larryb123456

Again, thanks for taking time to respond, CoffeeFiend. I so very much appreciate all your hard efforts. JPEGs are better for photos mainly, or some things with millions of colors (although 24 bit PNGs is often a better choice there too), and where lossy compression is not such a big deal (over-compression will also cause rather ugly artefacts). But it's mostly for photos. PNG is FAR better than JPEGs for images with a limited number of colors (as it's indexed, much like GIFs but a bit better). Using JPEGs for such pictures result in far larger file sizes yet lower quality. Most of the pictures on the web (apart from photos) I look at are PNGs -- including all the the images making up the "skin" on this forum. JPEGs are better for photos mainly, or some things with millions of colors. But it's mostly for photos. My images for gUiTaR_mIkE are "photographic" in nature, as shown in the image I posted. (This image was, *by far*, the most extreme -- or "wild" -- in terms of colors. I wish I had posted a more "representative" image -- i.e., more sedate, understated, "elegantly simple"). And many of my signatures for gUiTaR_mIkE use *actual photos*. As far as the "millions of colors" -- there are many, many individual colors that comprise a fade. where lossy compression is not such a big deal (over-compression will also cause rather ugly artefacts). The PNGs are to be used as "master" files. If they are to be converted to jpegs for display on the 'net, they will be compressed *only once* in the saving-to-jpeg process. This one-time compression will produce *negligible* jpeg degradation. (In PS, I directly compared the PNG to the jpeg made from it. I could visually tell absolutely no difference between the two.) In converting from PNG to jpeg, the highest-quality "save as" setting should be used to prevent over-compression and to give the best image. Lossy compression will *never* be a big deal at all, if this jpeg is never edited and used again. If you want to resize the image again, start with the "master" PNG. We don't have to worry at all about the increased file size due to using the highest quality save-as setting, since the images will be very small (i.e., 50KB). PNG is FAR better than JPEGs for images with a limited number of colors As stated before, my images have many, many colors. Most of the pictures on the web (apart from photos) I look at are PNGs Bold letters added by me. This statement requires no further commentary from me. In conclusion, CoffeeFiend -- based on your commentary -- it seems that you think it would be best for gUiTaR_mIkE to use the jpeg versions of my highly-photographic-in-nature images on the internet, rather than the PNG versions. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this. Thanks. Hello, dencorso. Great to communicate with you in the forum again. And, most importantly, thanks for taking time to respond. It seems that we are seeing the PNG image the same, since you used the * around much -- in *much* darker -- for emphasis. Yes, dencorso, that is exactly what I was referring to. At this point, we don't know why this is happening, but, really, we don't need to know. All the jpegs made from the PNGs look good and show up exactly as intended on the 'net. So, if the jpegs are uploaded to the 'net, rather than the PNGs, the "problem" will be solved. (Anyway, as CoffeeFiend pointed out above, jpegs are better suited for "photographic" images such as mine.) Thanks for giving your opinion about the better format for my "photo/art" signatures. It seems clear that you, me, and CoffeeFiend are in agreement on this issue. Best Regards

Hello, CoffeeFiend (and anyone else who can provide some help) As I discussed in my last couple of Posts, the PNGs I'm making for gUiTaR_mIkE do not show up on the 'net as they should -- colorwise -- when viewed with *my old browsers and OS*. For example, the blues turn almost black and the other colors are strongly shifted from what they should be. However, the PNGs show up as they should in PS 5.0. In my last Post -- in the P.S. -- I provided some direct links for one image I made for gUiTaR_mIkE -- one link for the PNG version and the other for the jpeg version. I sure hope the PNG shows up as well as the jpeg for your system. If it does, I have nothing to worry about, since I'll be able to meet Mike's request for high-quality PNGs. If it doesn't, well, I don't know. One thing I thought of is maybe I'm not using the *best* "settings" for converting the .psd files to PNG. In PS 5.0 the "save as png" options are in 2 categories: Interlace None Adam7 and Filter None Sub Up Average Paeth Adaptive The default settings were "None" in both categories -- and that's what I went with. Should I have chosen a different combination of options to get a better PNG image -- one that I'd be able to view correctly on the 'net ? I sure hope you can give me some guidance to get me out of this dilemma. Of course, if you can see the PNG well in my link, no guidance is really needed. But if you could "educate" me a little in this area -- without working too hard on it, of course -- I'd really appreciate it. Many Thanks. P.S. What are your feelings about which image format is best to use on the 'net -- PNGs or JPEGs ? Thanks again.

