larryb123456

Please use the image number designations I've provided (for example, # T or # Final-8) and NOT the type of designation you have used. [For the life of me, I can't understand why you would use such a designation. There are so many images, we need to use my designations *only* to keep things straight (at least for me). Thanks.] Also, I *don't understand* why you went back and gave your "analysis" on an image that is now *irrelevant* -- at least from my point of view. I love the way you presented the image on a black background -- so the details could be seen -- and the way you circled (and numbered) areas that were problematic to you. Using this system, we can communicate *precisely*. I tried to improve -- and did improve (IMO) -- the top of the Old Man's head to make it look rounder (where you said it looked flat, or bashed in) as shown in # Final-8 in my last Post. So, in my mind, # Final-8 is where we *currently are* in the development -- and any future changes should be based on using that image as a *starting point* (IMO). So, please go back and do your *precise analysis* of that image (# Final-8) -- as you did with the image in your last Post. For example, you can put Xs on the pixels you want me to remove on the top of the head and maybe use red pixels for pixels you want me to add. Maybe it would be *best* for you to just use red pixels to arrive at the *final* top-of-the-head contour that *you want*, and I could transfer the changes, pixel by pixel, to my .psd file image. In any event, this red-pixel exercise would make it *clear* to you the difficulties associated with approximating the outline of a perfect circle by an aliased (i.e., "stair-steppy") edge. Please, also *precisely* detail (by circling and numbering) the changes *you* want me to make to the beard. Now that we can communicate precisely, there is no need (IMO) to use *vague* terminology. I will await your (more *precisely* detailed the better) analysis of # Final-8. Once I get this analysis -- but not before -- I'll proceed with changes to the image and I'll respond to your Post # 110.

We are getting close to the end of this project, and I need to know from you what "elements" are *finalized* -- except for moving them around to other positions (of course). So far: # 1) The bphlpt letters with the lighter (i.e., luminosity=130) outline -- correct? # 2) The blue "binary-number sphere" (the darker version with PS brightness = -10) as shown in the last few images -- correct? I'll first respond to your Post # 108 (which was a response to my Post # 107). The cap appearing smaller is fine, and I think the overall brightness increase is good. On looking at the images in my last Post with "fresh eyes", I decided that I didn't like the smaller-sized mushroom cap (it seemed too small compared to both the mushroom stem and the Old Man's face). I brightened *only the area on the Old Man's face just to the left of his nose* -- as I said I would in my Post # 107 -- and this increase in brightness also called for a slightly larger mushroom cap. So, I went back and re-worked the cap border with a nice *aliased* edge. The brighter face on the Old Man called for another slight increase in brightness (PS +5) for the entire mushroom (cap and stem). Because the Old Man can now "see" -- because of his eyes coming out of the "darkness" -- it's almost like he's looking at the "somewhat glowing" mushroom cap. I really like these effects, and I hope you do, too. It's important to look at the image both on a white and a black background -- because the same area will appear a little differently on each background. (Notice how the mushroom cap glows like gangbusters in the image on a black background, # Final-8.) For me to see, and distinguish, a color depends on several factors, ...Those factors are the color, the colors surrounding the color, the brightness of the colors both absolute and relative, the brightness of the environment, the texture or reflectivity of the surface, and the amount of the color. Spoken like a *true artist*. As to looking "natural", we are talking about what looks to me like a blue mushroom with pink and orange spots, so ... TOUCHE ! I should have been more clear and said "looking natural to someone on an LSD acid trip". I will now respond to your Post # 106. I noticed that after all the successive images, his head was getting a little "flat" on top, like somebody bashed his head in. I rounded it just a touch and added the least little bit of hair back in to not look too smooth. I'll go with what you think looks best. I downloaded your jpeg and enlarged it in PS. Because the image was on a white background, I absolutely couldn't tell *anything* about what you had done. But, no matter, since I am completely familiar with this problem. The flatness (or, in general, the "stair-stepped" look) occurs because we are trying to *approximate* a perfectly curved line (i.e. vector or even anti-aliased) by an aliased line. The most difficulty comes at the top (or sides) of a circle -- like at the top of the Old Man's head. Notice that at the very top (and sides, too) of the *perfect* aliased "binary-sphere" circle -- created by the PS program settings -- there is an 11 px long *absolutely flat* region. I was *very aware* of the flat spot on the top of the Old Man's head. I went back and improved it (IMO), as shown in the images shown in this post. Note that you don't have this problem in your signature, because everything is anti-aliased -- which smooths out the edges. We need an aliased edge -- in regions *only* around the border of the image -- to make a GIF successfully via PS GIF89a Export. I love what you did on the right side (his left) of the Old Man's beard, but on the viewer's left (his right) I'm not sure why you removed quite so much of the beard and especially the hair. I did this in trying to follow dencorso's instructions (in his Post # 102) to keep the beard shape "the general form of half the shadow of an american-football ball" -- i.e., rather pointy at the end, as shown in the picture link in his post. So, I had to start trimming the beard where I did, and I made my own "ugly hair extension" to "contain" the dark brown shadow region just above the hair above bphlpt. Let me say I didn't like my result *at all*. But I knew that I had to follow dencorso's instructions, or he would *ban me* from MSFN. After all, he is a Super Moderator. ( LOL ! ) So, following your input, and my better sense of taste also, I went back and repaired the bad barbering job -- as shown in the images in this Post. I like the way an additional somewhat deeper shadow is introduced at the bottom of the left side (viewer's POV) of the beard. May we now add the Old Man's image (head, hair, and beard) as # 3 in our list of *finalized* "elements" ? I like the effect of the lighter outline. Almost as if it's flourescing slightly in the night. Or dimly lit internally. After all, it is a magic mushroom. [NOTE: To me, probably because it's surrounded by so much blue, I see it as a very light blue. What color is it?] The color is in the "aqua family" -- a kind of bluish-green. [To be precise, *true aqua* has equal components of blue and green, with ( r, g, b ) = ( 0,255,255 ).] I think this color works great in the picture because the Old Man and the sphere have very strong blue components also. This explains why the original dark brown outline around the cap did not work at all. I hope you find that your mushroom flouresces a bit more and glows even more magically in the images shown in this Post. After all, the Old Man seems under the mushroom's spell -- especially since I removed the "cataracts" from his eyes. May we now add the mushroom as # 4 in our list of *finalized* "elements" ? In addition, I moved the blue binary sphere over to the right 2 px, to accommodate changes made in the images given in this Post. The actual image -- all elements included -- now occupies an area 79 px wide by 75 px tall. (So, we have quite a bit of room to play with in the vertical direction.) I'm confused. How is moving the mushroom down and to the right, therefore covering up the edge of the sphere, "adding more sphere area (i.e., dark area) to the right of the mushroom cap". I must be missing something. I'm just as confused as you. Let's start over on this one to be clear: Case # 1: move the sphere over to the right and down Case # 2: move the mushroom over to the right and down Case # ?: any other case you had in mind Which case did you have in mind? I had interpreted the commentary as Case # 1 (if I remember correctly, but as I said, I'm confused -- lol ). I think the mushroom is too close to the man, unless you were going for the viewpoint that he was going to take a bite of the magic mushroom? Hmmm. I think, at that point, we still hadn't decided on whether or not we wanted an outline around the whole GIF. I didn't want any part of the mushroom to extend beyond the beard and binary sphere, because then an awkward-looking outline -- incorporating the Old Man, the sphere, *and* the mushroom cap would result. So, I kept the mushroom away from the beard/sphere border -- with the result that it was closer to the Man's face and mouth. That's all. I tried to find the best graphical solution for my "self-imposed" restrictions. But, I agree with you that in the images shown in this Post -- with the larger (more in tune with the stem size) mushroom cap, the mushroom is a little too close to the man. (As I said, I didn't want to experiment with element positioning until we had the individual elements perfected.) When the mushroom is moved a little further away from the Man, I don't think it will look as big. As soon as -- *but not before* -- we have all the *finalized* "elements" completed, we can experiment with moving things around. Would you please make two versions, one with the mushroom where you think it should be, and one with it roughly where I've shown it below. As soon as -- *but not before* -- we have all the *finalized* "elements" completed, we can experiment with moving things around. Also, when we have all the individual *finalized* "elements" completed, I will refuse to make any more changes to them -- just so you will know in advance. So, let us be sure we have them in the *final form* -- hopefully in a form that we are *both* ultra-pleased with. (I certainly don't want this project to turn into *my real-life version* of the movie "Groundhog Day". LOL ! I'm sure you have seen this movie -- a *true classic*. If you haven't seen it, you *must* rent it, IMO.) Of course, I'll defer to your wishes in the final placement of the image elements -- and I'll just suggest some very minor adjustments (if necessary). The reason I'm comfortable saying this is because if all the elements are -- in themselves -- great, there are many placement arrangements that will work well. The final element placement will *define* the avatar -- and I want this *definition* to be 99+% yours. The avatar will mean more to you that way. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FINAL VERSIONS OF "OLD MAN" TRANSPARENT GIF AVATAR (IN JPEG FORMAT) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # Final-7: avatar on a white background, JPEG http://postimage.org/image/3ye0xwmc/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # Final-8: avatar on a black background, JPEG http://postimage.org/image/3yhc0llw/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child." Pablo Picasso ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I wrote this Post before I saw your last Post (# 106), so I am going to go ahead and Post it as is -- i.e., without any comments relating to your # 106. Can you please respond *just to the content in this Post* -- nothing else, for the time being? That way, it will be easier for me to keep everything straight. Once I get that response, I'll respond to your # 106. Thanks. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I didn't mean to offend you by my use of the term "visual defects". That was just my way of "briefly" referring to your situation. I'm sorry. BTW, what is the proper "politically correct" term ? I also said that what I requested was necessary "for me", again to put the burden of responsibility of using an imperfect solution in my lap, so that you would not be judged poorly for this choice. I really don't want to settle for an imperfect solution. I want to find a single "universal" solution that works for you, for me, and the rest of the world. By simply varying the parameters, we should be able to find such a solution. That is my goal in this project. I think that you'd agree that this is a worthwhile goal to pursue. My response to your italicized comment above forms the basis of this Post. I am now just concentrating on the mushroom -- nothing else. I want to make the mushroom very readable to you in a way that satisfies both of us aesthetically. For the 2 images shown in this Post, I used the lighter luminosity 130 border around the bphlpt letters, as I did in # Final-1 and # Final-3. I went back and worked on the outline around the mushroom cap. I made the outline *aliased* instead of anti-aliased, as you saw in the images in the last post. This will make the outline *more readable* (and the outline will not be as "fuzzy thick", so the cap will appear a tad smaller). In all future dealings with the cap, I plan to use the aliased outline. After reworking the cap outline, I applied PS brightness = +8 to the entire mushroom (stem and cap) to arrive at images # Final-5 and # Final-6. To me, the mushroom cap stands out well -- primarily because of its brightness -- and I can still see the outline, somewhat subtly. To me, this mushroom looks more "natural", and it doesn't seem too bright. Please let me know your reaction to these latest images. Your feedback will give me the info needed to make adjustments in pursuit of the "universal mushroom solution". IMPORTANT: Next, I'm going to try to brighten -- a little -- *just the area in the face* to the left of the Old Man's nose. This should give a really nice, subtle effect. I really can't brighten the whole face, hair, and beard because all the subtle shades of white would get "blown away". I think the brighter face will work well with the brighter mushroom. (The face in your signature is appropriate as is, IMO, for the environment it is in. I'm considering brightening the face in the avatar because it's now in a *different* environment.