Monday, 2 March 2015

1980s text

I'm not very good at following instructions. But there are some great free tutorials on the net so I forced myself. 

This is my interpretation of a special type effects tute by Digital Tutors. I had to create the word as a vector for the first layer because I couldn't download the file from the site (maybe because I needed to be a paying customer!)

It didn't turn out quite like the one in the demo, but I am pretty happy with it. Using the airbrush for splatters and a couple of highlights was instructive too.


  1. Very nice. I like it. But I have a few questions ...

    What was this done with? Adobe Illustrator? I've spent a fair bit of time with Inkscape, but less time with an older version of Illustrator. Which parts of the image are "drawn" and which are done with filters? I find the manipulation (and combination) of filters an art in itself, and one I've never been all that good at.

  2. Hooray! I've been having sporadic issues posting comments on Blogger blogs with the inline comment widget thingy (basically, yours and Sarah's).

    I just realised I can generate a stand-alone comments page by jiggering the URL.


  3. Getting pretty technical manipulating urls now Alex :)

    This is all done in Photoshop with Layer Styles (which I didn't even know existed until now) I follow a site called Digital Tutors which has some good stuff on it occasionally. This is the url for this tutorial:

    Theirs is better than mine and I wasn't trying to be original - I just followed the tute - but it gave me an idea of how I could start playing with these Layer Styles and get some interesting effects. You start with a flat shape, and I did that in PS as a vector too. I could have done that part in Illustrator but no point - PS was OK.

  4. Ah, interesting.

    Layer effects / filters, more or less the same thing. This is the stuff I've always been crap at.

    I wonder if I could replicate this, using the software I've got here. It looks like it's using the same couple of common, generic effects, over and over.


    Also, sorry about never responding to your emails. I only just saw them. I've been slack at checking that account. A while back, I broke my online identity into a bunch of non-connected accounts on different platforms, in a vain attempt to screw with the big data collectors. Also, I can't respond to your LinkedIn invitation, as I'm not on LinkedIn.

  5. I wish I had never clicked on the link in LinkedIn to send all those e-mails out. I don't usually do that sort of thing and the system got caught in some cazy cycle and kept on resending the same request. Aaaarrgghhh.....I had to e-mail their helpline to get them to stop.

    I am not familiar with the program you are using, but yes you are right - they use 'Multiply' a lot as a blending mode:

    '....of the four blend modes in the Darken group, one of them stands high above the others, and that's the Multiply blend mode. The Multiply blend mode is one of the most important and widely-used blend modes in all of Photoshop, whether you're doing traditional photo retouching work or creating some wild and crazy special effect. It's unique among all the blend modes in that it's the only one named after the actual math that Photoshop performs behind the scenes when you have the Multiply mode selected. Photoshop takes the colors from the layer that's set to the Multiply blend mode and multiplies them by the colors on the layer(s) below it, then divides them by 255 to give us the result.'

    And the rest is just using bevels and shadows to create the 3D look.

    Not sure if that helps.

  6. Looking at the blend modes in Inkscape, I've got multiply, screen, lighten, darken. So this might just be do-able.

    Of course, the challenge is in selecting all the right options and getting all the levels correct.

  7. I sent a reply to your e-mail Alex so I could send a screen shot of the choice of Blending Modes in Photoshop. Then it occurred to me that you might not check your e-mail, hence this comment here.

  8. Cheers Michelle. I'll try checking that email more regularly from now on.

    Going off topic for a bit, I noticed in your old email, you said you'd assumed I was a bloke. This is an old joke going back to when I started commenting on blogs; ie: everyone assumes I'm a bloke at first. But since you brought it up, can I ask what brought you to that conclusion? Was it the name, or the way I talk?

    Not that it's important, I'm just curious.

  9. Just the name Alex. I have always had easy friendships with guys and your style of communication didn't seem particularly gendered either way - so I went with the name without thinking too much about it. BTW are you a Scorpio? You don't have to tell me of course.

  10. I don't think so, but I'd have to look it up. I'm not sure about the dates and such. I don't really know anything about astrology.

    Actually, it wouldn't be the first time I've been caught off guard trying to recall my age or birthday. There was never a focus on that stuff in my family when I was growing up, and it just seems to have gotten less important as I've gotten older.

    So, what are Scorpios meant to be like?

  11. To clarify. I do know my age and birthday (I just have to think about it for a second sometimes).

    It's the dates for the star signs I'm not familiar with.

  12. Scorpio is 21/22 October to 21/22 November. Scorpios tend to be circumspect, especially when revealing stuff about themselves. I'm a Cancer/Rat - I always get on pretty well with Scorpios.

  13. Well ... there is probably quite a bit of truth to that description.

    So, how do you reckon this astrology stuff works?

  14. That's a pretty big question Alex and it would take me too long to answer it here. Suffice to say I don't believe anything I haven't observed, experienced or 'proven' myself. I'm not an astrologist as such, that is, I can't do people's birth charts, and it is a lot more complex than just the birth date. But I use info gathered from my own observations over decades and it helps me deal with people more harmoniously - especially some of my students.