larryb123456

This Post concerns Tripredacus' Post # 154, in which he presents a "powerfully delicate" image referencing Max Planck, whose picture is shown in my avatar. The link to Tripredacus' image is: http://i579.photobucket.com/albums/ss236/tpx_bst/Designs/TEST1.jpg Tripredacus *very kindly provided* the source material which he used to make his JPEG, and he indicated that others could do with the image as they wanted. So, this provided me with a *great opportunity* to try to come up with my own version -- of course, using Tripredacus' version as a *springboard*. (In Art, as well as in Olympic diving events, springboards are *very important*. lol) This is the image I developed: V03.teal.V1, http://postimage.org/image/4e14py75h/ This image looks different than Tripredacus' image, because I simply did not want to *exactly reproduce* his image, but I wanted to come up with something that would reflect my own artistic tastes. This Post basically concerns the steps and considerations I used to make my version. I will try to provide as much detail as I can, so that those of you who aren't too familiar with Photoshop can get a feel for my "PS approach". In this regard, then, I guess this will be something of a "mini-tutorial". To start off, I've listed the links to Tripredacus' source material, and I give my "initial treatment" of this material. link # 1, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Max_Planck_signature_10_years_old.jpg shows Max Planck's signature on a cream-colored, parchment-type paper. Since the background was not uniform, I did not use the Magic Wand Tool on this image to "extract" the signature. link # 2, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Max_Planck_signature.svg shows Max Planck's signature in black on a white background. I took a screenshot of the page, cropped out the Max Planck part, and then removed the background (Magic Wand Tool) to leave the signature on a transparent layer. link # 3, http://photos.aip.org/history/Thumbnails/max_planck_institute_e1.jpg gives the background Tripradecus used. The JPEG shown here is 428x330 pixels. I reduced it proportionately to 385px wide -- (instead of 380px wide, the width we want the final image to be) -- so that I would have some leeway (i.e., flexibility) in positioning my image border over it. The *very first thing* I did with this background was to remove (Rubber Stamp Tool) that indecipherable, large, dark mass in the light-colored area -- (right above the crowd) -- at the left side of the picture. [i'd guess(?) this "mass" is a door. Nonetheless, it is *very distracting*.] link # 4, http://www.wildlifeandecosystemhealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Max-Planck-Institute.jpg gives the logo for the Max Planck Gesellschaft (translated into English as the "Max Planck Society"). This logo gives the outline of a "Roman face" and the word "GESELLSCHAFT". The JPEG image is very large, at 3,590x1,980 pixels. I removed the background of the image using the Magic Wand Tool to leave the Roman-face outline and GESELLSCHAFT on 2 different transparent layers. Now, the further development of my image will be discussed. I'll be numbering the layers from "1" up, where higher values indicate layer(s) *above* layer(s) with lower values in the Photoshop "layers stack". I won't be discussing these layers in sequential order from bottom to top, because I think this will make the discussion clearer. Layer "1", background I *really liked* the cream-colored parchment shown in source-material link # 1 above, and I wondered how the background (link # 3) would look if it had this *tone* rather than the "grayish tone" of Tripredacus' image. I color-sampled the parchment (Eyedropper Tool, "Sample Size: 5x5 Average") -- which was shown to have r,g,b = 247,224,200. I "over-layed" the background (link # 3) with a new layer having these r,g,b values, and changed the Opacity of this new layer to 45% (that looked about right to me). I then linked and merged the original background with this reduced-opacity new layer to get the "cream-tinted" background shown in my version of Tripredacus' image. Layer "5", top layer Settings for MaxPlanck signature: Signature size: 112x28 px Lettering color: the "teal-family" color shown Layer "effect": Outer Glow (Mode:Normal; Opacity:100%, Blur:6 pixels; Intensity:600%) with color r,g,b = 238,228,217. I arrived at this color by sampling the light color on the steps in Layer "1" above.Settings for GESELLSCHAFT: Letter size: 207x17 px Lettering color: the same "teal-family" color used for the Max Planck signature. Layer "effect": Outer Glow (Mode:Normal; Opacity:100%, Blur:20 pixels; Intensity:600%) with color r,g,b = 238,228,217, the same color as used for the Max Planck signature. Layer "4", 2px border outline with 2px horizontal line I used a solid (i.e., no transparency effects), light color, more or less in the teal "family, with r,g,b = 141,186,180. Layer "3", Roman-face outline (with outer circle) Size:100x100 px. (I did not want the face to be *really* large.) I positioned the outline as shown in my version so that the Roman's lips would not be covered up by the 2px horizontal bar. Color: I sampled a rather dark color in the background -- (it turned out to be a "tan" color) -- and used it for the outline color. I then reduced the Opacity of this outline layer to be 70%, so that the outline would neither be too light nor too dark as it showed up against the very-light-colored steps. So far, so good. But the dark area on the background showed through the upper part of the Roman-head outline, and it was virtually impossible to distinguish the outline from this dark area (i.e., the two basically merged together). To remedy this situation, I made Layer "2", as described below.. Layer "2" I made a new 100x100 px circle -- (the same size as the Roman-head-outline circle) and placed this new circle *exactly under* the Roman-head-outline circle. The color of this new circle was sampled from the very lightest part of the steps, and its color parameters were r,g,b = 235,225,214 . I reduced the Opacity of this new circle to 65% to get *everything* finally in balance. A little final discussion: First, I want to sincerely thank Tripredacus for providing the *basis* for my additional work. I like the way in which my image has four *clearly-defined* levels in going from front to back as: Max Plank GESELLSCHAFT; The 2px border-and-horizontal-line "unit"; The Roman-head outline; The background. I let the opaque outer glow around GESELLSCHAFT cover up the *lower part* of of the Roman-head-outline. (I didn't do anything else, as in fades, etc., to cover up this part of the outline. However, I made one *very small correction* that the outer glow didn't cover up -- so small that it doesn't warrant discussion.) One reason I wanted to use a cream-colored background was that it made the picture stand out well against the very-light-colored MSFN background. Also, I think many other colors will work well with this background -- (but I could be wrong). Two other colors that I might(?) try are maroon and blue. I have the .psd file(s), and the only thing I'd have to change would be Layers "4" and "5". If these versions look as interesting as my version seen in this Post, I'll Post the results -- (that is, if I even take the time to do these additional versions). Thanks again, Tripredacus. I really enjoyed playing with your image. Reason for edit: to change the file name and link for my one image given above in this Post -- to provide consistency with the "descriptors" used for my images in the following Post # 182.