I am aware that PNGs abound on the net -- some I can view well, others I can't. I can view all your PNG images well in PS, just not on the 'net. By my recommending jpegs, that would just allow the disadvantaged -- such as myself -- to clearly view them. By no means was I trying to *tell you what to do*. If you want to put them on the 'net as PNGs that is your choice, of course, since the images will belong to you -- not me. I am not rich -- not even close to it -- so I'm stuck with what I have. But, IMO, my system accomplishes a lot -- as you'll see in the images I made for you. By no means am I "struggling" with this project. It has been very easy and a lot of fun to do. It is no "headache" at all and it is not "aggravating" me in the least. In the other extreme, it has provided me with much creative enjoyment. This work is not underwhelming to me at all, and it definitely has not been a waste of my time. I have truly enjoyed it. Let's not cancel the project *now* Mike, please. Let me submit my images for you to look at and, if you want, you can cancel the project then -- or we can continue on in the "refining" phase as I described in my last Post. After all, I'm 99% done with this phase of the work. I basically just have to have the files hosted on the 'net and write the Post. I know my system and my PS version are not the latest, but I still can accomplish a lot with it. I hope you will agree with this statement when you see the images I made for you. Respectfully submitted, Larry P. S. Here is a direct link to one signature that I put a *lot* of blue in (since you said that was your favorite color). You can also see the sine-wave motion. I'm posting this to see if *you* -- and others -- can see the PNG clearly.The PNG link is http://postimage.org/image/6ebedalg/ Let me know if you can clearly see it. Everything should be in clear, sharp focus, as shown in the jpeg link http://postimage.org/image/6e34ok4k/ If you can see the PNG well, we're "over the hump". (I have many other signatures incorporating guitars and amps -- plus much more). I have never used PNGs before, because I can't see them on the net. In converting from the PS file to PNG there are a great deal of "settings" that one can use. I chose "None" in 2 different categories. I'm now going to make a Post for CoffeeFiend detailing all these settings, so he can tell me the best combo to use. Maybe *my* visual problem is just in the settings I used. That *might* be the case, since it is relatively rare any more that there's a PNG on the 'net that I can't see clearly. I'm determined to solve this "riddle". Regards

What I'll be showing are numerous examples, to give you -- or other forum members -- ideas for changes. With PS layers and "effects" (and the "scale" feature, too), it's pretty easy to make changes (since all my "settings" are saved). I feel the approach we've taken has been good -- no, really, *great* -- since I had the freedom to *explore* different things -- without having to be "interrupted" by needing to communicate with you. We are now at the phase of the design process to get your feedback. By no means are we at "the very end - here it is, like it or not" stage. When I present these results, I'll discuss my approach a little so you will get a clear understanding of what would be easy to change and what would be hard (not really hard, per se, but I'd be a little "underwhelmed" if I had to start *completely over*). As long as you like my gUiTaR_mIkE "sine-wave-flow" motion, I think this project will soon be successfully "in the bag".

I wanted to post this info in a short, separate Post -- so that it would *clearly stand out* and not get lost in the discussion when I post gUiTaR_mIkE's images. Do you all know that not all browsers render colors properly in a PNG image ? I've known it for a long time with my 98 OS and browsers from the Dark Ages. I was just previewing some of gUiTaR_mIkE's hosted PNG images online, and they *all* looked terrible. All the blues were transformed into nearly-black and the other colors didn't fair much better either. My procedure was to do *all* the work in PS 5.0 and save to PNG at the end (since Mike had requested the images in this format). After I had *all* the PNGs saved, I batch-opened them and saved each as jpg at the maximum quality setting. All these jpegs looked great on the 'net. Bottom line: IMHO, don't put PNGs on the 'net. Use jpegs instead. Do you folks with your more modern systems experience this PNG problem ? It will be easy enough for you to check out when I provide links to gUiTaR_mIkE's PNGs. I'll also post links for the jpegs too, so you can see what the images *should* look like. CoffeeFiend -- or anyone else, of course -- I'd appreciate any "educational feedback" you can give me on this issue. Thanks in advance.

Thanks for your hard work, CoffeeFiend. Glad to see that we're finally on the same page. I checked out your bitmaps, and your screensaves look really good -- not at all like mine. But, I still think the screensave lettering I got -- due to my antiquated browsers and OS -- is "interesting". Really, I'm a little more inclined *now* to do the "manual, labor-intensive" enlargement of gUiTaR_mIkE's name -- since it might look a "little strange" to you denizens of the Modern Age. It really shouldn't take that long. I'll wait until after I post his images.

