Book illustration

[Boxy]

I would always hike up the size from now on - as big as I can get away with. More often that not I make every painting at least A3 imperial - 5000 pixels because - yes sharper details, but also, you never know when you'll want a bigger version or a crop etc. I'm currently working on a personal thing which is about 7000px and Artrage is handling it fine on my iMac. Interface operations like select, undo, move layer etc are a bit slow whereas in Photoshop they would still be instant at this size, but they're different beasts and I'm always hopeful the fantabulous Ambient team will find ways to speed that stuff up. Besides, there are about 36 layers in that file so if I flattened it things would be quicker.
Cheers

[Fashmir]

I was curious what scale you guys would recommend working at for something like this?

If I was doing traditional media I might do 125 or 133%, but with digital I've wondered. If any of you wanted to make a 9 x 10 print image, would you just work at 2700 x 3000? Or would you still work at a slightly larger scale, just to get more detail in- say, 3600 x 4000, or something like that? Or do you think that's just sort of overkill? I don't mind working big, but there comes a point when I've wondered if it needlessly is slowing down my system. It would be very instructive to hear from those that work professionally in the field.

My own rule for myself is to work at the highest possible resolution I can and still have reasonable performance. I just like having the most pixel density I can get and if a client pulls a last minute request for a larger format it can really make things smoother.

[Steve B]

This's interesting to hear. Thanks for the info.

I'm working on a x200t tablet pc with a core2duo and 8 gb ram, and although art programs like Paint Tool Sai can work in that 7000-8000 pixel range very easily, Artrage really bogs down for me. It's a bummer, but true. If I want to do a 9 x 10 image, I really have to stick to something like 300-500 dpi. Clearly, that's more than large enough for print, as I understand it, but yes, more detail always looks better. And, I was thinking.... "Well, if I did this naturally I'd probably be working at something like atleast 12" x 14" or so"-- thus, the desire to go bigger digitally as well.

I've been pondering the value of a desktop. I live a pretty mobile life, and my x200t has been a godsend, but as I try and move into something more professional, I'm feeling the computer grind a bit. For instance, with the watercolor brush anything above 250 or so is pretty slow (I can do 500 pixels, its just not very speedy), and things like the Hard Out Smear (which I use to simulate wet washes), is very very slow if made much bigger than 150 or so. It's not that I can't do print sized work, it just takes more patience.

It'd be nice to hear back from Twagger or Nickullus on this front as well, as I know they also do professional work in Artrage.

[uberzilla]

I like what I am seeing.