affinity designer A landscape format picture using only filled squares and rectangles, some skewed

[William Overington]

 

[NoLongerHere]

Bit more interesting cloud and some shadows.

[William Overington]

My original artwork was A3 size, and I work using pixels as the measurement units.

A3 is given as 4960.6 by 3507 pixels.

In fact, I have the large rectangles as 5160 pixels wide set though there is 100 pixels outside of the canvas.

Exporting as a png is at one-seventh linearly, so 709 by 501. I set the 501 in the box and then the 709 is set automatically.

I start with A3 so that I keep open the option to get an A3 size print.

William

 

[Alfred]

16 minutes ago, William Overington said:

A3 is given as 4960.6 by 3507 pixels.

Given where? A3 is 420 mm by 297 mm, so at 300 ppi it’s 4960.6 px by 3507.9 px.

22 minutes ago, William Overington said:

I start with A3 so that I keep open the option to get an A3 size print.

The drawing is pure vector, isn’t it? Even if you had started with A7 you would still have had the option to output at A3 size or even A0 size with no loss of quality.

[William Overington]

18 minutes ago, Alfred said:

Given where?

Oh yes. Ah.

20 minutes ago, Alfred said:

The drawing is pure vector, isn’t it?

Indeed, yes.

20 minutes ago, Alfred said:

Even if you had started with A7 you would still have had the option to output at A3 size or even A0 size with no loss of quality.

Quite probably, but there could be issues over the bleed areas, I am not sure. Anyway, A3 allows me to have items quite large in pixels and it is how I choose to proceed. i find A3 to be a nice size to have a print, just personal choice I suppose.

William

 

[Ash Eldritch]

You really have no understanding of pixels. Why would you create a vector image using pixels, a measurement unit of raster images for displays, as your unit measurement? Then worry about bleed which is only of concern in print?

Do you also use a cement mixer and Freezer for baking cakes?

If you're designing for print use proper measurements, as you've been advised before. There are no pixels in vector. It's the whole point.

I'm beginning to feel you're the type of person who'd take the wheel and try and revert it back to a square.

[William Overington]

2 hours ago, Ash Eldritch said:

Why would you create a vector image using pixels, a measurement unit of raster images for displays, as your unit measurement?

Because use of pixels as the measurement unit allows me to set the position and size of text frames and objects with the maximum available precision using whole numbers.

2 hours ago, Ash Eldritch said:

Then worry about bleed which is only of concern in print?

From time to time I buy a few, sometimes two, sometimes five, A3 size prints from a print house. When I start some artwork I do not know whether I may decide to buy some prints. So I make all such artwork ready to be used to produce an A3 size PDF document to send to the print house if I choose to buy some prints of that particular artwork.

William

 

 

[Alfred]

4 minutes ago, William Overington said:

Because use of pixels as the measurement unit allows me to set the position and size of text frames and objects with the maximum available precision using whole numbers.

The use of inches, millimetres or centimetres as the unit of measure would also allow you to set positions and sizes precisely, with the added advantage that the values would have real meaning in the physical world.

[William Overington]

4 minutes ago, Alfred said:

The use of inches, millimetres or centimetres as the unit of measure would also allow you to set positions and sizes precisely, with the added advantage that the values would have real meaning in the physical world.

Yet I want to be able to set sizes in integer values that are in one to one correspondence with the dots (as in dots per inch) that a physical printer uses in case I want to get a print. Then I get on the print precisely defined edges to such shapes as filled rectangles.

Of  inches, millimetres or centimetres, only whole numbers of inches will do that. I am not going to use floating point values with a chunkier measurement unit when a facility to use integer values with a measurement unit that has one to one correspondence with the dots is available to me.

As the document is set at 300 dots per inch then the use of pixels does have real meaning in the physical world.

William

 

[Alfred]

1 hour ago, William Overington said:

a measurement unit that has one to one correspondence with the dots is available to me

Using pixel as the measurement unit gives you a one to one correspondence with the dots on the screen, but not dots on an inkjet printer. The latter are variable in size and number, depending on the colours that it’s being instructed to print.

[wonderings]

7 hours ago, Ash Eldritch said:

You really have no understanding of pixels. Why would you create a vector image using pixels, a measurement unit of raster images for displays, as your unit measurement? Then worry about bleed which is only of concern in print?

Do you also use a cement mixer and Freezer for baking cakes?

If you're designing for print use proper measurements, as you've been advised before. There are no pixels in vector. It's the whole point.

I'm beginning to feel you're the type of person who'd take the wheel and try and revert it back to a square.

He seems to like over complicating things. So much useless info and no printer would ask or want to know what pixel size. They would work in inches or cm. Here in North America you come in and ask for a size to be printed in inches with a standard of .125" (1/8th) of bleed all the way around. I have worked with real artists and this just seems like way too much irrelevant info. I can see designing smaller and wanting it to scale to be a specific size, though I am not sure why you would not want to design your work for the specific size in the first place. Never met a painter who painted smaller but to a scale so their artwork would fit a different size. 

