15 replies to this topic

[Martin Gamache]

Here is a prototype of a map I was working on that a client just killed. I got my kill fee and will be able to use most of the work for the spin off project. Just though I would post it as it was just starting to come together and look OK. Bottom line is always have a kill fee clause in contracts, I use to laugh when I would put those in to my quotes, but it saved my butt this week.

Granite Peak

[Hans van der Maarel]

Martin,

First of all, I had some really weird thoughts about what 'kill fee' could mean (been watching a bit too much Star Wars lately)

Your map looks great. I like what you've done with the shading. How did you produce that?

[Martin Gamache]

A kill fee is something an artist/designer/cartographer/creative person gets paid even if their client cancels the job before the job is finished. I learnt about them from the Graphic Artist Guild Handbook. I usually have a 50% kill fee. So if a job is priced at $1000, I will get $500, no matter if and when the job gets canceled, even if I've only done 1hr of work and have not delivered anything (although, this has never been the case, usually more work has been done than you get paid for).

The shading is a mix of hillshading, highlights, landcover tinting and aerial photo texture pioneered by Imhof, refined for the digital realm by Tom Patterson and Jeff Nighbert and perfected by Pat Dunlavey (PD Carto). the map still needs alot of work but for now it is being shelved.

mg

[Hans van der Maarel]

Martin,

I sort of got the idea from your previous post. Seems only fair to me, as often the preparation of samples to determine the style of a map (and the discussions with the client on that subject) takes more time than actually producing the map.

[Nick Springer]

The map looks great. I see where you question about boundary shading came from now. I would suggest you make the ribbon much more transparent, and the dashed line a darker green. You want to let the beautiful shading show through as much as possible while still highlighting the border. You might try using the Multiply transparency style along with opacity.

[Martin Gamache]

I was actually going to move the transparent boundaries and some of the trails into photoshop to merge them with the terrain there. This would allow me to control the tranparency mode much more effectively and avoid any flattening issues. I usually try to avoid any transparency effects in Illustrator when a job needs to be offset printed. I learnt the hard way when some transparent areas failed to rip properly on my first offset printed map. So now I rasterize all transparencies and build them into a CMYK background in photoshop.
So yes I agree with you, and the way they look there is not the way they were envisioned. In fact some of the wilderness boundaries had yet to be digitized.

mg

[ELeFevre]

Excellent work Martin:) . This map makes me wish I was in Montana. I love that state. My only suggestion would be to ever so slightly adjust the position of the "Custer National Forest" text so it does not overlap the Echo lake text. No big deal. That's just me being nit picky. Beyond that....very nice. I love the shading.

[Nick Springer]

I usually try to avoid any transparency effects in Illustrator when a job needs to be offset printed. I learnt the hard way when some transparent areas failed to rip properly on my first offset printed map.

I've had some problems with this as well, it depends on the printer and their RIP.

[kinesava]

I was actually going to move the transparent boundaries and some of the trails into photoshop to merge them with the terrain there.

Having had many problems with transparency in every GIS and Graphics program I use, I was skeptical when I heard about this at the last NACIS (I think Nat Case suggested it to me). It seems so old-fashioned. But I've tried it on my last few maps and it works wonders. Everything works smoothly, and the many forms of compositing in Photoshop give you more flexibility. I'll often use HLS (with lightness from the relief and H/S from the thematic data) compositing instead of opacity. It's only a problem if your thematic data changes frequently.

Another nice thing is that you don't have to have the image be your full print resolution (1200+ dpi), because all the linework and text is still vector (I'll usually combine the fills, but keep the boundaries in vector). If my transparent thematic fills are subtle, 200dpi works fine (usually that's the resolution of my DEM, anyway).

Great map, Martin! (oh, and congratulations on the ACSM honorable mention)

[Martin Gamache]

Great map, Martin! (oh, and congratulations on the ACSM honorable mention)

Thanks!

[Martin Gamache]

The revised version of this is almost done. If anyone is interested in helping proof a digital version of this (on screen with a high res PDF) please send me an email.

Scale was increased to 1:24k and coverage reduced.

 Granite.jpg   140.7K   214 downloads

[Matthew Hampton]

I like the map a lot and being a native Montanan I find it even more captivating. I'd be willing to proof a bit. The first PDF had light green wetland layer (marsh?) that wasn't blended that well.

Nitpicky-wise I think I'd prefer to see a different treatment for the glaciers. You have a nice frosty look, but perhaps it could be a little bluer. Maybe you could knock out the veg underneath the glacier poly's as it would be a little weird to find both in one spot (maybe it was a registration issue).

I like the mix of hillshading, highlights, landcover tinting and aerial photo texture.

At first it struck me that the elevations did not have comma's denoting the thousands. I usually put comma's in my elevations but for no reason other than it looks right to me. I wonder what others do or think about this?

[Martin Gamache]

Maybe you could knock out the veg underneath the glacier poly's as it would be a little weird to find both in one spot (maybe it was a registration issue).     

I like the mix of hillshading, highlights, landcover tinting and aerial photo texture. 

At first it struck me that the elevations did not have comma's denoting the thousands.  I usually put comma's in my elevations but for no reason other than it looks right to me.  I wonder what others do or think about this?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The glaciers are tough to deal with in this case because they are all so small. I'm not quite happy with them either but I am afraid that making them bluer will confuse them with the lakes.

There should not be any green mixing with them, where do you see vegetation intruding?

I did debate the commas in the elevations, but in the end the client wanted to stick with the USGS convention which doesnt use the commas.

Thanks for the comments.

[Clark Geomatics]

The glaciers are tough to deal with in this case because they are all so small. I'm not quite happy with them either but I am afraid that making them bluer will confuse them with the lakes. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nice product Martin.

WRT the glaciers - when I first looked at the image, I had to go searching for the glaciers - 'man-eyes' notwithstanding, I'm thinking that you might make them whiter if anything - more contrast between the waterbodies and the glaciers in this case might benefit the viewer.

I assume you added the blue cast shadows on your glaciers in PS? Looks good - this also helps to distinguish between the lakes and the glaciers.

Just a quick question for you re: workflow: Are you using ArcView / MAPublisher and then Illustrator / Photoshop? If you are using Nighbert's AML's, I assume this is done in Arc? Thanks.

[Matthew Hampton]

There should not be any green mixing with them, where do you see vegetation intruding?

It may not be veg, although it has a greenish tint so that is what I assumed. On closer look it may the shading mixing with the semi-transparent glacier fill and it is perhaps exacerbated by color-mode shift or lossy compression.

In any case, on most of the glaciers there is greenish raster element that initially looked like it was produced by the landcover. In the attached image you can see it more on Castle Rock Glacier, but the west edge of Snowbank Glacier includes it too. I think it is the terrain mixing through and creating a weird color cast. It is occuring mostly on the edges of the glaciers.

I think using the thinner dotted outlines for the glaciers works very effectively in discerning them from waterbodies - using a different color outline (from rivers/lake outlines) would add to their distinction.

There aren't too many places in N. America that have glaciers so I think mapping them is quite important.

when I first looked at the image, I had to go searching for the glaciers

They are melting pretty fast, making them harder to find on the ground too.

Attached Files

•  Picture_28.png   308.16K   128 downloads