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FINAL VERSIONS OF "OLD MAN" TRANSPARENT GIF AVATAR (IN JPEG FORMAT) Mushroom cap outline was changed to aliased and PS brightness = +8 was applied to entire mushroom. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # Final-5: avatar on a white background, JPEG http://postimage.org/image/2pbevl24k/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # Final-6: avatar on a black background, JPEG http://postimage.org/image/1qv8gr8as/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Ars gratia artis." This Latin phrase translates into English as "Art is the reward of art." MGM's slogan ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So T and M-1 are the same? To my eye they are. Of course they are not the *same*. M-1 is a JPEG made from the image on a white background in PS (in the regular way). T is a transparent GIF of the same image made in PS by GIF89a Export. The 2 images are totally independent. They look the same on a white background because the transparent GIF was made correctly. I'm glad you ended up coming back around to my view that it looks better without the overall outline. Your statement is not an accurate characterization of the way the events played out. You went back and forth on wondering if the image would look best with/without an outline. You didn't have a firm view. You couldn't make up your mind. You mentioned that you were concerned that parts of the blue sphere might "disappear" on a similarly-colored background. To put this issue *to rest*, I said that if you wanted to be *sure* that *everything* showed up well on *any color* of background, you would *need* an outline. That's all. So maybe you could just make the edge of the back of his head a bit less "jagged"? Done. I sometimes have a tendency to render graphic elements in this way to be a little "cocky" -- i.e., to draw a little more attention to these elements. The man's size and the shape of the sphere are good. You are correct. The sphere is based on a *perfect*, aliased circle. (We need an aliased form for PS GIF89a Export to make a GIF.) But could you do a version of bphlpt with just a touch more contrast, or maybe just a darker outline? Yes. I did a version of bphlpt with a darker outline both on a white background (# Final-2) and on a black background (# Final-4). In # Final-1 and # Final-3, I kept the letters and outline the same as in M-1 and N-1. In the 4 JPEGs shown in this post, the letter color is the same. In # Final-1 and # Final-3 the PS luminosity of the outline is 130. In # Final-2 and # Final-4, I reduced the outline luminosity to 120. This is a very small reduction number-wise, but it has a tremendous effect *visually*. I'm all for modifying the beard in any way that helps it look less like it's sticking straight out like a tongue, as dencorso described it. I went for dencorso's football look -- more or less. On the left side of the beard (as we are viewing it), I made it a little irregular, rather than coming down to the bottom in a straight line. Maybe adding a bit more subtle texture? The light in this picture is coming from right to left, so we would have the shadows on the left side of the beard (as we are viewing it). I made these shadows so that the depth of the beard would be increased somewhat. Also, the non-white coloration of the beard around the edges would make sure the beard would be seen well on a white background. As to the brightness of the sphere, darkening it a touch might be good, we could try it. In the images shown in this Post, I darkened the sphere by a PS brightness = -10. IMO, this helped the overall look. I guess I suggested darkening the entire image a bit because there almost seemed to be a bit of "glare" coming off the man's forehead and part of his beard. But if you want, we can make the final overall brightness adjustment, if necessary, after everything else is finalized. I toned down the "glare" coming off the Old Man's forehead some. You are giving the *totally incorrect approach*, IMO, in saying that a darkening or lightening should be applied to the *entire image* when everything is *finalized*. This is because we do not have "fine-tune control" then. The way to do the brightness adjustment is to deal with the individual layers *independently*. Then, when we have the overall image we like, we flatten the layers into the *final* image. I'm not as happy with the "new mushroom" as you are. Keep in mind that it very well could be that part/all of it is my problem due to my aforementioned color blindness. In the same way, a lot of your "improvements" to the mushroom are not only lost on me, they make it worse. All your comments about how different parts of the cap still show up clearly against the sphere are, for me, wrong. It is too bad how your visual defects prevent you from clearly seeing the much better image (IMO) -- and how they cause you to use a worse solution to the problem (the artificial outline). I agree that the previous border around the cap was too harsh, but I NEED it to have one, however slight and subtle you can make it. I based the outline around the mushroom cap on the letter color and adjusted the brightness to get what is shown in the images. Using this color tied the mushroom in with the rest of the picture. (I tried other outline colors and they did not work at all.) I absolutely have no idea how you will perceive this outline color (because of your visual defects). Just let me know if you want me to darken it or lighten it. After outlining the mushroom cap, I brightened the entire mushroom (cap and stem) by PS brightness = +5 to help it stand out a little more against the darker binary sphere. I then added a *highlight* to the mushroom cap to give it some curvature. By comparing this mushroom cap to the cap in earlier images, we can see just how *incredibly flat* the cap was in the earlier images. Darkening the sphere a touch will probably help give a little contrast, too (between the sphere and mushroom cap). Also, bringing it back down and to the right so that the edge of the cap sticks out distinctly compared to the edge of the sphere and beard helps as well. That will also help it appear lower and more forward, to me. Yes, darkening the sphere helped with the mushroom contrast (as did lightening the mushroom and putting the highlight on the mushroom cap). I tried moving the sphere down and to the right by just 1 px in both directions, as you suggested, and, IMO, that looked *terrible*. (So, terrible, in fact that I didn't do it -- and I'm not going to do it, with all due respect.) By adding more sphere area (i.e., dark area) to the right of the mushroom cap, the viewer's eye is drawn more *in that direction* and not in the direction back to the Old Man's face, as it *should be*. Also, we lose that neat effect of the bottom of the mushroom cap "exactly paralleling" the edge of the sphere. We can *completely solve* the problem of your visual defects around the mushroom cap in that area by adjusting the brightness of the cap's outline. Just let me know how you want it adjusted. Thanks. On a positive note, the size reduction (of the mushroom) is good. I also like the softer outline around the stem. Both of those aspects are good. Yes, they are. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FINAL VERSIONS OF "OLD MAN" TRANSPARENT GIF AVATAR (IN JPEG FORMAT) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # Final-1: avatar on a white background, JPEG http://postimage.org/image/2kpcbtgxw/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # Final-2: avatar on a white background (with a darker outline around bhplpt), JPEG http://postimage.org/image/2kpuiqadg/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # Final-3: avatar on a black background, JPEG http://postimage.org/image/2kq7r12bo/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # Final-4: avatar on a black background (with a darker outline around bhplpt), JPEG http://postimage.org/image/2kqed6gas/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Life is a great big canvas, and you should throw all the paint on it you can." Danny Kaye ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello, bphlpt, and Hello, also, dencorso. (I'm *glad* you're following the development of the "Old Man" avatar, and your commentary is appreciated.) dencorso, I played with the shape of the bottom of the beard -- in *earlier* versions (but not in this version) -- and "felt then" that the ZZ Top look http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EXXZVdUJ98 worked best. But, to be honest, the flat shape also bugs me a bit, too. I'll go back and re-investigate in the image I've included in this Post. Can you give me some image links to show me exactly what beard shape you're talking about? I'll also try to find some beard pictures myself. The shape of the bottom of the beard is an "important graphical element", so we want to get it right. First, as a "heads-up": I include a discussion for images # S-1 and # S-2, at the bottom of this Post, which leads me to conclude that: It would be better to use a transparent GIF which *doesn't* have an outer outline. The images in my last Post were *so preliminary*, that I was almost *embarrassed* to show them, but I knew that they would be *instructive*, so I posted them anyway. I spent *much more time* on the image presented in this Post -- trying to reach a 95+ % level of perfection. (That's why I didn't post anything yesterday.) I will next discuss the changes I made in the image presented in this Post. Please refer to image # M-1 at the end of this Post for this discussion. # 1: I enlarged the Old Man image so that it is now *as big as possible* (after all, he is the "focal point", and, it "graphically" looks better with him being this large). The Old Man, with outline, measures 80 px in the horizontal direction. # 2: I redid the "binary sphere" so that it is now a *perfect* aliased circle. (In the images in my last Post, the outer edges became blurred, and the circle became distorted, when I reduced-to-size the original sphere.) # 3: The main improvement to the image in this Post concerns the treatment of the mushroom. If the image is now to be considered a "success", it's because of the "new mushroom". I reduced the size of the overwhelmingly-ultra-large (IMO) mushroom in my last Post by 85%, so it is more of an actual representation, size-wise, of a mushroom compared to a man's face. I moved the mushroom so that the stem is now embedded in the center (approximately) of the man's beard. The main graphical problem that the new mushroom solves is that it is now contained *totally within* the image, and does not extend beyond the border of the beard and binary sphere -- as it did in my last Post (recall therein the *very awkward* outline-combo around the sphere, mushroom, and Old Man's beard). I eliminated the heavy outlines around the mushroom (save for a subtle outline around the stem, where it is against the light background of the beard). I have *always disliked* the "too bold outline" around the mushroom cap and stem. The mushroom cap can be clearly, and subtly, seen against the backdrop of the binary sphere and the Old Man's beard. It looks much better -- and more *natural* without all the outlining. The two brightly-colored regions on the left side of the mushroom cap draw the viewer's eye back toward the Old Man's face and the center of the picture -- a nice effect. The right side of the bottom of the mushroom cap shows up very well because of the contrast with the darker region of the sphere. The right side of the top of the mushroom cap shows up well because of the contrast with the numbers on the sphere. I love the way the right-side bottom of the mushroom cap *perfectly* follows the edge of the sphere there. The top of the mushroom cap "looks pointed" because it "happens" to be in front of the top of a dark number on the sphere. This needs to be *corrected* to remove the pointy look -- and I'll take care of it ! No problem. These changes to the mushroom introduced an incredible softness and subtlety to the entire image, IMO. I am very proud of this "new" look. # 4: To go with the softness and subtlety discussed in # 3, I brightened the outline around the bphlpt letters "a little" to make the letter/outline combo more compatible with the rest of the image. The combo is still able to be *clearly read* on any and all backgrounds. # 5: I added a little greenish "tinge" around the top of the Old Man's head and around the outer edges of the beard (just where it shows up against the white background). I did this so that the gray outline around the image would not look as *dark* in these two regions. # 6: I changed the outline around the entire image to a mid-value gray, instead of the bluish-gray used in my last Post. This has to do with the art concept of "complimentary colors". With the bluish-gray outline, on an orange background -- these are essentially compliments -- an undesirable visual effect will occur. (Same principle as with red vs. green, a more widely known example.) By using the "more neutral" gray color, we should minimize the undesirable outline/background effects. I chose the outline-gray-color brightness to be *balanced* -- i.e., the outline shows up on a white background with about the same "intensity" as it does on a black background. As for a discussion of the images presented at the bottom of this Post, I'll just include the commentary there along with the image links. P.S. @ bphlpt, It's easy to reduce the brightness a little of the binary sphere -- which is on its own PS layer. That might be a good touch -- it should allow attention to be focused a "little more" on the Old Man's face and mushroom. (Please let me know if you want me to do this in my next version, to see how this change will look.) The Old Man's image must stay as it is, IMO. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SECOND "SCOPING-OUT" VERSION OF "OLD MAN" TRANSPARENT GIF AVATAR -- (IN JPEG FORMAT) -- SHOWN ON A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT SOLID-COLOR BACKGROUNDS. ALSO, ACTUAL TRANSPARENT GIFS (WITHOUT OUTER OUTLINE AND WITH OUTER OUTLINE) ARE GIVEN IN # T AND # U. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # M-1: no outline on a white background, JPEG http://postimage.org/image/2glyl4h0k/ All the features of this image have already been discussed. # M-2: gray outline on a white background, JPEG http://postimage.org/image/2g4z3a6qs/ The outline around the "ZZ Top" beard and the top of the head are very noticeable, but I like the way they are "compositionally balanced" -- i.e., showing up at the top and bottom of the (Old Man's head)/(ZZ Top beard) *diagonal*. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # N-1: no outline on a black background, JPEG http://postimage.org/image/2g5ixqco4/ # N-2: gray outline on a black background, JPEG http://postimage.org/image/2g66397l0/ First, by comparing # M-2 with this image, we see that the gray outline shows up with *roughly* the same intensity in both. (I purposely made the outline in # M-2 a "little less" intense than in # N-2.) I very much like the way the outline "electrifies" the back of the Old Man's head and hair leading down to the bphlpt letters (and beyond). This arrangement really makes the bphlpt stand out well in the lower left of the picture, and the bphlpt provides sort of an anchor for the picture. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Images # O through # R show the image -- with a gray outline -- on 4 different-color backgrounds, just to show how the transparent GIF will appear on these backgrounds. # O: gray outline on a red background, JPEG http://postimage.org/image/2g6wjurhg/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # P: gray outline on a blue background, JPEG http://postimage.org/image/2g71igsys/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # Q: gray outline on a purple background, JPEG http://postimage.org/image/2g7yl7quc/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # R: gray outline on a teal background, JPEG http://postimage.org/image/2g8u0fc84/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # S-1: no outline on a beard-color background, JPEG http://postimage.org/image/2g8vnyopw/ # S-2: gray outline on a beard-color background, JPEG http://postimage.org/image/2g93xnf6s/ These 2 images address the question: "Do we need an outline around the transparent GIF?" To provide a "worst case scenario", I sampled the greenish color of the beard in # M-1 just down and to the right of the mushroom stem. I made the # S-1 and # S-2 JPEGs using this background color. I much prefer the # S-1 image. Even though a lot of the greenish-gray of # S-1 is *lost* where it *totally blends in* with the background, we still get a soft image suggesting -- very well, IMO -- the presence of a beard. Let's discuss other parts of the picture: The outlined bphlpt will show up on *any background* -- guaranteed ! No need to worry about it further. There are so many different colors near the edge of the Old Man's hair -- from the back of his head and down to the bphlpt (and beyond) -- that even if one of these colors disappeared into a similarly-colored background, the other colors would "fill in the gaps" and make the hair *highly readable* as hair. Same situation for the many shades of light green at the top of the Old Man's head. As for the binary sphere, it is *not* a single shade of blue. It is *heavily textured*. Also, there is a gradation of blues around the edge -- introduced by the PS lighting-effects filter. So, a few pixels of the sphere might disappear into a similarly-colored background, but all the other pixels will be there to "pick up the slack" and make the sphere indeed "read" as a sphere. Based on the above discussion, I'd conclude that a better GIF would result if the gray outline were left off. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # T: transparent GIF (with no outline) http://postimage.org/image/2g9fieun8/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # U: transparent GIF (with gray outline) http://postimage.org/image/2g9xpbo2s/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- “When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong." Buckminster Fuller ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello, bphlpt: Here is my *initial* "scoping-out" JPEG layout (using the "refining" approach I earlier said I'd use). The image fits in the 80x80px -- as you requested -- and it doesn't look claustrophobic at all (IMO). I didn't attempt to make a GIF out of this, and I didn't spend too much time cleaning up the JPEG. The purpose of this Post is just to give you a "status" report of where I am in this project and also to give you a "first-hand" *demonstration* of the necessity of an overall outline and to show you -- by the images at the end of this Post -- that the transparent GIF, when it's made, will show up well on *any and all types* of backgrounds. (I'm sure I can clean up the outline some in making the transparent GIF.) Hopefully now, you will understand my Post # 91 a little better, by studying these images. I plan to make a *more final* version of the image (for the reasons discussed below), so until I Post that version, I won't be checking this thread. I don't want to be distracted. Thanks. We know -- and have fully discussed -- all the elements that are to go into the picture, so there is nothing more to say at this point, IMO. I like everything about the JPEG image I made, with the possible exception of the *size* and *position* of the mushroom. Today's "fresh eyes" told me it would probably look better a little smaller and moved more to the center of the Old Man's beard. Your idea about having the mushroom look like it was growing out of the beard was *fantastic*. With the mushroom just superimposed on top of beard, it looked like it was "levitating" -- not a good look at all. Also, an Old Hippie (dare I say, such as yourself) would have to be pretty inactive to have a mushroom grow out of his beard. (lol) I think your beard/mushroom idea was both *graphically necessary* and *conceptually super*. I think the other elements -- the bphlpt name, the Old Man's image, and the binary sphere -- are so good that we do not have to mess with them any more -- *in a major way* (size-wize and position-wise). Let's refine this picture just by concentrating on the mushroom. I will make efforts in this direction. BTW, the Old Man's face image was so *dark* in the original signature that I brightened it by an amount of +10 in Photoshop (this was the maximum I could go, because any more brightening completely blew away all the lighter tones in the face). The face had to be brighter not only to have the details show up better but also to fit in with the brighter binary sphere (made brighter by the PS lighting effects filter to give the circle subtle curvature). From the standpoint of "artistic composition", I feel this picture is *very strong*. We have the strong diagonal from the lower left (where the name is) to the upper right (where the blue sphere is). *And* this is "balanced" by the strong diagonal in the other direction formed by the Old Man's beard. We have, overall, in effect, an X-type pictorial composition. I hope you enjoy "studying" the following pictures -- concerning why mid-value outlines are necessary to get features to show up under any conditions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- INITIAL "SCOPING-OUT" VERSION OF "OLD MAN" TRANSPARENT GIF AVATAR -- (IN JPEG FORMAT) -- SHOWN ON A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT BACKGROUNDS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # A: white background The *inside edges* of the border square measure 80x80 pixels. http://postimage.org/image/i71ad0w4/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # B: black background http://postimage.org/image/1w0k1qjl0/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # C: red background http://postimage.org/image/1w0qnvxk4/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # D: blue background http://postimage.org/image/1w0vmhz1g/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # E: purple background http://postimage.org/image/1w1dtesh0/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # F: teal background http://postimage.org/image/1w2hib4bo/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # G: background 0556 http://postimage.org/image/1tq7zoi78/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # H: background 0624 http://postimage.org/image/1w694dktg/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # I: background 1888 http://postimage.org/image/1treznj1g/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # J: background 2379 http://postimage.org/image/1triaq810/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # K: background 2382 http://postimage.org/image/1trvj0zz8/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # L: color-spectrum background http://postimage.org/image/1ts256dyc/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Color is my day-long obsession, joy and torment." Claude Monet ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't like this "fuzzy oval" *at all*. The mid-value-colored outline around the white bphlpt letters would insure that they could be read against *any* color (even in the situation you show here, where the letters are *partially* against the background, the Old Man's beard, and the mushroom stem). I haven't started on the letter outline yet, so I'm not quite sure how it will turn out for letters this small. Please re-read -- if you care to, of course -- my detailed explanation of the black mid-value (luminosity=65) outline around white letters insuring that the letter/outline combo could be *easily read* against *any* background. (My Post # 91) Just anything to make sure the letters are readable against whatever the background is. See above. I'm not sure about the overall border. But you probably know best. Let's try it with and without. You seem to be "backtracking some" here (IMO), bphlpt, as shown by your earlier *very valid*, "hit-the-nail-on-the-head" point: It would "seem" that we'd need a mid-value outline (refer back to my Post # 91, black luminosity=65 example) around everything to have everything show up against *any and all background colors*. For example, if the transparent GIF were on a background the same color as the light brown outline of the mushroom stem, then this outline would "disappear" unless we had the "outside outline". Since I haven't investigated this aspect yet, I'm not sure how all this outlining will look. But, if we go the GIF "route", it's necessary, don't you agree? It seems there is *no need* to try it without a border. Agreed ? I can't wait to see your artist skills in action how you extend the hair/beard to see how that looks. Where I am in this project so far: I have isolated each element of the picture on its own, individual transparent layer. I have redone -- from scratch -- the blue circle with the binary numbers. (That, basically, was a separate project *in itself*, so I'm keeping that .psd file separate, and just "dragging" this "binary sphere" into the main .psd file. That way, everything will be easier to follow.) The circle is not a solid color, but it has the "patterned texture" shown in your current avatar. For the numbers -- as I said I would -- I used the numbers from the other person's .psd file and scaled, rotated, and colored them "blue" to pretty much duplicate the look in your current avatar. As we discussed, I gave the circle/number combo a subtle lighting effect to make it "appear" a little more like a sphere. This new binary sphere looks like the one in your current avatar but, IMO, *much more professional*. I think it's important to keep the new "look" the same (but improved) as the old, because -- as you say -- you have lived with this "old friend" for 10 years. This new work would just symbolize your old friend "maturing" or developing a bit. (I think this approach is much better than drastically changing the binary sphere to the extent that there would be no comparison between the old and the new.) In looking at your picture, everything is really crammed together in that small rectangle, isn't it ? It makes me feel claustrophobic to look at it. We can alleviate this by resizing the pictorial elements (I am not at this point yet) and moving them around. My present-strong-feeling is that, in the finished picture, the pictorial elements -- when taken as a *group* -- will fill a somewhat horizontal rectangle within the 80x80. That is, we will have more space above and below the pictorial elements than to the left and right.

I don't understand what you mean by the "fuzzy oval/ellipse/cloud like idea". Sorry. Exactly where does it start and where does it stop in the picture ? What's it behind and what's it in front of ? The way I'm seeing the final image in my mind -- now -- is that we first put all the pictorial elements together just as we want them, and then -- in the final step -- we put a 1 pixel mid-value color, just around the *outside edge* so that *every pictorial element* will show up well on *any and all* backgrounds. (This is the same concept I discussed in my last Post concerning my luminosity-65-black outer glow around the white letters.) I've been experimenting some in converting an anti-aliased edge into an aliased edge relatively easily, quickly, and *precisely* -- so that the image will export as a good GIF in PS 5.0 -- and in my approach, the 1 pixel outline discussed above would grow to 2 pixels -- which is just about what we need, IMO.

