stroke that I haven't pinned down. I'm certainly not unchecking it. But now I can clear it up. Also interesting is that changes done to the right studio panels in separated mode are NOT reflected in the right studio on return. Looks like they are two separate beings. Hmmm.

Nope. In fact, in separated mode hitting Reset Studio causes a render error for the histogram panel. And the right side is still blank coming back into consolidated mode. Also, hitting reset causes any customization to disappear. If I have to go through extra steps, I'd rather just hit View > Studio > Show Right Studio when back in consolidated mode.

Oh yes, I've noticed. I still prefer all the support windows together. This option is available in PShop on Mac, going back to at least CS4. Well my answer was about to be....Yes! .... and It's annoying!! BUT I just temporarily fixed it...... and I don't know how. Was fine for a few stress tests. And then I broke it again.... and I don't know how. (At least the Beta seems more stable when it comes to this particular issue.) @DianeF is it possible to post a full screen grab of your separated none-tool bar screen? Or better yet, a quick vid of it disappearing when switching back and forth?

This is because the brushes you're using have textured endings to them. They can work if you break the node at your indicated circle positions and use a round or square cap option. This, however, is just a way to overlap the ends. It may or may not yield an acceptable result.... especially if the image used for the stroke has any transparency. Also, and more importantly, it would require changing the fonts to outlines and addressing every single letter. Not fun. Or The other option is: Make a new brush with straight cut off ends. You can make it from a stroke using an existing brush with the ends masked off. (Just make sure the resolution is what you need.)

Yeah, I got ya. Stacked all over the place.... yup. I was hoping for some photoshop-like options: (3-up stacked does, in an instant, what you (edit: WE) have to wrangle into place,.)

Ah. So the 3-up was manually done. Presets would be nice. Yes free floating image panels are the same. I was referring to all the other panels. They seem to remain connected in your shot. Doesn't happen that way on Mac.

Yes. With a slight difference I think. It looks like all the tool, context and menu windows stay connected in the PC implementation. I like that (I'm on Mac), but that's just me. (Let the fighting begin ). It would be nice to just be able to pull down on a file tab to float. Now (Mac) we have to go to Separated Mode > hit Merge All Windows > and then pull down. Click click click click click. (yes we can set up hot keys..... I've got enough to remember) Also, I'm not clear if @Cedge's screenshot is of a manually created 3-up, or one of several presets. The later would be very nice. I think everyone would agree on that . Go Pats..... and Cs!!

Yes. Draw a shape that's bigger than your object. Select both and Boolean Intersect. The resulting object is now in the "upright" position.... until the next rotate . two caveats: This bakes in any shape variables. i.e. #of star points, or radii etc. The reset now uses the dimensions of the bounding box not the actual object. Fine, perhaps, for something rotated 90°. But, for example, if you have a tall rectangle rotated 45°, the procedure will give you an object with square dimensions. But the handle will be up .

The little preview in the Navigation tab never wavers. Render engine bug... me thinks. Without deleting anything changing the zoom to below 100% all blends seem to be ignored.