[William Overington]

I often design in A3 size with the idea to print in A3 size if i decide to buy some prints. I produce a reduced size image to post in this forum.

William

 

[Alfred]

2 hours ago, William Overington said:

I often design in A3 size with the idea to print in A3 size if i decide to buy some prints. I produce a reduced size image to post in this forum.

A3 is approximately 11.7 inches × 16.5 inches. At 100 pixels per inch this is 1170 pixels × 1650 pixels, and at 50 ppi it’s 585 px × 825 px.

[William Overington]

13 minutes ago, Alfred said:

A3 is approximately 11.7 inches × 16.5 inches. At 100 pixels per inch this is 1170 pixels × 1650 pixels, and at 50 ppi it’s 585 px × 825 px.

I should have written that I design in A3 size at 300 dots per inch resolution.

William

 

[Alfred]

11 minutes ago, William Overington said:

I should have written that I design in A3 size at 300 dots per inch resolution.

You did write that earlier in the thread. I was simply making the point that if you want reduced pixel dimensions for posting to this forum (or anywhere else online) you can achieve that by using a lower number of pixels per inch when exporting your A3 drawing to a raster format.

[William Overington]

Does that give a result different from the result of changing the number of pixels in the text box in the png export dialogue panel?

William

 

[Alfred]

26 minutes ago, William Overington said:

Does that give a result different from the result of changing the number of pixels in the text box in the png export dialogue panel?

In a word, no.

[William Overington]

I notice that no one has yet reviewed the content of the picture, to comment upon the meaning that is perceived.

To explore how the minimalist information in the picture interacts with the typical viewer's experience of landscapes and cultural stereotypes to convey meaning.

William

 

[NoLongerHere]

13 hours ago, William Overington said:

I notice that no one has yet reviewed the content of the picture, to comment upon the meaning that is perceived.

To explore how the minimalist information in the picture interacts with the typical viewer's experience of landscapes and cultural stereotypes to convey meaning.

William

 

That's just arty farty nonsense, I hate arty farty nonsense. You shouldn't have to explain a picture especially with made up meanings. The worst I see are people who paint a canvas one colour and then pretend there's loads of meaning behind it, yeah right of course there is. I was just looking at previous winners on Archisource.org, thinking about thinking whether and what I might doing for next year (not that I'd stand a chance of getting anywhere but that's something else) and pretty much all of them seem to think adding that sort of nonsense is a good idea too. It just makes me roll my eyes and skip it.

[William Overington]

2 minutes ago, VectorVonDoom said:

That's just ...

Oh dear!

Anyone else like to comment, either on the content of the picture, or on ... er ... yes.

William

 

[Ash Eldritch]

I'm afraid I'm pretty much with Marc on this one. If such an artwork's message has to be relayed verbally, or written down, then it's failed as a creative work. More so if it doesn't please artistically. 

To lose one part of the pieces intention may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.

[William Overington]

 

Readers might like to look at the picture and think of what I am trying to convey before looking at the explanation in this post.
 

Spoiler

The idea is that the rectangles represent people, the blue ones male, the pink ones female.
The shear angle to indicate their speed of movement, if any.

On the beach, a small boy runs ahead of his elder sister, while their parents follow at walking pace.

Elsewhere on the beach a woman and a girl look out across the sea.

William

 

[William Overington]

41 minutes ago, Ash Eldritch said:

I'm afraid I'm pretty much with Marc on this one. If such an artwork's message has to be relayed verbally, or written down, then it's failed as a creative work. More so if it doesn't please artistically. 

To lose one part of the pieces intention may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.

Oh I was not thinking in terms of a card on the wall explaining the picture, I was wondering if, from the picture itself, people saw in the picture the meanings that I was trying to convey.

William

 

[NoLongerHere]

6 hours ago, William Overington said:

Oh I was not thinking in terms of a card on the wall explaining the picture, I was wondering if, from the picture itself, people saw in the picture the meanings that I was trying to convey.

William

 

Why does it have to have a meaning at all? I've never done anything with a meaning behind it either a real one or made up one (not that I've done loads of stuff). It seems to be a modern thing where some people think that it has to be more than it actually is and that you thought about it more than you actually have. Sometimes pretending that they've given great thought to every brush stroke (or whatever they're using) when you know for sure that they haven't.

To be honest I doubt there was a meaning, possibly after the fact one was added only you know. That does often seem to be the way when you read peoples "meanings" for work. If what you really mean was what was the reason for doing it in that way then that's different but that's not a meaning behind it.

Anyway, if you like it that's all that really matters.

[William Overington]

12 hours ago, VectorVonDoom said:

To be honest I doubt there was a meaning, possibly after the fact one was added only you know. That does often seem to be the way when you read peoples "meanings" for work. If what you really mean was what was the reason for doing it in that way then that's different but that's not a meaning behind it.

Oh I planned the picture so as to try to imply meaning to viewers using abstract shapes.

More meaning than in the abstract shapes in this earlier picture.

William