You sure know how to tell a joke, gUiTaR_mIkE -- not ! ( LOL ! ) The first rule in art is (IMO): In Art, nothing created as art is a joke. You have heard the saying that many people criticize Modern Art by saying, "My 4-year old son could have painted that". The work of Cy Twombly comes to mind. (Check him out in Google Images if you want.) But such paintings -- (i.e., not jokes) -- sell for $ millions. You had me convinced that you had *ultra avant-garde* tastes in art with your picture -- until you fessed up that it was a joke. (lol)

Am I missing something, or you're just talking about the user name to the left of the post? If it's just that I'm not sure why you're going through all that hassle. It's just regular text rendered by the browser, as dictated by the cascading style sheet (css): Thanks for your input, CoffeeFiend. I do appreciate it, for I'm here to learn. Yes, the user name at the top left of the Post. I'm "generally familiar" with all the things you discuss -- but certainly not in the detail you express. Remember that I said earlier that I thought the font was the default -- Tahoma, which I have. If you take a screen shot of gUiTaR_mIkE's member name and enlarge it up to the maximum, you can see the *highly non anti-aliased* look it has. That was the look I wanted to *exactly preserve*. My PS 5.0 type tool does not give this letter look *at all* -- not even with anti-aliasing unchecked. If you want, you can check out Mike's name in a screenshot to see the look of the letters that I wanted to *exactly duplicate* (except for the kerning). I should have been more clear in my Post -- by mentioning that my type tool does not *duplicate* the look. (Not even close.) Sorry.

So, amazingly well-characterized and expressed, CoffeeFiend. So, to me, the pressure's "somewhat" off, since I'm not doing this for a living. And, I bill my "clients" at the rate of $0.00 per hour. I just "Give it Away, Give it Away, Give it Away, Now" as the Red Hot Chili Peppers advise in this great live performance at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhqmFKv3ow8

I wanted to respond to this now, rather than discussing it in the Post concerning your images. The enlargement of your member name to the 380x100px range was just too great for Photoshop to do effectively. The name was incredibly blurry. Even "Nearest Neighbor" -- which usually does a better job than "Bicubic" for this type of image -- didn't give very good results. The approach to do the "enlargement" would have to be *manual* and very *labor intensive*. Here's how it would work. Suppose we wanted to enlarge the name by a factor of 10. We would pick out a pixel in your small-sized name and then -- in a new Photoshop file -- "color in" a 10x10 pixel area. We'd then repeat this process for *each pixel* in your small-sized name, making sure that we would reproduce in the enlargement the *arrangement* of pixels in your small-sized name. In conclusion, IMO, the result would not justify the effort *at this time*. However, if I did have some time in the future, I might do it -- because the "look" of the letters is *somewhat cool*. Really, I wouldn't color-in a new 10x10px area each time, I'd just make a "New File" 10x10px, and "paint-bucket-fill" it with the color. Then, I'd just drag these colored squares into the 10x enlargement file, as needed. Pretty efficient. Of course, squares would only be for a proportional enlargement. If the enlargement were not proportional, rectangles would have to be used. All this could be calculated from the outset.

Hello, Tripredacus, nice to meet you. Well, of course, there's my avatar (very simple) and signature (more complex). I also have a Photo on the "My Profile" page. My recent project with a MSFN member was with jds (Joe) -- again a relatively simple avatar project. He was using a "stock image" of Blaise Pascal as an avatar -- done entirely in shades of black, white, and gray -- on a white background -- and the image faced away from the Post area. I removed the background, put a blue-gray gradient fade around Blaise, and flipped him so that he'd look *toward* the Post area. We then brightened the image to go with this relatively light fade background. This was a big improvement over the original avatar. Even though this was a "simple" project, it required a long time -- in the back and forth -- until I had something that suited *Joe's tastes alone*. It was definitely a collaborative effort. I have a *whole bunch* of signatures that I made for the larryb123456 member name. I have a lot of signatures in the identical *format* shown in my present signature. But in this collection of signatures the letter color doesn't change "across the board" -- it stays constant, but the letters do have an inner bevel to give them some "dimension". For example, in one signature the letter color might be red, in another blue, etc. I experimented -- in a systematic way -- with all the *combinations* of colors for letter, outer glow, and bevel. I also have an entirely different *set* of signatures for larryb123456. I'd be happy to show examples from both sets -- say 5 or so from each. I just need a little time to organize it and have the images hosted. Also, I can show examples of what I was most recently experimenting with -- involving quotations by famous people as a MSFN *image* signature. I'll try to present these images in a way so that if anyone likes them, they can download and use them either here or on any other site. I should have the "project" with gUiTaR_mIkE finished in a couple of days, and there will be *many* images for you to look at there. Of course, Tripredacus, I'd much appreciate your feedback (if you want to give it, of course) -- and the feedback of others, too -- for my main objective here is to continue to improve.

