20 replies to this topic

[David Medeiros]

I like the updates. The 4wd roads look much better, lower in the VH. The trails look sharp and easy to follow throughout the map.

You have definitely changed the basemap color. It is more saturated and goes well with your other boundary lines. I like it better then your first version. However, it makes your flowlines difficult to see. They had much more contrast on your previous version. Maybe that was your goal? For me personally, I think that they are one of the most important elements on a hiking map. Maybe it is just me but it also give a feeling of inversion. Like they are floating on top of the basemap rather then entrenched? What do you think?

kru

Thanks Kru,

Actually no changes to the base map color. But it probably looks different because the first full sample I posted was an optimized PDF this is a med resolution JPG. There are rendering differences between the two versions of course and the optimized PDF has some other issues that may have caused the map to look different.

The best way to evaluate the map as it is intended to be used would be as a GeoPDF on an iPhone or iPad, but with this being a retail map I'm hesitant to post a finished GeoPDF copy on the web anywhere. Plus it's a big file and would kill my bandwidth allotment if a lot of people grabbed it!

I agree the contours are kind of subdued, I like they way they look but it may not be the best level of contrast for a hiking map. I'm not seeing any inversion, but I've been staring at this map for months on end so my eyes may not be fresh enough to tell. I'll play with increased saturation for the first revision.

[razornole]

Wow that color shift is amazing. Have you changed the color space (sRGB v RGB)?

kru

[David Medeiros]

Wow that color shift is amazing. Have you changed the color space (sRGB v RGB)?

kru

That may be it. The promotional jpg I posted yesterday is CMYK, below is a link to an RGB version. See if you can see a diff. To me they both render the same on screen. I tend to work in CMYK due to my print background but Avenza requires they be converted to RGB before exporting to PDF.

Any chance you can take a screen shot of what you see as the more saturated version?

http://www.sonic.net...-01smallRGB.jpg

[razornole]

Finally figured out how to get a screen shot. It has been close to 20 years since I first tried.

kru

Attached Files

•  Kokee_today_jpeg_.jpg   313.94K   22 downloads
•  Kokee_yesterday_jpeg_.jpg   533.55K   18 downloads

[David Medeiros]

Finally figured out how to get a screen shot. It has been close to 20 years since I first tried.

kru

Yikes! I need to pay closer attention to my color space when shooting out sample maps. The left image is the correct one. It looks kinda dingy now doesn't it? I prefer subtle colors but might increase saturation *a bit* in a future version.

[razornole]

I don't think that it looks dingy as a stand alone, but when side to side with the fully saturated one it does a little.

I always convert my color space in photoshop. It has much better algorithms. I just open my finished Illustrator file in ps. Although, beware if you isohypse are vectors, it will literally take hours to convert them to rasters (well I guess that is dependent on the file size).

Interesting enough, when I downloaded the jpeg from yesterday (still couldn't figure out the screen capture at that point) it opened in photoshop with the correct muted colors.

kru