*I sure hope I'm not abusing* the purpose of this thread by making this Post (after all, "silly" is OK here, right?). I happened to find the *complete lyrics* to the song I discussed in my Post # 640, "I Know What Boys Like" by the Waitresses: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcoiGr_FlQYI've put them below. You can appreciate the "tease" aspect of the song better if you read the lyrics as you listen to the song. (If this Post is not acceptable, please delete it.) Here are the lyrics: I know what boys like I know what guys want I know what boys like I've got what boys like I know what boys like I know what guys want I seen them looking I make them want me I like to tease them they want to touch me I never let them I know what boys like I know what guys want I know what boys like Boys like, boys like me But you youre special (I might let you) Youre so much different (I might let you) Ooohh would you like that? (I might let you) I know what boys like I know what guys want I know what boys like I know whats on their minds I know what boys like I know what guys want They talk about me I got my cat moves That so upsets them Zippers and buttons Fun to frustrate them They get so angry Like pouty children Denied their candy I laugh right at them I know what boys like I know what guys want I know what boys like Boys like, boys like me Nah nah nah nah nah, nah nah nah nah nah I see your sad now (I will let you) Sorry I teased you (I will let you) This time I mean it (I will let you) Anything you want (You can trust me) I really want to (You can trust me) How would you like it? (You can trust me) SUCKER! hmhmhm I know what boys like I got what guys want I know what boys like Boys like, boys like me Nah nah nah nah nah, nah nah nah nah nah, nah nah nah nah nah, nah nah nah nah nah, nah nah nah nah nah, nah nah nah nah nah

An absolute classic, "Whip It", by Devo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbt30UnzRWw&feature=endscreen&NR=1The group's name is based on the term "De-evolution". In the video, all the group's members are wearing upside-down red/plastic flower pots on their heads as hats. A *very futuristic look* (IMO). CRACK THAT WHIP ! (lol) At the height of the group's popularity, no sign with the word "Devon" on it -- (as in "Welcome to Devon, Illinois" or "Devon Avenue", for example) -- was safe from being defaced by vandals, who simply painted over the "n" to leave "Devo". (Now, how cool is that? lol)

One of my *favorites* from a few years back, "I Know What Boys Like", by the Waitresses: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcoiGr_FlQYIMO, this song has an enjoyable and rather unique rhythm. The lead singer, a pretty female, certainly knows what "Guys Want", and she communicates it very well in the video. She's such a "tease" -- nyaah...nyaah...nyaah...nyaah ! LOL !

Hello, EVERYONE: I thought I'd better make this Post, because I **changed (big time!)** a great many of my Posts (previous to this one) which involved making custom signatures and avatars. I figured that if I didn't give this "HEADS UP", many of you who had already read the old Posts would have missed the *new versions*, because you probably would not have gone back and done some re-reading. To bring you *completely up to speed* with what it is that I'm talking about, all you need to do is re-read Posts # 137, 140, 144, 147, and 153. I sure hope that you will enjoy the changes that I made. I also hope that you will enjoy looking at all the pretty (IMO) pictures. Much appreciated ! Thank you. Sincerely, Larry

So happy you like this one, e-t-c. It's my fave also. This little "project" of refining your avatar to get the *best* version really shows the power of collaboration (i.e., the back-and-forth between us). I'm really glad I re-started on improving your avatar, after so long a time in which I'd considered the avatar finished ! The work was really fun to do.

In Post # 176, e-t-c said he preferred the dark outline around the cup/saucer unit rather than the lighter gray outline in my third modification, shown in my Post #175. I still felt that the *boldness* of this dark outline, shown in http://postimage.org/image/c6ia5ngbp was out of place with the delicacy of the cup and saucer, so I made the outline smaller (i.e., not as thick), as shown in my fourth modification: http://postimage.org/image/cadxrehjv/ (Since this outline is basically 1 pixel thick, I really can't make it any thinner than this.) *By far*, this fourth modification is my favorite version. I really like the way the dark outline makes the cup/saucer "unit" stand out well against the MSFN-colored background, and the way in which the dark outline doesn't overpower the light-gray cup outline as much as before. I wouldn't have made this image had it not been for e-t-c's comments in Post # 176, so, in that regard, I feel that e-t-c is something of a *co-creator*. Also, the interesting thing about Art images is: You might think you have an image *absolutely perfect*. But, then you make a different version, and it turns out to be *far superior". Such was the case for me in seeing that modification 4 was far superior to modification 3.