I'm glad you put this in as an example. This is easy to do -- basically, you just need a pencil and eraser. Easy and FUN. You can also do neat "effects" to your basic image as shown -- like adding an outline, dropshadow, etc., etc. But, you don't want to do "too much* to your basic image, or you'll spoil its simplicity. In developing your member name, the first thing I did was do a screenshot save of it and measure the relative heights of the letters. I decided then to also remove all the background around the letters.This *rendition* of your name is *exactly* as it is shown on MSFN -- in a solid color with a jig-jaggy (i.e., "stairstep") look to the diagonals. Personally, I think the look is cool. I will include this image along with all the other ones I'm developing. I think I'll put it in white letters on your avatar dark-blue background, again at 380x100px PNG.

Thanks for answering. I was lucky to find your answer in the Post *before* the Post in which I made my request. I'm sure you're being modest in assessing your abilities. Your response got me wondering: are there any "dangers" in what I'm offering to do -- i.e., showing off my skills (or lack of skills) for everyone to see. Is there something I'm missing here ? If anyone calls me a lousy artist, I'll just say "I know you are, but what am I ?", just like my all-time favorite hero, Pee-Wee Herman. (lol)

It's hard to believe the number of options. With so many options, I could *totally ruin* an image in no time flat ( lol ). I know that one could use the brush options alone to create a totally abstract picture or in conjunction with the face of a georgeous model, for example. I recall seeing a tutorial where someone started with a woman's face and -- layer by layer -- added "speckles", subtle "lines of paint", other brush effects, etc., etc., and arrived at a truly great image. I think he used a couple of hundred layers. (I wish I had saved the link.) CoffeeFiend, do you have some links to examples of your work done using brush effects alone or in conjunction with an image ? (Also any other examples.) I'd truly love to see them. Thanks

Thanks for taking time to respond, gUiTaR_mIkE. You are so correct. When I made the first post on this thread, as I stated, my primary objective was to improve my Photoshop skills by working on *specific* projects. I just wanted to immerse myself in "art projects", for I truly enjoy them. I offered to make *custom* avatars and signatures to suit the *tastes* of forum members. As I said, I would respond to feedback on the developing images and adjust them so that they would wind up being just what the forum member wanted. I never anticipated that once someone had the *perfect signature that totally suited his tastes*, that he would want to change it on his own. In the spare time that I've had, I've worked on your gUiTaR_mIkE signature (with a *very nice* sine wave effect) to have it show up on MSFN similar to the "bookmark social" logo at http://www.bookmarksocial.com/ as I had originally discussed. This project is very easy to do. Just a little "tweaking" is called for. I would *very much* like to give you this signature in the PNG format (with variations, etc.) for you to use -- restriction free -- on MSFN or anywhere else. I should have it for you in a couple of days. What I'd like to do is HOST the images and provide links for you to download the images from the 'net. This approach would accomplish 2 things for me: # 1) other forum members could look at the images and give me feedback on how to improve them, etc.; and # 2) I would have a documented record of *my creation* -- i.e., "my version" -- in case you wanted to change the image on MSFN (as I said, I'd be happy to make any changes you wanted, but if you wanted to make your own changes, feel free to do so). gUiTaR_mIkE, our exchanges have been very beneficial to me in that they *clarified* in my mind what is of *primary importance* to me -- doing art. As long as I can HOST my versions online, I don't need a "use restriction", as you called it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let me try to summarize and make clear to everyone what I want to achieve here. I will work with you -- in a collaborative manner -- to develop an avatar and/or signature that *totally* satisfies you. I will respond to your feedback and alter the images to try to get them closer to *your version* of perfection -- for however long it takes. The developing images will be HOSTED online, and I'll provide links so that they can be viewed on MSFN and downloaded from the 'net by you. THERE WILL BE NO "USE RESTRICTIONS" WHATSOEVER FOR ANY OF THESE HOSTED IMAGES. FEEL FREE TO DOWNLOAD THEM AND DO WHATEVER YOU WANT WITH THEM. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm also going to put this statement right at the beginning of Post # 1 in this thread. Respectfully submitted, Larry