I've thought more about my comment about the possibility of using 'some kind of "fuzzy" background behind the letters', and I'd like you to please try that. I really like the way that the letters stand out on their own, especially against the extremes of a solid white or black background. With the letters in a contrasting color, that would guarantee that they would always be able to be read, no matter what the forum background ended up being - white, black, any solid color in between, or even an obnoxious, dizzying pattern. I like the idea of the reliability and stability of how it would look, not to mention the flexibility and simplicity. That is an area of concern that shows up *frequently* -- how to get letters to show up on any color background. I made a whole bunch of "larryb123456" signatures -- (none were ever posted on MSFN) -- using white letters with a medium-gray outline ("outer glow" in Photoshop) on a *wide variety* of abstract-colored backgrounds (some with "an obnoxious, dizzying pattern"). To be specific, the medium-gray outline was black at a luminosity of 65 [( r,b,g) = ( 69,69,69 )]. So, when the *white-letter-with-medium-gray-outline* letters were on a dark part of any picture, *everything* would show up well (i.e., the letters and the outline). When the letters (with outline) were on a shade close in value to the medium gray, the white letter would show up well, but not so much the outline. When the letters were on a bright -- or white -- part of the picture, the medium-gray outline would show up great. Problem solved -- great letter readability under all circumstances. I think for your case, I'll use white letters, but *maybe not* medium gray for the outer glow. I'll try to find a more compatible outer-glow color. I like outer glows, because of their "softness". I'll also experiment with a "stroke" around the letters -- which is like the outer glow outline, but everything is filled in solid. It would give the avatar a continuous, single border.Even if the forum background was such as to blend in with the sphere or edge of the man's head it wouldn't matter. A good idea. A border (around the entire avatar) the *same* mid-value color as the outer glow of the letters would work well -- it would give a unified look, and make the letters "stand out" a little more. Extend the man's hair/beard down a little, even wrapping around the bottom edge of the mushroom a tiny bit, as if the mushroom is growing up through it. Things like this would be easy to do. Please feel free to think of other things like this that you want to try. After all, the avatar is "your baby" -- and I'm sure it would mean more to you if you looked back at its creation and recalled everything that was your idea. So the bphlpt at the bottom would act like the base - like the date on a quarter. But, no matter where it ends up, centered or offset, keep it flat. Don't curve the bphlpt. We *definitely* don't want to put bphlpt on a curved baseline. I tried it in my GIF versions and it looked TERRIBLE, because the "p" letters in such an arrangement were not compatible with the "flow" of the other letters. If you try a rough draft and it looks terrible, go ahead and show me a bad example to convince me it was a bad idea. That way I won't sit there and wonder "What if?". Please allow me to *respectfully decline* your request here. It's not because I tried it and it didn't work -- (and I also deleted all PS layers related to this) -- it's because you can *easily* do it yourself, as I'll explain. (When I tried it, I curved the bphlpt below the blue sphere -- following the blue sphere's curvature.) Take a sheet of paper and draw 2 circles of radii r1 and r2 -- from the same center, of course -- where r2 > r1. If you don't have a compass, just "eyeball it". "Color in" the r1 circle to approximate the filled-in look of the blue sphere. Put the bphlpt on baseline r2, and make the heights of b, h, l, and t equal to an amount a little less than (r2 - r1). Give the letters some width and color them in with your pencil. See how the "p" letters mess everything up. The curved baseline idea would work best if all the letters were capitalized -- as in BPHLPT (try that, too, if you want) -- or it wouldn't look "too bad" if your member name were something like bkhlkt or mnasun. It's just that letters like the p mess everything up -- unless everything were "similar", as in pgygyp. I've lived with my current sig/av for close to ten years, and I plan to live with what we come up with for at least that long. So, let's casually explore all your ideas so you can know -- in your own mind -- that the final version is the absolute best that it can be. Thank you. I hope you're not sorry you got involved with me - this has been useful and fun. You're entirely welcome. Not sorry in the least. Before, this project, I had only made one transparent GIF (a very simple one) -- for my own benefit -- just to see if I could do it.

I'm glad I responded when I did, rather than waiting until I was more rested, because that puts us a half-day "ahead of schedule". Size limitations haven't changed - 80 x 80. Any result that is not perceived as 80 x 80 was unintentional and due to sloppy and off-center cut and paste. Just checking on the size limitation -- just to be sure. As I envision now -- even before I have done *any* work on this phase of the project -- the final image would "have to look" pretty much as your bottom right image does (but with everything in the 80x80). I think this would(?) make the Old Man's head in the avatar smaller than in the signature, which is the way it should be, IMO. My combined image I posted was simply my crude attempt "crude" maybe from the standpoint of publishing it online, but *very effective* in communicating your ideas I'm glad you like the free flow hair. I do too. That's the "winner" -- for sure. I'm fine with keeping the sphere the same size as #10, and adjust the size and position of the man and mushroom to fit/look the best. My first efforts in this project will be to get *all* the different elements on different transparent layers, so we can very easily move everything around, change relative sizes, etc. I like the "look" of the mushroom in your current avatar -- rather than trying to use a mushroom from the signature. I think we're on the same page. I think so -- even though it's only page 1. (lol) But every great novel *starts* on page 1, doesn't it ? a more three dimensional look as if the numbers were wrapping around the sphere, rather than laying flat in a two dimensional plane. It might be the shading of the sphere that gives that effect. So if you do try it, it probably only has to be a subtle difference to achieve the effect. I was also thinking along these lines, myself. You hit the nail exactly on the head with your comments here. Photoshop 5.0 has a neat "lighting effects" filter which can visually transform a flat looking 2-dimensional circle *subtly* into a 3-dimensional sphere. Only the most subtle effect is required to give the illusion -- or suggestion -- of 3-dimensionality. I would apply this filter to the layer on which the numbers *and* circle background were *merged*. My guess is that it will take a couple of days to work up my next Post -- i.e., explore some possibilities. I want to try and make sure that I submit just my best JPEG "scoping-out" versions, so we don't waste time discussing the "losers". Then, based on your feedback, I can make the modifications, get them approved, and make the FINAL GIF from the "winning" JPEG. Anyway, just another of my hair brained ideas. Hair brained is good, IMO -- even dreadlocks hair brained.

I wrote this Post before I saw your last Post (# 86), so I'll post it as I wrote it, before I respond to # 86. (There seems to be a lot to "work through" in that Post.) I'll try to be brief in this Post. I saw GIFs # 10 and # 11 with "fresh eyes" and thought that the circle (with the Old Man and binary field) might be a little dark compared to the mushroom. (I had used the Old Man's face and the binary field in the *exact* brightness as they were in the signature.) I brightened the face by Photoshop +10 and the binary numbers and the blue background by brightness +5. This had the effect of moving the face a little forward in space relative to the number field and it moved the whole circle (i.e., Old Man and number unit) forward to be closer to the mushroom. The brighter, softer colors in the Old Man's face and beard worked much better (IMO) with the soft colors in the mushroom stem, especially. The new GIFs are called # 10-brighter and # 11-brighter. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRANSPARENT GIF AVATARS USING THE "OLD MAN" IMAGE --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 10: "Old Man" avatar with bphlpt included (version 1) -- from Post # 85 http://postimage.org/image/17e17ktg/ # 10-brighter: (i.e., version 2 of # 10) http://postimage.org/image/9tm9e7ms/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 11: "Old Man" avatar with bphlpt not included (version 1) -- from Post # 85 http://postimage.org/image/345876x6s/ # 11-brighter (i.e., version 2 of # 11) http://postimage.org/image/hm6jervo/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "A project is complete when it starts working for you, rather than you working for it." Scott Allen --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P.S. added in edit: I said I wouldn't respond yet, but I just couldn't help myself (lol). I kept everything within a circle in the images in this Post, since that is what you had before. But, I guess all that is a moot point, now. I *definitely* like your image where the Old Man's hair is in a free-flowing vignette (i.e., bottom right corner, for example) like in the "Moses look". Can you tell me your size limitation on these new transparent GIFs, so I can shoot for that size from the outset ? -- even in making the rough jpeg "scoping-out" trial versions. If I get a perfectly alaised image -- for making a GIF -- and then enlarge or reduce it in PS, it becomes anti-aliased (i.e., fuzzy) around the edges, and the GIF will become a "no go". So, I'd basically have to start over -- NO FUN AT ALL ! Your image in the lower right corner is rectangular, not square. Recall that the maximum avatar size on MSFN is 100x100 px, and that the file size of such a GIF would be very small. Please let me know on this, and *I can get started* on roughing something out. Thanks. In the GIFs in this Post, I pretty much have everything on separate layers, so it should be easy to apply a bunch of independent variations to them. I like the blue-sphere color and number color of your original GIF -- again, bottom right corner. I can duplicate pretty much the color and texture of this blue sphere. I think it would look very amateurish to use my presently-on-a-separate-layer mushroom, move it into a different position on your *current* blue-sphere avatar and then try to "fudge in" the areas that needed "fixing". I'd like to use the binary number array in the other person's psd file to base the numbers on. I think I can manipulate this array to give -- pretty much -- the "number look" in the binary sphere in your current avatar (size-wise, color-wise, texture-wise, etc.) I like the way these numbers are rotated from the horizontal. How about you? If we are going to try a bunch of variations of the different elements in the picture -- relative sizes, positions, etc., it's crucial (IMO) that everything be on a separate layer. Then it becomes as easy as pumpkin pi. I think that we can do *all* the "scoping out" -- i.e., developing the *final* image elements (size-wise, relative-position-wise, etc.) -- in *precise*, but maybe "fuzzy-around-the-outer-edges" jpegs. Then I could alias the edges of the "winner" by hand and make the final GIF. Please forgive any rambling in this Post. (One reason I wanted to wait on responding is that I'm very tired.) Please respond to this Post with *any other* important concerns that you want in your image. The time to deal with all the issues is from the "get-go" (IMO). Thanks, Larry

Hello, bphlpt: I have included 2 images for the "Old Man" transparent GIF avatar -- one with bphlpt (# 10) and one without bphlpt (# 11). Each image is 80x80 px, as you requested. I will include a little discussion regarding the "art/visual" aspects that I saw as important in creating these images. Before I forget: To get a compatible letter color for bphlpt, I sampled a color from the middle of the "1" in the second row of numbers down from the top. I tried different luminosities of this color until I arrived at the "correct" one shown in # 10 [luminosity = 145, ( r,g,b ) = (140,148,168)]. This color is a *mid-value* blue-gray, so the lettering will show up equally well on a black or white background. The fact that the mushroom stem outline is done in a different color scheme -- i.e., shades of brown -- makes the mushroom tend to "separate" itself from the lettering (and the circle). In developing the GIF, I constantly compared how it looked on both white and black backgrounds, to get the "kinks" out. Let me say first that I was a little leery as to how the bphlpt would fit in with the circle and the mushroom. But, the more I look at # 10, the more I like it. The bphlpt kind of provides a "little floor" on which the image "rests". I spent a lot of time adjusting the horizontal positioning of bphlpt until I was satisfied with it. This position is pretty much centered under the Old Man's face, and -- because of this -- one's eye is subtly drawn *upward* to the face. If bphlpt is moved to the right -- closer to the mushroom stem -- everything is thrown out of balance (big time, IMO). Also, if the bphlpt letters were *any* bigger, they would *not fit in* as well as in # 10. (Believe me, I experimented with this aspect.) But, both # 10 and # 11 work well independently. I guess which one you'd choose to use would depend on the particular application. I'll now discuss the choices I made in making the circle -- with the Old Man's face and the binary numbers. I got the dark blue background around the face by sampling the area around the face in the signature. This color needs to be as dark as shown so that the man's face shows up well from the contrast. But it can't be too dark (i.e., approaching black) because then the area wouldn't be seen on a black background. The blue works great both on a black and white background. To me, the most important thing in the avatar is the binary field -- and this took some tinkering to get it positioned right. First, I did not rotate it from the horizontal (like in the numbers in your current avatar, # 1), because that look threw everything out of balance. Plus, the numbers in the signatures are not rotated -- so by keeping this "look" the same, we have a more "unified set" between avatar and signature. Now, for the *positioning* of the numbers in the circle. The two rows of numbers at the top are light colored (i.e., more highly visible against the dark blue). If the next two rows below were this light, the number/blue background would be much "busier" and the contrast in the area between the man's eyebrows and nose would not be as great. We need high contrast here, so that the man's profile "pops out". Now for the coup de grace. Notice where the man's beard intersects the mushroom cap. We see the top of a zero peeking up in the background. This further reinforces the fact that the number field is indeed in the background. (This is one of my favorite parts of the picture.) Well, I guess that's about it. I honestly feel like I can't do any better on these GIFs than I've already done. Please make sure that they show the proper transparency effects for you. I e-mailed both GIFs to myself on an aqua background and they looked perfect (as they also do in the links below). Waiting on your feedback, bphlpt. P.S. I really like the way the GIF looks on a black background. You had previously mentioned the "moon" look. With the Old Man in the circle as shown, he is transformed into the "Man in the Moon" ! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRANSPARENT GIF AVATARS USING THE "OLD MAN" IMAGE --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 10: "Old Man" avatar with bphlpt included (version 1) http://postimage.org/image/17e17ktg/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 11: "Old Man" avatar with bphlpt not included (version 1) http://postimage.org/image/345876x6s/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "As you get older three things happen. The first is your memory goes, and I can't remember the other two..." Sir Norman Wisdom ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fantastic ! I'm so glad you like # 9. The reason I went through the "live with it for a couple of days" rigmarole -- of course -- is because "art appreciation" is so *subjective*. What suits me, might not suit you -- and it's just personal *taste* -- nothing absolute, etc. I carefully checked out the original psd and there is nothing in it that would allow me to improve # 9. However, the binary numbers were alone on a separate transparent layer (and not merged with anything else) so I could use them in the Old Man *avatar* that I'm presently working on. Let me say that this work is proceeding very well. It so turned out that all the different elements fit together perfectly (size-wise, position-wise, etc.). I didn't know if this would be the case or not until I started to develop the image. I should be able to present these results later today.

