This is a great tutorial but I wanted to clarify the bleed process. What do you mean by ink in that step? By that step I pretty much have all of my "ink" merged into one layer. So roads, rivers, cities , all features are "ink" at that point. The bleed also made the hard to read labels even harder to read over features (mountains). I have spent a lot of time bootstrapping Inkscape for the labels, I might just go back to GIMP to rework them, but RobA's link for http://screencasters.heathenx.org/ is a must see if you want to learn how to use inkscape.
I used a version of Gidde's Ink Bleed technique on a few of my works now. Duplicate the layer, blur it a few px (5 or less) then set the opacity to somewhere around 50-70%. That makes the ink look like it's gone to the "right place" but "bled" marginally into the paper around it like a good liquid ink would, especially since metal nibs can (and do) lightly mark the paper when they are very fine.
Check out my Big WIP Project Neoseilthir in the Regional/World Mapping section.
@ Hohum: the method I use for ink bleeding actually depends upon you having merged them all onto one layer (you can do it still separate, but it makes a LOT of extra layers). Basically you name that merged layer Ink, and duplicate it a few times, which makes names like "Ink Copy" etc. If I'm talking about "inking" something, I mean using the Ink tool. If I'm talking about "all the ink" I mean exactly what you just described; all of the black lines/features etc. If your labels are hard to read afterward, you may be forgetting to leave the original ink layer alone (albeit changing opacity/mode); it should still be there showing where the original pen marks were, as Jugg described.
Thanks guys. @Juggernaut, I have been admiring your progress on Neoseilthir. My map is going to be somewhat in that vein. @Gidde, yeah I merged them all so I have it right. It is as I feared, my font choice/ placement etc is what the real issue is. I may just do the labels in GIMP as I am struggling with paths in inkscape. Any how I need to redo my rivers and fix a few city icons. The good part is I save everything so it won't be too hard to back track. I also want to give you kudos for the coloring technique, it looks great. In trying to make my mountain names more ledgible I used that technique using white and it worked except for the bleed layers being on top of it. I hope to post something soon. Oh yeah have some rep.
Please I need some help. Several days I try to do this tut, but everytime I failed :(
No I'm at the same point as with the last try and I dunno why I'm wrong?
Can anyone have a look at the Screens and help me out?? :?:
The first describe what I should do.. and last last 2 screens show what is going on if I try this..
It looks like you either drew a lot of your stuff directly on the background layer, or merged at some point by accident. No worries though, it's pretty easily fixed. Just make ALL of your layers visible, flatten the image, and then set your transparency to ignore any white (Layers -> Transparency -> Color to Alpha -- which will defaut to white so you'll be all set). Looking good so far!
thanks for your help. I tought the same but my background is empty, and I tried it now second times. :?:
Attached a screen from my "background".
I'd tried your way. But if I do this is every layer will be merged.
In your tut there is merge except Rivers, base, and background.
May I have another hint? :)
Hmm ... maybe all your stuff is on your rivers layer. It's gotta be on one of the layers you're hiding. What I'd do is to still merge everything and do the transparency trick - that way you at least haven't lost all the work on your mountains and stuff. Then make a separate layer for rivers and trace over your old ones on the new layer. Then you can do the rivers step with the new layer, but delete it instead of merging it afterwards.
The key is to be really careful with which layer you're on at any given time; I constantly catch myself working on the wrong layer, it's really easy to do.
I know what you mean, I catch myself doing the same... and not only once. But here... hm?
On all of the layer include exactly that what shoud be on..
Cities - only the few dots.
Roads - The realistic looking roads.
Foreast - The Forest and the shading
Mountains - The Mountains and the shading
Hills - The Hills and the shading
Rivers - my beautiful pink rivers..
Coastline - the first line a drew here..
And last is the background...
The 3 colored areas are already deleted.
Foreast, Hills and Mountains are switched to the multiple mode.
If I hide the Rivers, Coastline and the Background, I cannot see the hills, mountains and the forest. Thats wired.
Only if the background is shown I can see these as well.. But they are not at the background.
really strange -.-
My it be that I've done something wrong with the hills, mnts, forest and with they shaders? Maybe I merged in the wrong direction?
Forest Shaders -> Foreast
Foreast -> Forest Shaders
Because in you tut you have the ... shaders at the end.
In my try I have the "real layers".
grr, this is pain in the ass!!
Aha! Yosh, you found a bug in the tut! It's because they're on multiply. It's something I changed to solve a problem someone was having and this step should be changed too. I'll fix it later tonight in the actual tut, but this step should have you keep Background visible before the merge, merge and then do the transparency routine i mentioned earlier.
Thanks for helping me figure it out so it could be fixed!