OK, we best nix the idea of my avy & sig, I wouldn't want to make you upset should I forget the stipulation on using your artwork. Well, I guess I might have been a tad "cranky" -- (from lack of sleep, probably) -- when I made that rather *harsh* "pronouncement". I would like to make something for you, though. (I feel so much better if I have a *specific* PS project to work on. If I don't, I feel a little "depressed".) Can we reach a COMPROMISE ? On MSFN let us keep the image (if you like it, of course) *exactly*, *exactly*, *exactly*, ..."infinity" (as Pee-Wee Herman would say) as it is in our agreed-upon final version -- and don't change it, unless *we* agree to change it. I don't care one iota what you do with the images on your other forums -- since I'll never see them -- and I'd be happy to save the images for you in the PNG format so that you could WORK with them. I really wouldn't care if you "manipulated" -- i.e., "ruined" -- the images until they "stunk to high heaven" -- so *bad* even that the police brought cadaver dogs to your house to find the source of the STINK. ( lol ) Certainly -- I would hope -- you would not forget the stipulation on using my artwork JUST ON MSFN. I mean -- it's just one site to "remember". Go *wild* on your other sites if you want. (I sure hope a cadaver dog doesn't bite you !) Please discuss this with me regardless of whether or not you want me to come up with some signatures: When you say "guitar and amp", I really don't get a feel for your musical *tastes* or preferences. I mean, guitars and amps are used in music from Christian Rock all the way through Heavy Metal Metallica, for example, and beyond. What are some of your favorite bands, and I can check them out on YouTube. Thanks -- as I said, I hope we can reach the "compromise". If not, it's no biggie.

This Post is just to "set the record straight" a little about my Screensave capability with my Windows 98 OS. (I'm something of a perfectionist, and I didn't want this mis-statement of mine to stand uncorrected.) I took a screensave of the MSFN signature area using my Opera 9.64 browser (the highest version I can have with 98 OS) and analyzed it. There were not 2 different colors in a "checkerboard" pattern, as my *faulty* memory dictated. The true "color field" in one 5 x 5 pixel area was described by the "matrix" shown here: A,B,A,B,A C,D,C,D,C A,B,A,B,A C,D,C,D,C A,B,A,B,A where the 4 letters represent 4 different colors, whose ( r,g,b ) values are: A = ( 240, 248, 240 ) B = ( 240, 248, 255 ) C = ( 255, 248, 255 ) D = ( 240, 247, 240 ) When I set the color picker Sample Size to "5 x 5 Average" and clicked in the exact center of the 5x5 pixel area, I got the ( r, g, b ) values of the MSFN background to be ( 244, 248, 247 ) which is obviously incorrect, since the *correct* values are ( 250, 251, 252). Please note that I also get non-uniform MSFN backgrounds from screensaves from my Firefox 2.0.0.20 and Netscape 9.0.0.6 browsers (the highest versions my 98 OS can have). Well, CoffeeFiend, don't you and gUiTaR_mIkE wish that you lived in the "technological" Stone Age like me ? For I think living in caves and killing wooly mammoths for lunch is *far superior* to modern-day life ! !

--------------------------------- Thanks, gUiTaR_mIkE and CoffeeFiend for getting the ( r, g, b ) values for me. CoffeeFiend, with my screenshot saves, the background isn't uniform. If I recall correctly, it consists of 2 different colors in a "checkerboard" pattern -- as 1600% magnification shows. I think this is the fault of my old browsers, rather than PS 5.0. But this point is now moot, since I have the correct values. --------------------------------- Glad you got me to *clarify*. No, by "regular", I *definitely* do not mean "all lower case". Instead of saying "regular", I should have said *vertical* -- like all the letters in your member name. As I have always said, your *exact* member name -- with the "lower-upper-lower" caps/lowercase arrangement as you have it -- should be preserved. This will *not* look bad. It will look GREAT ! Guaranteed ! We can experiment first with your "gentle sine wave" question to get the relative heights of the letters narrowed down. (Also, spacing between letters). What I'll do is make a few jpegs with the individual letters different sizes so that we can establish the basic sine wave "look" that you want [just in black on a white background (with no effects)]. One thing that looks "a little funky" is if each letter is rotated at a different small angle from the horizontal relative to the adjacent letter. You can also move the baselines of the different letters up and down a bit to get a little more erratic look (but not too erratic). I think with your moniker ( lol ! ), we don't want it too "regimented". We want it a "little wild" -- no ? Again, I'd just make these jpegs with black letters on a white background. Once we establish the "LOOK" that suits you, we can then start to add strokes, layer effects, etc. These pictures should allow you to specify the signature "look" you're after. IMO, any "trim" around the avatar would *compete* with the interesting, *bold*, black border and completely destroy the avatar's "magic". No problem in resizing the avatar. Since the maximum signature size on MSFN is 380x100px, I'll make it this size. My guess would be that you'd want to use a big size on MSFN, since your "gUiTaR_mIkE" moniker is rather bold in itself. I think the guitar and amp would look good with the lettering. That's what we'll shoot for. Like I said, I'll look for some freebie pics. http://www.wfu.edu/~matthews/misc/graphics/formats/formats.html tells that: PNG is a lossless storage format. BMP is an uncompressed -- (i.e., lossless) -- proprietary format invented by Microsoft. There is really no reason to ever use this format. JPG is optimized for photographs and similar continuous tone images that contain many, many colors. (JPG is a lossy format.) It is clear that the images should be uploaded to the 'net in JPG (jpeg) format. I do all my work in the lossless .psd (Photoshop) format and convert to jpeg at the end. This is important: What do you mean "a format to work with" ? What "work" do you envision doing to MY creations ? As you can tell, this is a very touchy area for me. I have made beautiful creations for others in the past, and in their lack of expertise -- i.e., IGNORANCE -- they took it upon themselves to "manipulate" -- i.e. RUIN -- the images. These experiences have been very painful to me, and I have *no desire* to repeat them. If you give me feedback on ANYTHING that you'd like for me to do to the images as we progress together in the development of your signature, I'd be more than happy to accommodate you. I have infinite patience in this regard. But if you plan to take my images and "work with them yourself" to produce "who knows what", I'd have to respectfully withdraw my offer. I *always* would appreciate any suggestions from other forum members as the work progresses on how to improve the images, and I'd *happily* incorporate these suggestions into the work. So, as I see it, the next step would be to establish the basic "structure" of your gUiTaR_mIkE signature with the black letters on a white background. This should take just a couple of days or so. Also, please define what you mean by "a format to work with". I think a good way to show the developing images would be for me to "host" them and then provide image links for viewing. That way, I could get feedback from you -- as well as from other forum members. Thanks

