Hi Moveright - We don't need a link to your site. Please post an image of the piece you want looked at


When you get settled please read this as well as these very important threads. They will give you all the info you need on how the forum runs, the rules and regs, and give you some background info on our long running, inside jokes

Most likely the blue on your website is out of gamut for offset printing. CMYK gamut is more narrow than RGB. This will start you out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamut

sorry, I thought that would be faster. here's a link to the image! thanks for the speedy response btw...

Just thought of a sub-question.

Does this gamut issue(thanks for the info) mean that I will need to create a separate graphic strictly for printing?

Or, do I create the graphic in CMYK, then convert to RGB and save for web display?

You might also want to read this about PNG format.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Network_Graphics

+1 to what Pan just said.

You will want a vector version of your logo for print, the colour looks a little like reflex blue (you could use a PMS colour for this to get close).

So what about the shadow, or bevel or whatever the effect I have on there(forgive me I'm not a designer)? doesn't that count as a "rasterized effect" thereby negating the vector concept?

Also, are you suggesting that I design in CMYK, then I can use that for print, and also export as jpg for web display?

thanks so much.

TBH I didn't even notice the effect until you mentioned it, personally, I'd scrap it altogether.

I usually design in the colour mode the project is destined for, unless the printer tells me otherwise. If your printer is telling you the files should be CMYK, then you should submit CMYK files. (Your web versions should be RGB)

I mentioned using a spot (Reflex Blue) which can't be exactly matched with CMYK because it is a premixed ink and is slightly outside the CMYK gamut. If you print your cards offset (not gang-run) you can use reflex blue.

Drop shadows, bevels, embosses etc are usually rasterized effects, yes. There are ways to do them with vector artwork while retaining the look, but... that's more Graphics 210 =) But regardless, it is almost always a bad idea to include these types of effects into a logomark. Simplicity and concept are how marks work, not "zomg look how neato this tiger texture looks!".

I always design my marks (ie logos) to work well in black & white, CMYK, and RGB. Any designer who does not do this is limiting your options.

With that said...

And people wonder why the professionals are grouchy. See, we hear this a lot. I might even say the majority of the questions we get are in this vein. While we all understand that there is a certain level of not-knowing and budget concerns (particularly with new sole proprietor businesses), this is a case where you cannot really do it yourself without a major investment of time to learn either by study or trial-and-error.

I have to advise you to seek out a qualified professional to broker your printing and deal with all the file set up that you'll need. In the long run, how much is your time worth? And do you really want to spend hour upon hour learning a new jargon and struggling with files? How many contacts or new customers can you reach in that same amount of time?

btw, this also applies to web development =)

Other than the above I cannot advise anything as the links to the image have been removed it seems. Best of luck!

There's your problem right there.

agreed

regarding the blue issue, a pantone color might be your solution. i didn't see your image but it sounds like you had a very vibrant blue that a traditional CMYK press won't hit. It will cost more to get a pantone match but at least you'll hit the color you're going for. remember color on screen will most likely be different than what you get printed.

You mean that there are professionals who do this sort of thing?

Hmm... maybe I better have another look at my DIY employee health plan package.

(I wonder if it's too late to cancel my order for the aspirin-vending machine?)

Ima needin something stronger than an aspirin...

Thanks for the input regarding the pantone matching. I'll look more into that. Also, thanks for the tidbits about not using rasterized effects. that makes good sense to me.

I've got a much better understanding of this now and I appreciate all the useful help!