I finished the version 1 (i.e., V01) modification of your original bphlpt signature. The result is given in # 9. I also included your original bphlpt signature in # 8, to make it easy to see (by comparison) the changes I made in # 9. Please -- before we "jump the gun" and go off willy-nilly modifying # 9 some more (right away), live with # 9 a couple of days first. I'm sure you will like it better the more you "study" it, since I did make rather dramatic changes to the Old Man's leg and -- especially -- to the area under the laptop. These changes were to *simplify* the image -- and to establish a *clear focal point* concerning the Old Man image. I was particularly *bothered* by the area under the laptop in # 8 -- which is very *ambiguous*, at best. It makes one wonder just exactly how the laptop is being supported there. "By all rights" -- (i.e., the laws of Optics/Physics) -- this area should be in the shadows -- just as deep as the shadows on the Old Man's right shoulder and under his right sleeve. So, I made the changes in # 9 accordingly. We can still clearly see the near-black right edge of the laptop (i.e., under the Old Man's right hand). The other change I made was to darken -- a little -- the bphlpt in the lower right of the image. To get the letter color, I sampled the brownish mushroom stem under the word "since" in the title. Actually, the letter color is a "brownish-gray". I established the letter brightness by trying different luminosities until I hit on the "correct" one shown in # 9. By making bphlpt as in # 9, we have "The Old Man" title on the visual plane nearest the viewer, and bphlpt on the *next* visual plane "back in space". The neat thing here is that the darker bphlpt "resonates" with the 111001 in deep space at the top right of the picture (i.e., the 111001 tends to be more visible in # 9 than in # 8, where the white bphlpt letters "blow away" the subtle 111001). The interesting thing -- to me -- is, since the bphlpt letters in # 9 don't have as strong a contrast with the background (as compared to the pure white letters in # 8), one has to "focus" on them a little more -- which makes them *even more strongly visible*. BTW, I love that "aliased" font. It really shows up great at that small size. If the font were anti-aliased at that size, it would indeed appear more fuzzy. Also, since the font is already aliased, I can *directly* use it in creating my Old Man avatar transparent GIF. You had mentioned a "unified set" between the signature and avatar. Using this same font will work well in this regard. Like I said, please live with # 9 for a couple of days, and we can make changes then if you want. I will do nothing more with the signature until then. I'm kind of eager to start on the Old Man avatar transparent GIF -- just to see if I can successfully achieve the idea I have in mind. I sure hope I can. It will be fun to try. Now, I'm going to look at the other person's psd file to see if there is anything I can use there. I think it would be best if I finished *all* the work on this part (including any changes you might want in the signature) before sending you the psd file. I have 7-zip, but it won't work -- for some reason -- on compressing files to .rar or .zip, for example. (It does great on extracting files though.) I have spent some time on the 'net looking for other free programs to do the compression, but I don't meet the system requirements. I have a friend who might be able to do the .rar or .zip conversion for me. I guess I'll have to cross that bridge when I come to it. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DEVELOPMENT OF BPHLPT MSFN SIGNATURE --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 8: original bphlpt MSFN signature JPEG: http://postimage.org/image/2rje51eo4/ PNG: http://postimage.org/image/1mpc1kdc4/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 9: larryb V01 modification of the original bphlpt MSFN signature JPEG: http://postimage.org/image/1mpp9v5ac/ PNG: http://postimage.org/image/1mpvw0j9g/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The real danger is not that computers will begin to think like old men, but that old men will begin to think like computers." Sydney J. Harris Note: old in the quote was added by me. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was comparing #5 to the PNG #6 and noticed that when you "improved" the image, #6 actually "grew" down and to the right. I noticed this by opening the two images in different tabs of my browser and switching back and forth between the two. Nothing of consequence at all, just was a curiousity. Boy, you are quite the "Dick Tracy", aren't you ! (lol) They say "Curiousity killed the cat", and since I surely don't want this one to kill you, I'll explain. When I improved my hand-made "somewhat" aliased sphere (in # 5), I made the *diameter* of the anti-aliased sphere (in # 6) larger by 2 pixels -- i.e., # 6 has a 1px "outline" around # 5. I needed to do this to "cover up" the irregularities in the # 5 sphere border. # 6 moved down a tad -- again to best cover up # 5's border irregularities. I think it's *great* that you are doing your own independent "fiddling around" with the images. That way, you might be able to point out to me minor defects or irregularities -- or, in general, things I wasn't aware of. I took the #7 PNG and ran it through a "Convert to GIF" right click option program. BUT, since there were a few white pixels in the image itself, it made those transparent as well which shows up on other backgrounds. Could you doctor it up for me just to get the last few kinks out? When I opened the image in Photoshop, it *did not* open on a black background the way transparent GIFs "normally" do. The image looked *exactly* the same as in # 7 -- so, there was no way to see what pixels needed doctoring. I e-mailed the image to myself on a black background -- and it showed up as a total mess. Not only were there totally unacceptable, distracting white "jig-jag" pixels around the sphere and mushroom cap and stem, but, as you say, many pixels showed up as black *regions* in the mushroom cap itself. Could you doctor it up for me just to get the last few kinks out? This "patient" is *dead*, and this "doctor" can't bring it back to life. (I would need to see it in Photoshop -- on a black background -- to clearly see what pixels I needed to correct.) I could spend hours trying to fix this image, and the *absolute best* I could come up with would be # 5. Of the GIF's you produced, #5 is by far the best, as you already knew. So, it appears that if you want to go the GIF "route", # 5 is the *best* we can do. (But, if it were me -- being the totally compulsive perfectionist that I am -- I would use # 7, just for MSFN. But, *of course*, you are free to do whatever you want.) Other than ... waiting to see what the idea you had was about adding the old man and the bphlpt, I agree that the avatar is as good as I'll need it to be, and just the way I want it. I'm glad we have a "winning GIF" in # 5. As far as the Old Man in the avatar, I'll try to make my image first -- with my rather neat idea (if I can pull it off) -- before I discuss the "concept". They say "A picture is worth a thousand words". We don't want (IMO) to get the thousand words before the picture. Carry on the great work! Thanks for the compliment. I'll do my best. What I'm going to do next is try to improve your *current* signature -- in the way I discussed earlier -- before I even look at the other gentleman's psd file. (If I get "too many irons in the fire", I always wind up getting burned). Then I'll look at his psd file. Then the "Old Man" avatar. [There might be something in his psd file that I can use in my (Old Man)-(binary sphere)-mushroom-bphlpt avatar.] Looking at this post and being able to compare the work you've done to my current avatar shows just how badly I needed your help! And I used to think what I had was OK - well, no more! That is the very neat and interesting thing about the mind, art, and visual perception. All artists are aware of the fact that you can spend a great deal of time and energy on a painting, for example, and get it *absolutely perfect". Then, a few weeks or so later -- (during which time you haven't seen the work) -- you look at it with "fresh eyes" and all the imperfections POP OUT -- like gangbusters -- and, in the shock, you kind of feel like you have been hit over the head with a sledgehammer. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Art is never finished, only abandoned." Leonardo da Vinci ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello, bphltp: I will try to look at your attachments tomorrow and start on the Old Man signature. (If I possibly can). I'll respond to your main comments in your last Post next -- for purposes of completeness. I've organized *all* the images at the end of this Post -- to keep things straight. Basically, the images tell the whole tale. I made your transparent GIFs as you requested. I really *don't like* the "aliased" look of them, but I didn't know of any other way to do it. (I basically had to go around the outside of the image -- pixel by pixel -- trying to make the "stairsteps" as least-noticable as possible.) In Photoshop 5.0, an anti-aliased image will not successfully "GIF 89A Export". The main contribution of this Post is that I made you *absolutely perfect*, anti-aliased image versions in both JPEG and PNG form for use on MSFN and forums that have a white background. These are in images # 7 and # 6, respectively. I just wouldn't understand why you would use the GIF on MSFN, when you have the *far superior* images. My strong recommendation would be for you to use the PNG version -- since the degradation introduced into the jpeg due to the compression in the one-time "save as JPEG" in Photoshop made the MSFN background ( r,g,b ) values read as ( 250, 251, 253 ) -- where the correct values are ( 250, 251, 252 ). The PNG image had the correct values. As far as your concerns about keeping file size small, you can make a copy of the PNG and do a "save as PNG" and adjust the file size accordingly to get the best trade off between file size and image quality. But the PNG is only 9.55 KB, so why bother (IMO) ? Now, to respond briefly to your comments: I wouldn't of thought of adding the extra outline. It looks good on a white background, but on a black background the extra outline looks a little bright. It looks kind of like a halo is around the sphere. Maybe if it was narrower by at least half? Or it might be better to just leave it off. As I'd mentioned, I added it to make sure I didn't "cut into" the blue in straightening up the outer border of your original "binary sphere". *Much, much* better to leave it off -- so that's what I did. I also like the brown outline of the stem, a nice finishing touch, but maybe a slightly darker brown? I went back to your original avatar and made # 4 based on the exact pixel colors in that image. IMO, that outline was way too dark -- it competed with the soft yellows in the stem. I