Thanks, again, CoffeeFiend, for your clear and detailed input. I had seen this procedure on the 'net a while back -- (but the directions were not as clear as yours) -- and tried it without success. I followed your *clearer directions*, and, again, had no luck. When I released the mouse button, the foreground color did not change one bit. Just to double-check, by "color picker" you do mean the "Eyedropper Tool" (as it's called in PS 5.0), don't you ?. I'm sure this is correct, because whenever I had any other Tool selected and pressed "i", the Eyedropper Tool became "selected". I guess PS 5.0 just doesn't have this feature. BTW, when I sample a color from a screensave, I always have the Eyedropper Tool "Sample Size" set to "5 x 5 Average". Perhaps you could get the ( r,g,b ) values and Post them for me. I'm sure that this would be more accurate than anything I could come up with via a screensave. Many Thanks.

Don't sell yourself short, gUiTaR_mIkE, you had the good taste to select a "winner". You would not believe the number of people who can not tell the difference between a gem and a piece of garbage. I'm glad I have the leeway of using any font -- but I think we should keep it sans-serif. By far, blue is my favorite color, too. Did you want your "handle" italicized, as you show in gUiTaR_mIkE ? I think the best approach would be to completely finish the graphic using "regular", non-italicized letters. We can then go back and italicize the result to any "slant" we want. Of course, we can later explore using your "handle" -- with cool text effects -- in conjunction with a guitar and amp, etc. IMO, this is very important: Let me know the biggest signature-size restriction of the other forums that you are on, and I can make the signature this size from the beginning. It's much, much better to *reduce* in size -- to the MSFN restriction -- than enlarge. If the image is too blurry when reduced to MSFN size, I can easily redo it from scratch because I'll have all the "settings" saved and I can scale them down accordingly. Personally, I think the MSFN maxium size is too large, but, of course, my *objective* is to make something to suit your tastes. Your MSFN avatar is a square GIF, 80 x 80 pixels and I can enlarge it proportionately to any size you want. In regards to the background color of the signature, I think I'll use a colored background -- like a blue fade or just an "abstract" blue background to complement the lettering that I've previously discussed. I'll make this background look good on MSFN -- and it will make your avatar/signature combo UNIVERSAL on the 'net. "Moniker" is not a graphics term. It's just a high-fallutin' term -- which I should not have used -- for "name". I feels reel stoopid Please give me some feedback on your maximum size restrictions, and I can get to work. I could *knock out* an image in about an hour or so, but I'm something of a perfectionist, and I like to systematically explore all the variables, so I'd like to spend a few days on this. I'll find some freebie guitar/amp pics, too. Once I have the lettering (with effects) on a PS layer, its easy to put any background behind it that you want.