A while back, in my Post # 136, I discussed my modification of e-t-c's transparent GIF avatar. The link to his original avatar is: http://postimage.org/image/4u0c659hd/ The link to my modified version at *that time* is: http://postimage.org/image/lc3vagpo9/ My *primary objective* at that time was to straighten up the "chopped-off" look of the original, by using *perfect* ovals for the saucer edge and the lip of the cup. I kept the outlines of the modified version as dark and as bold as in the original, to have "harmony" between the "old and the new". I also added some "vapor molecules" above the center of the cup. e-t-c was very happy with that modified version, so I basically put the image out of my mind (as in "case closed"). However, I saw my modified avatar today on one of e-t-c's Posts, and I saw how I could improve it even more. In the original and modified version, the saucer and the cup *merge together* in an unsatisfactory way. So, I corrected that in my second modification to e-t-c's avatar. (I just put a light-colored outline around the cup.) The link is: http://postimage.org/image/c6ia5ngbp/ As you can see, I left *everything else* alone (bold/dark outline, etc.). But, on thinking about it some more, I felt that the bold/dark outline was completely out of place in the picture, since the saucer and cup are very delicate and light-colored images. So, in my third modified version of e-t-c's avatar, I made a "totally compatible" and "unified" image (IMO) in which I used a thin, light-gray outline around both the cup/saucer unit and the cup sitting on the saucer. The link for this version is: http://postimage.org/image/zbsornlgl/ I think this transparent GIF is far superior to the original image and my other modifications. P.S. If you look *carefully* at the outer edges of this transparent GIF, you'll notice an aliased (i.e., "stair-steppy") look. All outer edges of an image have to be aliased in order for GIF89a Export to successfully convert it to a transparent GIF. But, in the "grand scheme of things", I don't feel that this look is really objectionable.

I'm now listening to Cher -- of all people -- singing "Our Day Will Come": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPhGwoYkpHE&feature=relatedTo embarrass myself even further, I've listened to the song quite a few times in a row.

Yes. They open just fine.Thanks, CoffeeFiend: I'm so *relieved* to hear this, and I'm sure bphlpt will be relieved also.

Hello, CoffeeFiend: Thanks for exposing me to the 21st century (my PS 5.0 was from the 20th century). You should see the selection tools we've got now. I watched your video 6 or 7 times, asking myself, "Could I achieve the same result with my PS 5.0 work-arounds ?" My *basic approach* in making a .psd file is dragging a layer that I want to modify into a "New File" (most always with a transparent background), making what changes I want in this New File -- (i.e., resizing, removing background, etc.) -- and then dragging the resultant layer *back into* the file I'm working on. Consider how I'd approach the case shown in the video, where the sister in the swing -- (at the left) -- is to be moved closer to her brother on the right: For starters, I'd open the original JPEG, drag it into a New File -- (with a transparent background) -- and then close the original JPEG. (That way, I'd *always* have my original image, unaltered.) I'd then duplicate this layer in the New File. On this duplicate layer, I'd *obliterate everything involving the sister*, by mostly using the Rubber Stamp Tool, with the appropriate setting(s) in the Brushes Palette. The Line Tool is also useful (IMO) in this process, also. Now, we need to turn attention to removing the background around the sister, swing, and chain holding the swing up. What I usually do in a case like this is use the Eraser Tool, with Options: "Pencil", "Opacity=100%", and "Fade=0". I quickly go around the image with the Eraser Tool (but, of course, trying to be as close to the image as possible). But, of course, after this, the outside of the image still has an "aliased" (i.e., stair-steppy) look. Next I use a trick I developed myself -- (I honestly don't know if this "trick" is common knowledge or not. It's so simple, it probably is common knowledge.) -- to turn the aliased outer edge into "anti-aliased". I go around the outer edge -- (a couple of pixels at a time) -- using the Line Tool, with Options: "Normal", "Opacity=100%, Weight=1px, and, of course, with the "Anti-aliased" box checked. As I go around the outside edge of the image with the Line Tool, I sample the color just inside the image at that point, and use that color in my 2px (or so) anti-aliased straight line. This technique is very, very fast, and essentially it is based on the Fundamental Principle(s) of Calculus, which state that any curve of any shape can be well approximated by a series of straight-line segments, as long as the length of these segments is short. To get the *exact* vertical shape of the 2 chains -- (with all the *exact* details) -- I'd probably just crop each chain out -- (as close to the "verticals" as i could get) -- of the image in 2 "New Files" (on transparent layers), and drag the crops back into the original file and position them where they should be. All of this work sounds "long-winded', but this is the way I'm used to working, and what I've described wouldn't take me very long at all to do. I typically use smart objects. But, I don't think *smart* objects would be compatible with *dumb* people ! (lol) But no, I don't do that "resize & sharpen a bunch of times" thing. You should. It would allow you to visit Prehistoric Times, and see the way the Cavemen used to do it. Many Thanks for this *Instructive Post*, CoffeeFiend. The video was definitely interesting to watch, but I didn't understand *all* of it, with all the advanced terminology, and especially with the speed at which it went. However, I did get a strong sense that I could more or less duplicate what was shown using Prehistoric PS 5.0. Again, Much Appreciated ! P.S., Could you please answer this for me ? It concerns the .psd files I made for bphlpt. You said that PS 5.0 couldn't even open .psd files made by more-advanced versions. (I'd guess that's because PS 5.0 would have no way of knowing what the "features" of the more-advanced versions are.) Finally, my question: Can much-later versions of PS open PS 5.0 .psd files ? My guess is that the answer to this question is "Yes". Kind of like: "Stephen Hawking can understand a 4-year-old -- (when the 4-year-old talks about *anything*) -- but the 4-year-old can't understand Stephen Hawking, especially when he discusses Physics".