made # 5, the version with the lighter outline around the stem, by increasing the luminosity of *each pixel* in # 4 by 30. IMO, this is the far superior image, because we can now subtly see the 3 separate elements in the picture: the sphere, the mushroom cap and the stem. I would like you to please round off the far right of the mushroom cap though - it looks a little "cut off". I agree, and I knew it -- I just didn't know if you'd mind or not. ( I thought you might think it was a little graphically "cocky" -- lol. ) I rounded it off. The distances between the vertical center of the stem and the left and right edges of the mushroom cap are identical. (I measured them in Photoshop.) I made the "rises" of the bottom of the cap symmetrical from the middle of the stem. The top of the cap is a little right of the center of the stem. I didn't change that at all, since I liked it. After all, I didn't want to make the mushroom look totally symmetrical -- like an umbrella. The size of the avatar is fine at 80x80. I would prefer if we can have it end up as that. No problem. Done. The images are centered both vertically and horizontally in the 80x80. I also want to minimize the size of the file as small as possible without any apparent visible differences and keep the transparency layer, so I guess that means staying as a gif? You have the best of both worlds -- *visually perfect* PNGs (or JPEGs) for MSFN and forums with a white background AND GIFs for forums with black, green, aqua, purple, pink, turquoise, etc., etc., backgrounds. As to the sig, I see nothing wrong with what you propose for it. It doesn't matter to me whether it ends up as a gif, jpeg, or png. I liked the approach I used for gUiTaR_mIkE -- providing both PNGs and JPEGs. The PNGs (lossless format) would be your master copies, and you could upload the JPEGs (best for photos) to the web. In this case, JPEG would be fine, because we are not trying to match up perfectly a particular color -- as discussed earlier with the background color of MSFN. I will want the psd of the final image. Shouldn't be a problem. Generally, my psds are a little messy -- since they are just for me and I can follow them. I'll just have to clean up my act a little and maybe provide comments in the layers themselves -- so you can understand what I'm trying to do. I also attached a gif of a version of the image that had the 10101010 layer more prominent, but at the time I thought that it detracted a bit from some of the other background elements. Do you agree? I absolutely love the way the 10101010 layer works in your present signature -- and I wouldn't change it at all. It's like you are looking back, back, back into space, and the "subtle conclusion" -- 10101010 -- is seen at the deepest space. the avatar sphere is like a moon, but I missed the old man part in the avatar. Could we possibly add that in and not have it look too crowded? Maybe the old man's head, reduced in size if necessary, to the left of the mushroom and in front of the sphere? I have another good idea to try, and, if I can get it to work right it should look pretty neat. And maybe even add in bphlpt superimposed centered across the bottom? Then it truly would be a unified set. No problem to do. Those are just crazy thoughts IMO,"crazy" is not too bad. "Insane" -- well, that's another story. I guess that's an indication that you do good work - when people expect you can OBVIOUSLY perform miracles until you finally tell them NO! Thanks for the compliment. I'd really like to feel that the avatar phase of this project is finished. Right now, I just don't see how I could do any better than I've already done. Please let me know on this, bphltp. Thanks. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY OF IMAGES IN THE bphlpt AVATAR PROJECT --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 1: original bphlpt MSFN avatar -- transparent GIF http://postimage.org/image/143hqh0uc/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 2: first version -- sphere not spherical, light-colored outline around sphere, right side of mushroom cap is flat -- transparent GIF http://postimage.org/image/2bn30tqw4/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 3: second version -- sphere perfectly spherical, light-colored outline around sphere, right side of mushroom cap is flat -- transparent GIF http://postimage.org/image/213syylj8/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 4: no outline on sphere, darker outline on mushroom stem, rounded right side of mushroom cap -- transparent GIF, 80x80 px http://postimage.org/image/144tp235w/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 5: no outline on sphere, lighter outline on mushroom stem, rounded right side of mushroom cap -- transparent GIF, 80x80 px http://postimage.org/image/144yno4n8/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 6: image # 5 (but with a perfect, anti-aliased "binary sphere") on a white background, 80x80 px (for use on forums having a white background) JPEG: http://postimage.org/image/14elyj0ck/ PNG: http://www.freeimagehosting.net/a8722 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 7: image # 5 (but with a perfect, anti-aliased "binary sphere") on the MSFN-colored background, 80x80 px (for use on MSFN) JPEG: http://postimage.org/image/2pfjtpbok/ PNG: http://www.freeimagehosting.net/1c71f --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- “I am going for a level of perfection that is only mine... most of the pleasure is in getting the last little piece perfect.” The artist Chuck Close --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P.S. added in edit: I should have thought of this in the Post, but I didn't: Suppose you posted on "X" number of forums -- with "X" number of different background colors. With your modern OS and browsers, you could accurately get the complete set of "X" ( r, g, b ) background colors from screen saves. If you let me know the values (soon, while my psd file still makes sense to me) I could quickly make the *perfect* images suited to these forums -- just like I did in #6 and # 7 above. It would be no trouble at all.

@ bphlpt Long story short: I decided that I wasn't satisfied with the avatar I did for you, because the "binary sphere" wasn't perfectly spherical --(I left *that part* as it was in the avatar that you had been using). So I made it "perfectly" spherical. (It didn't take long, since I had all my Photoshop settings saved.) Please use this version http://postimage.org/image/213syylj8/ and *not* the earlier version http://postimage.org/image/2bn30tqw4/ You can directly compare the images to see the improvement. In your new version, the binary sphere (excluding light-colored outline) and the mushroom are perfectly centered. The size of your new file is 81x83 px. Sorry for the inconvenience. Larry

Your signature image is one of the most beautiful pictures I've ever seen. I can't believe the different *subtle levels* of depth back into the picture plane -- from the white out front in "<The Old Man />, etc." all the way back to the binary in "deepest space". The first thing that popped into my eyes was that maybe the bphlpt was a little too bright -- in that it competed with "<The Old Man />, etc." I opened the image in Photoshop and bphlpt was *pure white*. If I changed *anything* with your signature, it would be to tone down the bphlpt a very little bit (i.e., move it to a visual plane a little behind "<The Old Man />, etc."). Fortunately, it would be very easy to adjust the color of bphlpt, since the lettering is not anti-aliased. It consists of a bunch of *solid white* pixels, so I could just color them in using the pencil. I wouldn't tone the white down to a light gray. I think I'd sample the "purple" color behind bphlpt and use a brighter shade of that. (It wouldn't appear purple, though -- it would just fit in with its "environment" better.) What I can do is make 5 or so versions in order of decreasing brightness so you can see the effect and maybe choose one of them. If, for example, if you felt brightness 1 was too light and brightness 2 was too dark, I could easily make a version with brightness between 1 and 2. This "project", as I've described, is very simple to do. The image now is a GIF. I always thought that JPEG was best to display on the internet (and in the discussions in this thread, CoffeeFiend and dencorso "seemed" to agree -- by no means am I an expert on this subject.) I can save it as a GIF if you want -- just let me know. Do you want me to proceed with the signature "project" as I've described ? Oh, I just noticed that there is a rather small, white area on the Old Man's right leg. IMO, this should be removed, because it is distracting. It will be very easy to do, and I'll remove it in such a way that "the absence" will blend in perfectly with the rest of the leg. That transparent GIF avatar is one of the worst I've seen -- as far as being rough around the edges. In Photoshop, it opens on a black background, so the roughness is even more apparent. In straightening it up, I *expanded* the outer border a little -- [using the MSFN background color -- (which fit in very nicely with the pastels at the outer edges of the "binary sphere")] -- rather than cutting into it -- for I very much liked the soft transition from the blue (on which the binary is) to the light outer color. I spent a lot of time on the mushroom. I put a simpler, lighter brown outline around the stem and graphically simplified the outline around the right-bottom of the mushroom cap. I very much liked these simplifications, because the mushroom outlines are not as distractingly busy -- and the mushroom "pops out" some to the foreground compared to the "binary sphere". To make sure that the GIF was *correct*, I e-mailed it to myself on an aqua background. It looked perfect to me (it also looked perfect in Photoshop when I saved it). If you want, you can e-mail it to yourself, and you can see *exactly* the outline I put around the "binary sphere". If, for some reason, the GIF doesn't work for you, let me know and I'll try to correct it. The direct link for the GIF is: http://postimage.org/image/2bn30tqw4/ Thanks again for the project. I really enjoyed fiddling with the GIF. Larry P.S. added in edit: Your current avatar is 80x80 px. The maximum size allowed on MSFN is 100x100 px. If you want, I can enlarge to 90x90 and 100x100 so you can see how these sizes look compared to your signature. Sometimes images tend to look blurry when enlarged too much in Photoshop, so this might not work very well. We could just try it and see, if you want.

Thanks for the response, bphlpt. Yes, I sure do enjoy fiddling with Photoshop -- and "art concepts" in general. If I weren't doing this for Mike -- and, hopefully, others -- I'd just be defining *specific* projects for myself, completing them, putting them in my personal "archives", and moving on to the next personal projects. Learning new tricks is 90% of the enjoyment -- because they provide the "ah-ha" moments. Cheers and Regards to you, bphlpt.