Hello, gUiTaR_mIkE: I really become enthused when I have a *specific* art (graphic) project to work on. Thanks for your offer. I am definitely still interested. etch-a-sketch has always been way, way over my head -- ( lol ! ) -- so I guess I'll have to use my Photoshop 5.0 program. What *instantaneously* popped into my head was a signature using your *ultra-cool* "gUiTaR_mIkE" moniker *exactly* as shown on the Post directly above your avatar. My guess is that the font is the default Tahoma font, but I can check this out easily enough. I would not touch (i.e., alter) your avatar *at all*. After all, one should not mess with PERFECTION. I would make your signature totally compatible color-wise and "style"-wise with your avatar. I am a big fan of "elegant simplicity". One of my favorite logos on the 'net is found at http://www.bookmarksocial.com/ the "look" of which shouldn't be too hard to duplicate. Any color fade used in your signature should be based on the blue in your avatar, and I think it's important to have gUiTaR_mIkE alone on the MSFN signature area (i.e., without an apparent "bounding rectangle"). Of course, to do this we can simply make the bounding rectangle the color of the MSFN signature area. I can get this color -- and the blue color of your avatar -- easily enough from a screensave jpeg. Even better -- does anyone know the precise ( r,g,b ) values for the signature-area background ? (My browsers and PS version are old and I might not be able to get the *exact* ( r,g,b ) values from my screensave.) Waiting on your feedback, gUiTaR_mIkE.

That's precisely what's called a clipping path The internet site I found this method on was a very simple, half page site whose only objective was to show how to make patterned type like that seen in your museum pic. They just listed the steps as I described above. They never called it a "clipping path". They only called it a "way to make patterned type". But, it was a revelation to me, for I immediately realized that this could be the (easy) starting point for all kinds of wonderful type effects -- from transparent type and beyond. Again, CoffeeFiend, let me thank you for all your guidance and your offer of PS assistance.

That's not what we generally mean by destructive, but rather that applying any effect this way throws away the original pixels. You can't go back to them. When you use adjustment layers, you can disable it, delete it, mask certain portions of it, and even change the settings on it later on (or use completely different adjustments instead). The underlying pixels on the layer underneath remain unchanged. That's the big difference: you're not throwing away the original pixels. Thanks for giving the proper definition of "destructive". I know that with Brightness/Contrast, for example, once you apply a "setting", you can't undo it -- (except with "Edit > Undo Brightness/Contrast" or the history brush, of course). Sometimes, if I apply Brightness = +20, say, and if the image is too bright, I can "restore" it somewhat by applying Brightness = - 20 (or thereabouts), *but I'm sure* -- based on what you said -- that this 2-step approach does not restore the image to its original state. I will definitely check out adjustment layers. In my PS layers, I *never, never* apply any "action" to an original image -- I always apply the action to a duplicate layer, so if I mess it up, I can simply delete it. (I know -- that's basic PS operation.) I understand that an example of a non-destructive process would be a type layer that has not been rendered (rasterized) yet. It can be edited an infinite number of times. But once the layer is rendered, it can, of course, no longer be edited. If you want to change the size of this rendered layer, you have to resort to a numeric transform, for example. In achieving a *perfect* line of type, I usually put *each letter* on a different layer so that I can adjust the spacing between letters to achieve *perfection*. Then I make a duplicate layer for each letter, and then merge the duplicates into one type layer for ease of "handling". I can, of course, apply a pattern to this whole type layer. (I also can apply a different pattern to *each individual letter*, as your museum pic shows.) The technique I use to make patterned type is to put the layer with the pattern above the type layer and then Alt-click *exactly* in-between these 2 layers. If I used a different pattern for *each letter* in the name and Alt-clicked for each letter, this would result in the type showing a different pattern for each letter, exactly as in your museum pic. IMO this feature (or effect) is ultra-cool ! This patterned type is rasterized, but I can transform it to resize it, say -- or apply any other type of transform. I also can apply any desired layer effect, stroke, etc. In the same way, I can make a stroke around a line of type and apply a pattern to this stroke. This works well, say, if you have a 2 px stroke around some letters and want the stroke (outline) to be a gradient fade from lighter on top to darker on bottom, for example. (Or anything else.) I generated the lettering in my photo in "My Profile" using this pattern technique. I made a stacked 2-line larryb/123456 pattern from an abstract "shades of yellow and gold" image, applied an outer bevel, and free transformed it to fit the picture. I liked the result. My favorite type of pictures have areas so bright that "they will put your eyes out" and also totally-black areas. I like the picture since (IMO) you're not really sure if the people are watching a sunrise or an atomic bomb going off. (lol) Thanks for the reference. I looked through all of it. I think the way I put each letter or number on a separate layer and then adjust the spacing accomplishes much and "allows" PS 5.0 to accomplish more than it was intended to (if I'm not overstating this). For example, consider the "Superscrip/Subscript" example: [Co(NH3)6](3). I'd put [, C, o, (, N, H, ), and ] all the same size on different layers -- for a total of 8 layers. I'd then make 3, 6, (, 3, and ) the appropriate smaller size on 5 separate layers. I now have a total of 13 layers. I'd adjust the character spacing and orient the subscripts and superscript accordingly by moving each layer independently. Of course, at this point, all type is editable. I'd then duplicate each layer and merge the 13 layers for ease of handling. To this layer we can apply all kinds of effects -- stroke, outer glow, emboss, drop shadow, apply a pattern, etc. Of course, we still have our 13 original editable letters, so we can duplicate them again and go back and change the color of the 3, 6, and (3) to the blue shown in the image to the right. I guess this example provides a little insight into the way I work with my PS 5.0. (By no means am I claiming that this is "genius" -- lol ! -- it's just a simple, basic way to work that I'm sure that everyone knows and uses.) Thank you so much for your generous offer, CoffeeFiend. I don't think we'd have to reference everything back to PS 5.0 per se, but it might be that I might not be able to understand the *basic concept* behind "clipping paths", for example. I've learned PS 5.0 up to this point mostly by my own trial and error, and trying to find pointers on the 'net. The PS 5.0 "Help" is not much "Help". Definitely a misnomer there. Thanks for responding, jaclaz. Finally, a price that I can afford ! Your link required Windows XP SP2 or later. I'm back in the "Stone Age" with Windows 98. http://gimp-win.sourceforge.net/old.html has a download for Windows 98, GTK+ 2 Runtime Environment (version 2.6.10-20050823). But they say: "Unless you have a very good reason, it's recommended to always use the latest stable version, and not the versions available on this page." I had seen Gimp mentioned on the 'net before, but I kind of "glossed over" the info. I'm curious now to find out more about it. I think I'll download it with the Help files and just leave it on my Desktop for the time being. The way my mind works, I'm afraid if I start learning Gimp, I'll be trying to "Gimp" on Photoshop with disasterous results. Again, Many Thanks.