bphlpt Nah, I just have the tendency to look at how others did it first, then figure how I can do it better. You tend to try to figure out how to do it first, then see how someone else did it afterwards for comparison. Neither approach is wrong, just a difference in approach. Not only are you never wrong (as I previously indicated), but you are quite the analyst, too ! Is there no end to your talents? (lol) Tripredacus I'm dying to redo -- from scratch -- your "powerfully delicate" image just to see what I can come up with. I'll surely Post the results. It will be a couple of days before I can continue with it. (I have some other important business to take care of first.) 2nd link -- for Planck's signature. I used this one over the first. Thanks for the info. I will use this one also. I haven't yet started on removing the background on the signature. As you can probably tell, I had modified the color of the signature. For sure ! Changing the color of anything is easy. What I do is put the new color -- in a big size -- in the layer over what I want I want to change the color of, and then "Alt-Click" exactly in-between these 2 layers, and then link and merge the 2 resulting layers. A long, long time ago, CoffeeFiend said this technique was called "Clipping Paths". I merely used the magic wand with some varied levels of tolerance to remove the white. The magic wand is certainly MAGIC! I've already removed the background of the large JPEG (at the 3,590x1,980px size) with Mr. Wand, and what pixels He didn't remove, I removed with the Eraser. I got an absolutely *perfect* job! Next, I have to shrink it down to the size to fit into the final 380x100 image. Can you or CoffeeFiend, give me some tips on reducing to maintain a *sharp* image? What I read on the net a while back said that you shouldn't shrink it *a lot* in 1 step. It said to shrink it by 50%, again shrink it by 50%, again shrink it by 50%, again shrink it by 50%, etc. until you get close to the final size. Then reduce it to the final size in the final step. (This final reduction very probably won't be by 50%. It might be 70%, 85%, etc.) So, that's what I've been doing. This approach seems to work well. As far as the unused images, this is common in my work on building an image. I will take in multiple different images before determining what i use. In this case, I felt it fine to leave these un-used resources in my post to show you them. It is only because at first I developed the image list before I actually got a look at everything and got an idea. Yes, I kind of do this also. When one has *more than enough* images, the *proper ones* seem to coalesce -- as if by magic -- into the final image, or they "synergize" into creating new ideas. The Gesellschaft used glow at 5 height, 87% opacity, 12 softness, 0 offset. The signature has different settings as it didn't need as much to stand out. I will start with those settings. Thanks for that info. Yes, the signature, by far, uses the darkest green, so it stands out the best with an outer glow around it. I also think that is the best "treatment" for the signature, since that is kind of the "focal point" of the image. You can do what you want with the image. That's why I made it. Many, Many Thanks, Tripredacus. I'm really looking forward to "constructing" -- (and, hopefully, not "destructing") -- my version. It's going to be a lot of fun ! My approach is to do it by accident at first, and not be able to recreate it at a later time if I tried, because I've forgotten how I did it. Boy, I sure know what you are talking about here ! That's why I take it *slow and easy* and LABEL each layer in the .psd file with as *much info* as possible. Even with this, if I haven't looked at the .psd file for a few weeks, it's often a little difficult to reacquaint myself with what I did. Honestly, because of this, I often feel like I have pre-Alzheimer's ! (lol) Many, Many Thanks for Posting this *GEM* ! !

I was so *very, very tired* last night when I made all those LONG, RAMBLING, DISORGANIZED Posts. These Posts were a very accurate reflection of my *jumbled* brain at the time. Tripredacus Thanks for all the links. Like CoffeeFiend said, you served up all the "ingredients" of your image on a silver platter! Quite a "chef" you are! Please ignore my requests for *you* to modify your image (i.e., to make the face outline darker). Last night, I was Tired and Lazy, and I didn't want to do the image over from scratch. However, this morning, I'm refreshed and kind of *curious* to see what I can come up with on my own. I certainly(?) have the PS 5.0 skills to make this relatively "simple" image (i.e., not many layers or "manipulations"). It might look somewhat different than your image, but "Spice is the Variety" of life, or something like that (?). bphlpt You were so very correct, Sir! I will never, never, never, never..."infinity" doubt your word again! CoffeeFiend Again, Many Thanks for your input last night! A lot of the PS features and "manipulations" you described are *not* available in my PET DINOSAUR Version 5.0. Like I said, I'm going to try and remake Tripredacus' image from scratch using *Dino*. If you don't mind, kind of keep an eye out for my commentary on this thread, just in case I run into *insurmountable* problems. However, I don't think I will -- but what do I know(?) As the Billy Preston song says, "Nothing from Nothing Leaves Nothing". Again, Many, Many Thanks All.