Hello everyone: I am putting this Post -- isolated, by itself -- for those of you who might like a signature, but have absolutely no idea where to begin. I liked the look of the gUiTaR_mIkE lettering based on his *member name* (as shown at the upper left of his Posts) -- i.e., the look shown in the images in my last Post (Post # 71). I can generate *your unique version* of the MSFN member-name lettering, just like I did for Mike. But the look won't be *exactly* the same as his, since you won't have the same *number* of letters as Mike had, and, of course, your letters will be *different*. I think it would be interesting to see what "looks" could be generated from the different names. I can also use different colors for you, too, to give you a more custom look. If you are interested: As a starting point, go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_colors and look at the first picture -- the one with the "vertically-stacked" 16 colors. Pick out a couple of your favorite colors and just tell me their *names*. I can take it from there, in terms of outlines, inner bevels, outer glows, drop shadows, etc. I can also put an interesting colorful abstract background behind your name -- not like the simple gradient fades I used in gUiTaR_mIkE's images. It would be very helpful if you knew the approximate final size (i.e., pixel dimensions) of the signature that you wanted on MSFN. That way, I could make it this size from the outset, since, if I make it large, and you later wanted to shrink it down a lot, it would become somewhat "blurry". Many Thanks, Larry --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Artists are just children who refuse to put down their crayons." Al Hirschfeld ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This Post is based *entirely* on the discussion I gave in Post # 38, and that discussion will not be repeated in full in this Post. To summarize: In Post # 38, I pointed out that with my browser (Firefox 2.0.0.20) and OS (Windows 98), my screen shots of gUiTaR_mIkE's member name (shown at the top left of his Posts) were very highly aliased -- with all the diagonals being very "stair-steppy". I thought the look was very cool, and I wanted to *exactly duplicate it* and make some more signatures for gUiTaR_mIkE. At the time, I thought "everyone's" screen shots would look just like mine. In the discussions in Posts # 40, 42, 43, and 45, it was established that more modern browsers and operating systems showed the member name in the screen shots in a very anti-aliased form. So, I was somewhat alone, back in the Dark Ages -- but my obsolete system did "render", by mistake, a cool-looking "font" (IMO), as I'll demonstrate in this Post. The purpose of this Post: My main objective was to go through the rather "labor-intensive", manual enlargement of gUiTaR_mIkE's member name to 380x100 px -- just to see how it would work out. (FYI, as discussed in Post # 38, each pixel in Mike's name -- as shown on MSFN -- had to be replaced by a 4x7 px *rectangle* in the new Photoshop "enlargement" file). The secondary objective was to actually make the signatures for Mike. In these signatures, I used the aqua/blue color scheme employed in my last Post. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNATURES WITH THE gUiTaR_mIkE MEMBER NAME AS SHOWN AT THE TOP LEFT OF HIS POSTS. THIS VERSION OF THE NAME WAS IDENTICAL TO THAT SHOWN IN A SCREEN SHOT USING FIREFOX 2.0.0.20 AND WINDOWS 98. More-modern browsers and operating systems show the name as anti-aliased, and not as shown in these images. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 4A: member name (with an aqua outer glow) on a blue-fade background JPEG http://postimage.org/image/1pqo2pric/ PNG http://postimage.org/image/23sp0bfc4/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 4B: member name (with an aqua outer glow) on an aqua-fade background JPEG http://postimage.org/image/23sxa05t0/ PNG http://postimage.org/image/23t28m7ac/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 4C: member name (with an aqua outer glow) on a dark-blue background JPEG http://postimage.org/image/23t8url9g/ PNG http://postimage.org/image/23tkfj0pw/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 4D: member name (with an aqua outer glow) on a white background with no border (for use on forums having a white background) JPEG http://postimage.org/image/23tzbd55w/ PNG http://postimage.org/image/23uaw4kmc/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 4E: member name (with an aqua outer glow) on the MSFN-background color (for use on MSFN) JPEG http://postimage.org/image/23uhi9ylg/ PNG http://postimage.org/image/23uktcnl0/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Why do two colors, put one next to the other, sing? Can one really explain this? No." Pablo Picasso ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@ gUiTaR_mIkE and anyone else who is interested: I made quite a few pictures for you to look at. The pictures are of three types: signatures which contain images and the gUiTaR_mIkE name; signatures which contain only the gUiTaR_mIkE name; and avatars (and MSFN Photo-size images). There are quite a few image links, so I put a brief description for each link to keep things straight. For each image I include a JPEG version and a PNG version. The JPEGs were made entirely in Photoshop (and not from the PNGs). The PNGs were made using the method discussed in my Post # 61. So, we can assess how "good" the PNGs are by comparing them to the independently-made JPEGs. I JPEG-PNG compared each picture, and I visually could not tell any difference whatsoever. The PNGs are great -- so please use them ! For each image link, you can get the BBCode for the image by clicking "show codes" on the PostImage.org page that pops up when you click the image link. Use Forum BBCode (1), since Forum BBCode (2) will not work on MSFN. Of course, you can center the signature below your Post by using the standard ...etc. BBCode notation. These BBCodes will be very handy in that you can use them to "scope out" how each signature will look on the MSFN page (at the 380x100 px size). That is, you will not have to have these images "hosted" first, since I have already had them hosted. Of course, if you want to use signatures smaller than 380x100 px, you will have to have them hosted yourself. This "scoping out" will allow you to get an idea of how much -- if any -- you want to reduce the images to suit your tastes. I will next give a brief description of my working procedure in creating the signatures which contain images and the gUiTaR_mIkE name. First, the "structure" of the gUiTaR_mIkE name is *fixed* -- i.e., the arrangement of the letters to give "flow", the white-to-blue gradient fade inside the letters, and the black outline ("stroke") around the letters. I can easily vary the color of the outermost outline ("outer glow") around the letters, and the gUiTaR_mIkE size (I can easily change the width and/or height). For the present work, I kept the gUiTaR_mIkE the same height and varied just the length. For each picture, I have 4 layers in Photoshop stacked in descending order as: the black 1px border "framing" the 380x100 px picture; the "photo" image with a black 1 px border at 100 px tall; the gUiTaR_mIkE name in the appropriate length; and the 380x100 px background layer. Each layer is totally independent of the other layers, so, for example, I can change the background color and nothing else will be affected. In making different pictures, I would put the "photo" image to the extreme left of the picture, adjust the length of the gUiTaR_mIkE, make changes to the outer glow (if needed), and change the background, by using a different gradient fade, for example. Well, gUiTaR_mIkE, I hope you can find something that you can use in these pictures. If you want to discuss a particular picture, just refer to it by the # designation -- i.e., # 3Q, for example. (Some of the # designations below are "out of order". This is not a mistake on my part. The #s correspond to the names of my computer files, and I just changed the order of the #s to make the picture presentation in this Post flow a little better.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNATURES CONTAINING IMAGES AND THE gUiTaR_mIkE NAME --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 3A: black guitarist on a blue gradient fade, name on a white background with border JPEG http://postimage.org/image/2oz0cln44/ PNG http://postimage.org/image/18ryd7yw4/ I removed the background around the image I had, and put the blue gradient fade in the background. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 3Aa: black guitarist on a blue gradient fade, name on a white background with no border (for use on forums having a white background) JPEG http://postimage.org/image/18sjv7hb8/ PNG http://postimage.org/image/18sottisk/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 3Ab: black guitarist on a blue gradient fade, name on the MSFN-background color with no border (for use on MSFN) JPEG http://postimage.org/image/18syr1lr8/ PNG http://postimage.org/image/18t224aqs/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 3B: black guitarist on a blue gradient fade, name on a light-blue background JPEG http://postimage.org/image/18t5d6zqc/ PNG http://postimage.org/image/18t70qc84/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 3C: 2 black guitars, name on a light-gray, gradient-fade background JPEG http://postimage.org/image/18u923bl0/ PNG http://postimage.org/image/18uhbs21w/ The photo I had only had one guitar, so I duplicated the image and simply placed the guitars side by side for a little more "dynamic" look. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 3D: 2 black guitars, name on a light-gray background JPEG http://postimage.org/image/18unxxg10/ PNG http://postimage.org/image/18uplgsis/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 3E: red guitar and amp, name on a gray gradient-fade background JPEG http://postimage.org/image/18uziovhg/ PNG http://postimage.org/image/18v4hawys/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 3F : red guitar and amp, name on a gray background JPEG http://postimage.org/image/18vb3gaxw/ PNG http://postimage.org/image/18vg22cf8/ I made the gray background for the name a little lighter than the wall in the photo. Since lighter colors optically advance in space, it appears that the plane on which the name is placed is closer to the viewer than the "room" in which the guitar and amp are (i.e., we are "looking" back into the room in which the guitar and amp are). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 3G: guitar and black amp, name on a light steel-blue background JPEG http://postimage.org/image/18vuxwgv8/ PNG http://postimage.org/image/18w4v4jtw/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 3H: 2 aqua guitars, name (with an aqua outer glow) on a white background with no border (for use on forums having a white background) JPEG http://postimage.org/image/11kup8pdw/ PNG http://postimage.org/image/11ky0bedg/ The photo I had only had 1 guitar, so I duplicated it and manipulated the 2 guitars into the arrangement shown for a little more "dynamic" look. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 3I: 2 aqua guitars, name (with an aqua outer glow) on the MSFN-background color with no border (for use on MSFN) JPEG http://postimage.org/image/11l7xjhc4/ PNG http://postimage.org/image/11ljiawsk/ The background color in the rectangle with the guitars is white, so this rectangle will "pop out" a little (compared to the somewhat darker MSFN background) for a very nice, subtle effect. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 3J: 2 aqua guitars, name (with an aqua outer glow) on a dark blue background JPEG http://postimage.org/image/q2suhqis/ PNG http://postimage.org/image/q2zgn4hw/ I like the way the white guitars panel seems to balance out -- in "strength" -- the dark blue background panel on which the name is placed. The aqua outer glow at the bottom "appears" brighter, but that's an optical illusion. The aqua outer glow is constant in color throughout. It just appears brighter because it is next to the bottom of the letters, which are dark. (This is just the principle that a medium gray color on a white background will appear dark, but on a black background it will appear bright.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 3K: 2 aqua guitars, name (with an aqua outer glow) on a blue gradient-fade background JPEG http://postimage.org/image/q3zugrd0/ PNG http://postimage.org/image/q4845htw/ The blue gradient-fade background goes from dark blue at the top to white at the bottom, the opposite of the fade in the letters, which goes from white at the top to dark blue at the bottom. Such "competing" fades provide visual interest, and they insure that everything is clearly seen. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 3L: 2 aqua guitars, name (with an aqua outer glow) on an aqua gradient-fade background JPEG http://postimage.org/image/q4bf86tg/ PNG http://postimage.org/image/q4i1dksk/ Of course, the aqua outer glow can't be seen in the aqua background region at the top half of the picture -- since the colors are the same. My first impulse was to darken the outer glow so that it would be seen at the top of the letters, too. But, I immediately saw that this was very distracting, so I left the image as it is -- for a nice effect.. One can easily see the aqua outer glow at the bottom of the letters and that tends to accentuate the "flow" of gUiTaR_mIkE's name. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 3Q: 1 guitarist, name (with a dark-brown outer glow) on a tan background JPEG http://postimage.org/image/q6it0uis/ PNG http://postimage.org/image/2pdm9i05g/ I sampled the color at the upper left of the photo to get a basis for the outer glow around the name. This brown color has a lot of red component, so it tends to work well with the blue in the name (i.e., warm vs. cool optical effect). The tan color in the panel has a lot of orange component, and since blue and orange are complimentary colors, everything works well together. The outer glow around the name might appear rather dark, but I found that it needed to be dark to "hold its own" compared to the rich darks in the photo. The same dark brown and tan worked well for images # 3N and # 3 M, immediately below. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 3N: 2 guitarists, name (with a dark-brown outer glow) on a tan background JPEG http://postimage.org/image/q58hz4p0/ PNG http://postimage.org/image/q5f44io4/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 3M: guitar and 2 amps, name (with a dark-brown outer glow) on a tan background JPEG http://postimage.org/image/q4oniyro/ PNG http://postimage.org/image/q4ykr1qc/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 3O: 2 guitarists, name (with a dark-brown outer glow) on a white background with no border (for use on forums having a white background) JPEG http://postimage.org/image/q5tzyn44/ PNG http://postimage.org/image/q5xb1c3o/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 3P: 2 guitarists, name (with a dark-brown outer glow) on the MSFN-background color with no border (for use on MSFN) JPEG http://postimage.org/image/q60m4138/ PNG http://postimage.org/image/q6fhy5j8/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNATURES CONTAINING ONLY THE gUiTaR_mIkE NAME I already had the gUiTaR_mIkE names and backgrounds for Set # 3 above. It was easy to remove the picture and use a name which filled up the 380x100 px signature rectangle. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 2A: name on a white background with border JPEG http://postimage.org/image/1hq9jqvl0/ PNG http://postimage.org/image/zygp6lqc/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 2B: name on a white background with no border (for use on forums having a white background) JPEG http://postimage.org/image/zyk09apw/ PNG http://postimage.org/image/zynbbzpg/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 2C: name on the MSFN-background color with no border (for use on MSFN) JPEG http://postimage.org/image/zyqmeop0/ PNG http://postimage.org/image/140g91azo/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 2D: name on a light-blue background JPEG http://postimage.org/image/zyyw3f5w/ PNG http://postimage.org/image/zz3upgn8/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 2E: name on a light-gray, gradient-fade background JPEG http://postimage.org/image/zzaguumc/ PNG http://postimage.org/image/zzh308lg/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 2F: name on a light-gray background JPEG http://postimage.org/image/zzpcoz2c/ PNG http://postimage.org/image/1000xgeis/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 2G: name on a gray gradient-fade background JPEG http://postimage.org/image/1009754zo/ PNG http://postimage.org/image/100ftaiys/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 2H: name on a gray background JPEG http://postimage.org/image/100t1lax0/ PNG http://postimage.org/image/1011ba1dw/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 2I: name on a light steel-blue background JPEG http://postimage.org/image/1i5qvuu04/ PNG http://postimage.org/image/101cw1guc/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 2J: name (with an aqua outer glow) on a dark blue background JPEG http://postimage.org/image/101l5q7b8/ PNG http://postimage.org/image/101v2ya9w/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 2K: name (with an aqua outer glow) on a white background with no border (for use on forums having a white background) JPEG http://postimage.org/image/102506d8k/ PNG http://postimage.org/image/1028b9284/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 2L: name (with an aqua outer glow) on the MSFN-background color with no border (for use on MSFN) JPEG http://postimage.org/image/102d9v3pg/ PNG http://postimage.org/image/102gkxsp0/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 2M: name (with an aqua outer glow) on a blue gradient-fade background JPEG http://postimage.org/image/102i8h56s/ PNG http://postimage.org/image/102s5p85g/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 2N: name (with an aqua outer glow) on an aqua gradient-fade background JPEG http://postimage.org/image/102tt8kn8/ PNG http://postimage.org/image/13xp0shd0/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 2O: name (with a dark-brown outer glow) on a tan background JPEG http://postimage.org/image/13xtzeiuc/ PNG http://postimage.org/image/13y0ljwtg/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 2P: name (with a dark-brown outer glow) on a white background with no border (for use on forums having a white background) JPEG http://postimage.org/image/13y77pask/ PNG http://postimage.org/image/13ydtuoro/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 2Q: name (with a dark-brown outer glow) on the MSFN-background color with no border (for use on MSFN) JPEG http://postimage.org/image/13yisgq90/ PNG http://postimage.org/image/13yud85pg/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AVATARS (AND MSFN PHOTO-SIZE IMAGES) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For some reason, the PostImage.org hosting site did not correctly host the PNG versions of all the files listed below. Instead of returning them as PNGs, the site returned them as JPEGs, even though I saved them from Photoshop as PNGs and Windows showed them with the PNG icon and not the JPEG icon. So, I was forced to use another image hosting site, FreeImageHosting.net. As far as I can tell, on this site one has to *record* the BBCode for each image -- you can't click "show codes" as with PostImage.org. So, I have included the BBCode along with the direct link for all the PNGs. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 1H: 100x100 px MSFN avatar on the MSFN-background color JPEG http://postimage.org/image/21mk7bes/ PNG http://www.freeimagehosting.net/c2ca1 [url=http://www.freeimagehosting.net][img=http://www.freeimagehosting.net/newuploads/c2ca1.png][/url]This is the avatar image which gUiTaR_mIkE is currently using, at 80x80 px. I enlarged the image to 100x100 px, the maximum size that can be used for a MSFN avatar. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 1G:150x150 px MSFN Photo on the MSFN-background color JPEG http://postimage.org/image/1axy4r4ys/ PNG http://www.freeimagehosting.net/d1979 [url=http://www.freeimagehosting.net][img=http://www.freeimagehosting.net/newuploads/d1979.png][/url]This is the maximum size that can be used for a MSFN Photo. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 1A: black guitarist avatar (76x100 px) JPEG http://postimage.org/image/1ay9pikf8/ PNG http://www.freeimagehosting.net/4cbcb [url=http://www.freeimagehosting.net][img=http://www.freeimagehosting.net/newuploads/4cbcb.png][/url]I had this image for the signatures, so I thought I'd make it in avatar form, in case gUiTaR_mIkE wanted to use it. 100 px is the maximum height that can be used for a MSFN avatar. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 1B: black guitarist Photo (116x150 px) JPEG http://postimage.org/image/1ayv7i2uc/ PNG http://www.freeimagehosting.net/c6d1a [url=http://www.freeimagehosting.net][img=http://www.freeimagehosting.net/newuploads/c6d1a.png][/url]150 px is the maximum height that can be used for a MSFN Photo. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 1C: 100x100 px music avatar on a white background (for use on forums having a white background) JPEG http://postimage.org/image/1azdeew9w/ PNG http://www.freeimagehosting.net/be103 [url=http://www.freeimagehosting.net][img=http://www.freeimagehosting.net/newuploads/be103.png][/url]This is an image I made based on the structure of gUiTaR_mIkE's current avatar. I added the clef to make it music related. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 1D: 100x100 px music avatar on the MSFN-background color (for use on MSFN) JPEG http://postimage.org/image/1b03v0g6c/ PNG http://www.freeimagehosting.net/aa67c [url=http://www.freeimagehosting.net][img=http://www.freeimagehosting.net/newuploads/aa67c.png][/url]--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 1E: 150x150 px music Photo on a white background (for use on forums having a white background) JPEG http://postimage.org/image/1b10xre1w/ PNG http://www.freeimagehosting.net/90d0d [url=http://www.freeimagehosting.net][img=http://www.freeimagehosting.net/newuploads/90d0d.png][/url]--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 1F: 150x150 px music Photo on the MSFN-background color (for use on MSFN) JPEG http://postimage.org/image/1b22z4des/ PNG http://www.freeimagehosting.net/4eda5 [url=http://www.freeimagehosting.net][img=http://www.freeimagehosting.net/newuploads/4eda5.png][/url]--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication." Leonardo da Vinci ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My PS 5.0 will not let you save to *any other format* until the layers are first flattened. So true -- the images are then in the bitmap category (like JPGs) and not vector. gUiTaR_mIkE, as I understand it, wants the PNGs as "master files". I don't know the full extent of what he wants to do, but he did indicate that "resizing" might be a priority. It is my (and Mike's) understanding that PNG is a lossless format (i.e., no compression on saving). So, if he makes a copy of the PNG that he wants to resize and then reduces it say by 30% and saves it, there will be no degradation due to *compression* in the resizing process. Correct ? I made the signatures for Mike at the maximum MSFN size -- 380x100 px -- so he'd be resizing *down* and not up. I don't think he'd get much loss of *image quality* due to this downsizing, since I've found -- in making his images in PS 5.0 -- that I can reduce his gUiTaR_mIkE (which has a letter stroke and an outer glow) an *incredible* amount, via Transform > Scale, and it still looks good. (BTW, the lettering and stroke have been merged, so gUiTaR_mIkE is rasterized here.) Can you give some commentary on this ? I'd like to know, and I'm sure Mike would too. Thanks, Tripredacus, for your input.

Hi, Mike: Many thanks for the reference. Believe it or not the info allowed me to solve the PNG problem ! So far, I've just checked it out for the image I posted yesterday -- and I felt like I was seeing a miracle unfold before my very eyes ! Basically, the PS 5.0 workaround involves 3 steps: # 1) Just before saving the .psd file to PNG, change the PS gamma from 2.2 to 1.1. # 2) Save the .psd file to PNG using the options Adam7 and Adaptive. # 3) Change the gamma back to 2.2. I did this, and uploaded the file to my hosting site. This PNG link is http://postimage.org/image/jfyngf44/ I looked at this link in my browser and it looked great. But, to be sure, I opened *another browser* and looked at the link for the jpeg (posted yesterday): http://postimage.org/image/6e34ok4k/ I could not tell any difference between the 2 images. The neat thing about opening 2 browsers is that you can get a *direct comparison* between the 2 images. When you click back and forth between the two browsers, the images are directly on top of each other, so you can see the most minutest differences. Try it if you want -- it's cool. (I see that one can do this at MSFN just by back-and-forth clicking on the two pages that open up when the links are clicked.) I will do this comparison between all the images I'm making for you (it doesn't take any time at all) and if there is something out of sorts, I'll let you know. But I think everything will be fine, because the image I posted yesterday is pretty *severe* with all the "competing" gradient fades and the range of color values going from dark to light. So, Mike -- thanks to you -- it looks like you will have the *correct* PNGs that you wanted. If you want, download some copies of this correct PNG and play with it to see if it does everything you wanted it to do. Well, Mike, IMO, the thread isn't turning into Mike's avatar as much as it's turning into "can we straighten out the problems with my antiquated system". My hope is that once others see your images, they will want me to do work for them. I think that the images that involve pictures (guitars and amps, etc.) look better than the one you saw, because the name doesn't take up as much horizontal space. That is, by keeping the name the exact same height, but *condensing* it a small amount in length, we get a better "look", IMO. Again, many Thanks -- you problem solver. Sincerly, Larry P.S. I'm now going to concentrate on finishing up these images for you, Mike -- (really, the first phase, not necessarily the finishing phase). I feel now that there's no need to make anymore Posts until that work is done -- since the PNG problem has been solved.

Thanks for taking time to check this out, bphlpt. All this input helps me get a better insight for how to overcome this limitation -- no, really, it allows me to give instructions, or advice, to those wanting to use my images. If the user wants jpegs from the outset, no problem. I can provide "master versions" to the user in the form of PNGs, but these cannot be uploaded to the 'net with good results, as we've discussed. But, the user can convert these PNGs to *PERFECTLY GOOD JPEGS*, for display on the net. So, even though there is a little limitation with these PNGS, there is really not a big problem since the *final objective* -- displaying a perfectly good image on the 'net -- *will be achieved*. I was in a hurry and didn't look at the images. Indeed they look different. That is NOT a problem with browser support. It's actually Photoshop 5 who can't properly save PNG files (it screws up the gamma setting inside them). Like I said before, I have yet to encounter a PNG that a browser doesn't show right (and here it does too, it's the PNG file itself that is the problem). Can you elaborate some on what a screwed up gamma setting does to a PNG file -- if you want to, of course. As I mentioned, when I convert from the PS format (.psd) to PNG, the file looks *visually identical* to the original .psd file. *And*, when I convert this PNG file to jpeg, the jpeg looks identical to the PNG file. So, we have 3 visually identical files -- .psd, PNG, and jpeg. Can you please explain why -- if Photoshop 5 can't properly save PNG files -- we can convert these PNG files to *perfect jpegs*. It would intuitively seem that if the PNG files were really messed up, that we would get terrible jpeg images from them. Similar to the old "garbage in, garbage out" principle. The important bottom line here (IMO): My PNG files can be converted to *perfectly acceptible jpegs*, for a great visual display on the internet. Not really. There aren't that many colors as it's mostly monochromatic. The image I uploaded is maybe not the best, because with all the intense "competing" gradients, it just *looks* somewhat monochromatic (at true size) -- but, really, it's not even close to being monochromatic, as you can easily see if you enlarge the jpeg to the maximum size in PS. I used the linear gradient tool in a lot of Mike's signatures, and there are many colors in such "smooth" fades. Please correct me if you disagree with my statements here. Thanks. Also, CoffeeFiend, please recall that I said that in most of my signatures for gUiTaR_mIkE, I incorporate actual photographs -- guitars, amps, and more. The signature image is 380x100 pixels (what Mike wanted), the largest size allowed by MSFN, as the "Rules" show. The Rules also say that the maximum file size for a signature is 100kB, so my 50kB image is way under this value. If what you say is such a concern for MSFN, why haven't they modified the Rule on the maximum file size ? I sure hope this question doesn't sound argumentative, for I certainly didn't intend it to be. A great point, CoffeeFiend. Anyone saving my "photographic/art" images to the jpeg format -- for uploading to the internet -- can decide for themselves what file size (i.e., "quality setting") works best. Again, CoffeeFiend, thanks for your input. You would not believe how much I appreciate it. Larry