In less than a day, you have pointed out to me *many* topic directions that I can -- and will -- explore. Many thanks. I have noticed that Image > Adjust > Brightness/Contrast is very destructive if you get too far away from zero. (Especially Brightness < 0, which noticeably "grays out" an image.) I have been aware that my PS 5.0 version has the features of adjustment layers, layer masks, and blending modes, etc. I guess the main reason I haven't explored these features in full yet is that I haven't been using PS as an image (as in face, etc.) editor. My recent work has been focused on "mastering" the type tool, layer effects, stroking, patterning, etc., etc. -- which allowed me to make my avatar, signature, and photo. And this formed the basis for my wanting to make avatars and/or signatures for forum members -- and improve my PS skills in the process. I've looked at many avatars and signatures on MSFN and I always ask myself, "Could I make something like this ?" And the answer has most always been "yes". Same thing for text-based images on the 'net. I figured that if I ran into a "roadblock" in trying to make a signature for a forum member, I could get a little help from someone like you. The bottom line is that I thoroughly enjoy the act of "visual, artistic creation". I strongly identify with a quotation by the contemporary American artist Chuck Close: “I am going for a level of perfection that is only mine...most of the pleasure is in getting the last little piece perfect.” Again, many thanks, CoffeeFiend, for your guidance. If you think of any more such commentary, please let me know. Regards

Again, CoffeeFiend, let me thank you for responding. (I know that such a detailed and clear response takes a lot of time to write.) I have not yet *fully explored* the limits of my PS 5.0 program. So far in my work, I have not felt the need to *paint* with PS 5.0 paint brushes, air brushes, pens, etc. But, based on your comments, I'm certainly going to experiment some to expand my skills. I'm sure that these skills will be very useful, and I'll then add them to my "bag of tricks". I'll let you know what I think in a few weeks (or so) when I've experimented enough to come to some definite conclusions. Normally, now, if I need a "soft focus" abstract background, I start with one that's a little more "hard-edge" and in the basic colors I want -- (these are very abundant on the many free-to-use-image web sites) -- and crop out a small section and then enlarge that small section to whatever size I need. I also do other things like that. I feel very comfortable using PS 5.0 layers, and my typical .psd file maxes out at 100 layers. I do make great use, of course, with Image > Adjust and experiment with *all* the Filters. It's amazing what "looks" one can come up with just in proceeding in kind of a "helter-skelter" fashion. Kind of like in the "happy accident" scenario. Of course, Image > Adjust and Filters can be used in a very precise way, too. I guess the above kind of describes what I earlier mentioned as creativity and ingenuity sometimes being able to overcome the limitations of outdated software. Might as well be $1,000,000. I see two options: # 1: my good fairy will put the $$ under my pillow one night while I sleep; # 2: Bill Gates will one day walk down the street in front of my house. I can follow him and pick up the loose change that falls out of his pockets. In a block or two, I should have $5K or $10K. I think option # 2 is the most probable (lol). Many thanks, CoffeeFiend. I'm now going to make myself a cup of Kaffee.