Thanks for your complete and detailed response, CoffeeFiend: It is so *very clear* that your expertise far exceeds mine ! Sincerely, Larry

Well, bphlpt, I checked out the links and they weren't very helpful (for me, at least). See especially the 4th link below. To *quickly* use this image, I'd need it on a transparent layer in a .psd file. As I explain, it's a JPEG. 1st link -- for Planck's signature Only a JPEG, which I can't easily and accurately edit. But, I don't have any problems with the signature in Tripredacus' image. 2nd link -- for Planck's signature #1 Max Planck signature (svg), which PS 5.0 can't open. #2 This image rendered as PNG -- PS opens it but it as a totally black field -- unusable. #3 Some JPEGs, which I can't easily and accurately edit. But, I don't have any problems with the signature in Tripredacus' image. 3rd link -- for background image in Tripredacus' picture. A JPEG which I can readily use if desired, but I don't feel the need, since I'm perfectly happy with Tripredacus' background. 4th link -- for outline of the Greek/Roman face. A very large JPEG (3,590x1,980px). I could obtain the outline by opening it in PS, putting a transparent layer above it, and then "tracing over" the image on this transparent layer, and then reducing it to the appropriate size, and manipulating the fade to white at the bottom. This would be a very tedious, labor intensive process (especially tracing it rather accurately) I wonder(?) how Tripredacus got the image. He said he didn't spend *much time* on his picture, so I'm sure he didn't use this approach. 5th link -- a JPEG image of Max Plank. This image was *not* the one I used in my avatar, but it is rather similar. You can compare the avatar image with this JPEG to see that they are different. 6th link -- a JPEG image of Max Plank. Again, this image was *not* the one I used in my avatar. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The big question I have for Tripredacus, is how he *quickly* got the outline of the Greek/Roman face (?) If the image were traced over at the large size, it wouldn't have to be *too accurate*, since the size reduction would tend to "smooth" things out. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EDIT: *Of course*, the way to do it is to open the green image on the white background and use the Magic Wand Tool to remove the white, leaving the green on a transparent layer. This would also work for "extracting" the Max Plank signature from a JPEG. I knew that, but in all my rambling, it slipped my mind (or what's left of it anyway -- lol). Tripradecus, I now have the face outline on a transparent layer (as you say, it was quick and easy to do). The problem is that it would be kind of tedious to try to work it behind the horizontal 2px line and the GESELLSCHAFT lettering, etc. I really don't want to do the whole thing from scratch, since I'm sure you have all the *layers* already stacked in place. Would you mind using my border and horizontal line idea and just darken the face outline in a few increments (i.e., versions) to see if that would improve the image. (I'm just curious.) Of course, if you don't want to do it, that's perfectly *fine and dandy*, too, and we can just consider this image *complete* as is. Again many thanks for posting it. (I can't believe I forgot about The Magic Wand Tool. It has been some time since I had to remove a background.)

Thanks, bphlpt: I feel kind of stupid now. I put the "cart in front of the horse" instead of the other way round. That's three big wackos for me!

Tripredacus, I love your image. It is so "powerfully delicate" -- if that's not an oxymoron. Any website would be happy to have an image like that. I started out to make a short Post, but when I start talking Art, I don't know when to stop. Sorry. I downloaded your JPEG any made some very minor changes to suit *my* artistic tastes. I couldn't make 1 other change I wanted, but I'll discuss it, and maybe you can explore it if you want. I couldn't make the change because the image was JPEG and not .psd, for example. BTW, do you have a .psd version, so I could explore making the change myself ? That would be fun for me. Please know that I'm not *criticizing* your work, but I'm just describing my *my* artistic tastes. As you know, observing Art is a very subjective matter. 2 different people might create 2 different versions of the same thing -- and both would be acceptable. There is really no "right or wrong". Well, enough rambling, let me get to my "analysis" of your image -- that is, if you don't think I'm being too forward. Let me say that I haven't yet read any of your links yet, but I will *certainly* study them in detail, and I'm sure I'll have some questions. I think this will be a *great* opportunity for me to learn a lot! Thanks for Posting the image, Tripredacus! Here is the link to my (very moderately) revised image: http://postimage.org/image/5d84zw55t/ Basically, all I did was to alter the horizontal green stripe going through the image and the border around the image. I don't have the capability to make a final change *from this JPEG* (as I discuss below) that I think would improve the picture. Now, for a few details that can be skipped, if you want. First off, I sampled a color in the 2 pixel horizontal line -- (which had transparency effects) -- within the image, and I colored in this line with that solid color, being careful not to color *over* the outer glow around the "P" in Planck. That way, the "P" would be on a visual plane *above* this solid line. I also made a 2 pixel border around the outside of the whole image with this color. (I had to come inside the "bounding box" of the image by 1 pixel to maintain the 380x100px image size.) This color of green had ( r, g, b )=(156,193,186 ) and luminosity=164. I wanted the horizontal line within the image and the border around the whole image to read as a "unit". To see how dark the Max Plank signature was, I sampled the "x" with "Sample Size: 3x3 average". Here, ( r,g,b )=( 21,109,94 ) with luminosity=61. This is a pretty dark shade of green that shows up well on the outer glow around "Max Planck". To see how dark the lettering in "GESELLSCHAFT" was, I sampled the color on the vertical leg of the "L", again using "Sample Size: 3x3 average". Here, ( r,g,b )=( 66,149,135 ) with luminosity=101. Bottom line: In order of increasing luminosity, we have the Max Plank signature (61), "GESELLSCHAFT" (101), and the 2 pixel horizontal line and border (164). This corresponds to the degree these 3 elements "pop out" (lower luminosity pops out more than higher luminosity) in visual space on a light-colored background. To me, these 3 elements are in *perfect harmony*. Of course, all this can be seen by simply looking at the JPEG. One really doesn't need all the above RIGMAROLE. Here is the one area in which the image can be improved, IMO -- and that concerns the Roman or Greek outline/face below the above three elements. (First, I really like the way you have put the white "glow" in front of the lower part of the face so that "GESELLSCHAFT" shows up well.) I think the face outline should be *somewhat darker* so that it occupies a "visual plane" (i.e., "value") about half-way between the light background and the 3 structural elements discussed above. That way, the picture would essentially be in three well-defined levels -- the foreground, the face outline, and the light gray/white background. I bet you used vector graphics in making the face outline (?), so it might not be too hard to darken the outline up some. Being kind of an artist, I'm *very curious* to see if my suggestion would improve the picture. It might not improve it -- what do I know (?) lol Well, let me quit rambling and start reading your links. Again, sorry for all the verbiage.

I made a collection of avatars -- each avatar having one "generic" Smiley Face. The avatars are of 2 types. The first type uses the layout of my previously posted 002 avatar series, with Smiley above the red "X". The second type uses just the phrase "ME for Me !" with Smiley above it. For the background colors of each type, I used some of the best colors of the previously posted 002 avatar series. I also made some avatars with solid-colored backgrounds, just to provide a little contrast with the non-uniform backgrounds. This is a note for ME "diehards": The odd-numbered file names below are linked to the avatars having just "ME for Me !" with Smiley above it. You are free to use these avatars as you see fit, without any restrictions whatsoever on MSFN or on any other of your Forums. If you want to use a few on MSFN, just "lay claim to them" in a Post on this thread by giving their file names, and I can go back and edit this Post saying that those avatars are no longer available for use on MSFN. That way, we won't have *different* members using *identical* avatars. Thank you. The file names and links for these avatars are: 002_V16_av, http://postimage.org/image/tnrt65kij/ 002_V17_av, http://postimage.org/image/m5vmu8c1f/ 002_V18_av, http://postimage.org/image/67x0ybugt/ 002_V19_av, http://postimage.org/image/y2rusg3cj/ 002_V20_av, http://postimage.org/image/fb2ylkpwb/ 002_V21_av, http://postimage.org/image/4zrh8foqp/ 002_V22_av, http://postimage.org/image/cy9bq61vv/ 002_V23_av, http://postimage.org/image/oucnf1ddz/ 002_V24_av, http://postimage.org/image/cvt61jx1t/ 002_V25_av, http://postimage.org/image/59punivwd/ 002_V26_av, http://postimage.org/image/gwmtr4pid/ 002_V27_av, http://postimage.org/image/6y1v4ng2j/ 002_V28_av, http://postimage.org/image/ouqdwzs8p/ 002_V29_av, http://postimage.org/image/75vvx77ev/ 002_V30_av, http://postimage.org/image/uislgsdgl/ 002_V31_av, http://postimage.org/image/hakfsiarl/ 002_V32_av, http://postimage.org/image/h2n78dbf5/ 002_V33_av, http://postimage.org/image/ywip9nuhd/ 002_V34_av, http://postimage.org/image/crbx57rpj/ 002_V35_av, http://postimage.org/image/9bouss0sn/ 002_V36_av, http://postimage.org/image/57x2rrjlz/ 002_V37_av, http://postimage.org/image/wslb5abrv/ 002_V38_av, http://postimage.org/image/khjkpvkld/ 002_V39_av, http://postimage.org/image/v5dq1366p/ The avatars below have solid-color backgrounds. 002_V40_av, http://postimage.org/image/es3dsslq5/ 002_V41_av, http://postimage.org/image/autfp8m57/ 002_V42_av, http://postimage.org/image/raozj9hq9/ 002_V43_av, http://postimage.org/image/k6kyfhh6v/ 002_V44_av, http://postimage.org/image/iaabs2gb5/ 002_V45_av, http://postimage.org/image/lkyory68h/ 002_V46_av, http://postimage.org/image/67rz17o4z/ 002_V47_av, http://postimage.org/image/7pmm497nr/ 002_V48_av, http://postimage.org/image/t98k6yntx/ 002_V49_av, http://postimage.org/image/liy23lmo1/

Hello, Kelsenellenelvian: Many thanks for the link about the animated GIFs. I have never made one, myself. I checked out the link and Jasc Animation Shop 3.11 sounds like a GIF dream (it sounds really simple to use -- I like that). I use XP, so I meet the system requirements. I downloaded it, and it will be my first program to use when I start learning about animated GIFs. Again, thanks.

I'd say the first folder contains the mystery of the "BIG BANG".

Hello, dencorso: I re-read my response to your input last night and it seemed rather curt/brusk. I hope you didn't think I was "blowing you off". I didn't intend to, even though my response kind of seemed that way. I also like the new dollar sign better than the other one. But I do think it might even work with all the other letters in the other font, too. I don't think so at all. We are back to "compatibility" again. The new dollar sign has absolutely nothing in common with the letters in the other font (no serifs, thickness of the structural elements for the same letter height, etc., etc.), as you can see by comparing 001_Sa_Ug_V01_sig, http://postimage.org/image/huhlj6lwn/ to 003_Sa_Ug_V02_sig, http://postimage.org/image/7m8db7cpv/ where the dollar signs are roughly the same height. 003 is a much *bolder* font than 001, and it doesn't have any serifs. Now, one thing I didn't address (although it was implict in my example) is that you're using a shade of green which is near black, while I used a much more "greener" green, which I think works better, although the one I used is maybe too luminous. The shade of green is "rather" dark, but it really isn't near black at all. It has a luminosity of 30 -- ( r,g,b )=( 0,64,0 ), while black has a luminosity of 0 -- (r, g, b )=( 0,0,0 ). On my monitor, in Photoshop, it doesn't look near black at all -- it looks dark green. Images appear differently on everyone's different systems. Perhaps that is why it looks very, very dark on your screen (?). I use a low actual screen resolution of 53 pixels/inch. (I prefer it that way, so I can work with larger images and especially larger pixels in PS.) What is your actual screen resolution? I often e-mail my nephew some of my small images so he can tell me how they look much smaller than on my screen (he has an actual screen resolution of 90+ pixels/inch). He always says my smallest images show up well (i.e.,clear and well defined) on his monitor. I first tried a more luminous green, and it didn't look good *at all*. There was not enough contrast with the yellow outline around the dollar sign and "X". Plus, the darker green worked better with the other bold colors in the image, red [(r,g,b )=(255,0,0)] and dark blue [(r,g,b )=(0,0,128)]. *Thanks again* for your input, dencorso.

I made new versions of the signature using the same background as in versions 001 and the same red-with-blue-outline letters (but in a different, bolder, but still funky, all-caps font). Because the lettering was in all caps, I used a green "X" to separate the two words "SAMMY" and "UGLARRING" in the signatures. This green provided a nice contrast with the other red letters (i,e., green and red are complimentary colors.) To make the green "X" show up well on the burnt-orange parts of the background, I outlined them with yellow. (I think that was a nice touch -- it kind of unifies the green better with the background.) The first image I made was: 003_Sa_Ug_V01_sig, http://postimage.org/image/ewuovuedx/ This image is rather balanced compositionally, because the "X" is more or less in the center of the image. Next, I replaced the "S" in "SAMMY" with a dollar sign, which I *absolutely love* in this font. As I explained before, replacing the "S" with a dollar sign wasn't a "genius move" on my part, because in the music business, for example, "Rap" artists whose names have "S"(s) do it all the time. The result is shown in: 003_Sa_Ug_V02_sig, http://postimage.org/image/7m8db7cpv/ To me, this image is more interesting than V01, since we have *both* the dollar sign and the "X" -- (each with a yellow outline) -- adding to the visual interest. To get an even *more balanced* look, it is clear that we need some more yellow on the right side of the image. There is nothing better for adding a big "splash" of yellow than the "generic", yellow Smiley Face. The result is shown in: 003_Sa_Ug_V03_sig, http://postimage.org/image/r9gvvbgtl/ This is, by far, my favorite version of the three signatures. Smiley provides a little "comic relief" and a "closing" for the image, as we "read it" from left to right. To be totally honest, I wouldn't have made these new signature versions had it not been for dencorso's input about compatibility. I really didn't do dencorso justice in my response to his compatibility issues. These issues are the most important in all of Art (from painting, logo design, etc. ,etc.) That is why I made these new signatures -- to achieve a much better degree of compatibility between all the graphic elements. What do you think of these, dencorso? And, again, many thanks for your input. It was that input that helped create these versions of the signature. I made 2 companion avatars to go along with these three signatures: 003_V01_av, http://postimage.org/image/6qlj6kw6p/ and 003_V02_av, http://postimage.org/image/5r9gzi4on/ I kept the "ME for Me !" exactly the same as in Versions 002 (same font, same size, but I made the blue darker to match the outline around the red letters).

The dollar sign in the jpeg was from the font itself, so, in that regard, it's perfectly compatible with the rest of the red-with-blue-outline letters. And, to my eye, it looked OK (i.e., compatible). The dollar sign in the font was *not made* from the "S". Dencorso, you do have a good point, since in a lot of the more "standard" (i.e., non-funky) fonts, the dollar sign *is based* on the "S" with a bar through it. But, just not for this font. I'll take a look at your thumbnail(s). Many Thanks for your input, dencorso.

I made 15 new signature/avatar pairs, in which I used blue letters and mostly blue tones, silver, and metallic-looking colors for the backgrounds. What takes me the longest time in a project like this is making the "template" (i.e., the "structure" for the lettering layout) for the signatures and avatars. Once I have the layout, I like to change the background colors to see the interactions with the lettering and "bounding" box of the signature/avatar pair. Here, I "sampled" the colors in the signature to get the colors (and color "flow") in the avatar. That way, the signature and avatar form a unified set. This will become evident when you view the images at the bottom of this Post. The font I used only had lower case letters, so I had to figure out how to separate the two words, "sammy" and "uglarring". If the 2 words *ran together*, as in "sammyuglarring", it wouldn't look right (i.e., it would be confusing). The best idea I had was to put a big, bright red "X" (with 3 blue periods underneath) in-between the 2 words. I chose the lettering to be standard blue, and this red/blue combination worked out very well (IMO). I "manipulated" the backgrounds of the images, as much as possible, so that the red X would really stand out. Well, that's about it. You can fill in the rest of the details by just looking at the images. So, here are the images in my second set of signatures and avatars. ----------------------- 002_Sa_Ug_V03_sig, http://postimage.org/image/xs2vswg8n/ 002_V03_av, http://postimage.org/image/sep6pbqx3/ ----------------------- 002_Sa_Ug_V04_sig, http://postimage.org/image/3kzlhtdtj/ 002_V04_av, http://postimage.org/image/c57byd1vr/ ----------------------- 002_Sa_Ug_V05_sig, http://postimage.org/image/4tnh3g5s1/ 002_V05_av, http://postimage.org/image/mhoknbp3l/ ----------------------- 002_Sa_Ug_V06_sig, http://postimage.org/image/x1h3d9sfh/ 002_V06_av, http://postimage.org/image/5m9fobjdd/ ----------------------- 002_Sa_Ug_V07_sig, http://postimage.org/image/qsyh4ec01/ 002_V07_av, http://postimage.org/image/gtjlvcutj/ ----------------------- 002_Sa_Ug_V08_sig, http://postimage.org/image/p4zbpqy4h/ 002_V08_av, http://postimage.org/image/a32ppqvhh/ ----------------------- 002_Sa_Ug_V09_sig, http://postimage.org/image/w65p1htfb/ 002_V09_av, http://postimage.org/image/b47jsm1ut/ ----------------------- 002_Sa_Ug_V10_sig, http://postimage.org/image/qcqzzznnb/ 002_V10_av, http://postimage.org/image/cmgugcy27/ ----------------------- 002_Sa_Ug_V11_sig, http://postimage.org/image/4euj678mv/ 002_V11_av, http://postimage.org/image/pc5ypdcc3/ ----------------------- 002_Sa_Ug_V12_sig, http://postimage.org/image/74hwk61jf/ 002_V12_av, http://postimage.org/image/9nwg6nb47/ ----------------------- 002_Sa_Ug_V13_sig, http://postimage.org/image/sc320uxc1/ 002_V13_av, http://postimage.org/image/wut8sdc63/ ----------------------- 002_Sa_Ug_V14_sig, http://postimage.org/image/hw9wv8h87/ 002_V14_av, http://postimage.org/image/rh43voi4x/ ----------------------- 002_Sa_Ug_V15_sig, http://postimage.org/image/riwxf0ox9/ 002_V15_av, http://postimage.org/image/twjvfkf5p/ ----------------------- I put these 2 signature/avatar pairs at the bottom of the list, because they are not as "exciting" (IMO) as those shown above, which have all the pretty colors. ----------------------- The letters have a subtle drop shadow against the MSFN background (i.e., no "bounding box"). 002_Sa_Ug_V01_sig, http://postimage.org/image/shscxkw8n/ 002_V01_av, http://postimage.org/image/c7t1qp1b9/ ----------------------- The letters are straightforward, with no "tricks", sitting on the MSFN background, with no "bounding box". 002_Sa_Ug_V02_sig, http://postimage.org/image/99ekta3hp/ 002_V02_av, http://postimage.org/image/gk962vr7d/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- “A Picture of many colors proclaims images of many Thoughts.” Donna A. Favors and "Why do two colors, put one next to the other, sing? Can one really explain this? No." Pablo Picasso ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I thought I might give a little background information on myself, just in case you all might be interested: In making all the images in this thread, I use Photoshop Version 5.0, a really old version, which doesn't have the capabilities of the later versions -- but it is simpler to use than the later versions. I've developed a lot of "work-around" techniques (usually involving 80 to 100 layers in the .psd file) to make my images look a little more advanced (I think). I've more or less mastered the "basics" of this version, and I can use the program pretty quickly and efficiently, once I'm clear on what it is I want to achieve in a picture (font, color scheme, general layout, etc., etc.) -- that's what takes the most time and the most "problem solving". Before I got into Photoshop, I was a painter, but I developed allergies to all types of paint (even acrylics), and had to stop painting. While working with Photoshop, I feel like I'm painting again, as I manipulate the colors and image around -- (that's a great feeling!). Photoshop has a pretty steep learning curve (IMO), but once you figure it out, it's not too hard to use. I'm still learning "new tricks" -- which I develop myself or find on the internet. I've been into Art since I started coloring at about age 3 ! (lol). Concerning 3-year-old coloring, you might check out the work of Jean-michel Basquiat on Google Images. I've given links to 2 of my *absolute-favorite* paintings of his at the bottom of this Post. Basquiat was an internationally renowned mainstream artist, who died of a heroin overdose at age 27 (unfortunately). Without a doubt, he is one of my favorite artists. In the distant past I used a *drawing* (i.e., vector) program (similar to Adobe Illustrator, but much, much, much, much simpler). I quit using it in favor of Photoshop. Here are 2 of my favorite paintings by Jean-michel Basquiat: http://artbrokerage.com/artthumb/basquiat_25245_2/850x600/Jean_Michel_Basquiat_Untitled_Ernok.jpg http://www.michaelarnoldart.com/jean-michel-basquiat-picture.jpg Basquiat's paintings sell today for many millions of dollars !