Jump to content

Welcome to MSFN Forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account


Photo

custom avatars and signatures

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
708 replies to this topic

#51
larryb123456

larryb123456

    Confused but Happy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts
  • OS:Windows 7 x86
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

My opinion - the problem is entirely at your end,
A quick look at many sites including MSFN - nearly all the images are in .png format. I don't know what browser (or version) you're using but if you can look at the 'media' used you will see .png.
If you want to get serious about your artwork (on computer anyway) you need to step up to at least XP, 7 would be better, Apple if your rich
Btw, since you're struggling with the project for me go ahead and stop - it seems like this idea is getting a little heavy in the heels so please don't bother with my avatar, it's becoming a headache for you, don't aggravate yourself on my account.

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.

If the resulting work is underwhelming this will be a waste of your time
So I'm considering my project canceled for your benefit
I do believe the bottleneck might be the system you're doing the work on and not your skills.

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

Edited by larryb123456, 09 August 2011 - 12:27 PM.

new_MSFN_static_signature.jpg

 

" What we achieve inwardly will change outer reality."  Plutarch

 

 

 



How to remove advertisement from MSFN

#52
larryb123456

larryb123456

    Confused but Happy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts
  • OS:Windows 7 x86
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

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.

new_MSFN_static_signature.jpg

 

" What we achieve inwardly will change outer reality."  Plutarch

 

 

 


#53
CoffeeFiend

CoffeeFiend

    Coffee Aficionado

  • Super Moderator
  • 5,399 posts
  • OS:Windows 7 x64
  • Country: Country Flag

Do you all know that not all browsers render colors properly in a PNG image ?

It should work just fine with modern versions of Chrome, IE, Firefox, Safari and most others. I haven't come across this particular problem myself.The only PNG issue I've encountered is the lack of alpha channel support (no transparency) in ancient, crappy versions of IE. It's either caused by your OS/browser combo, or having color settings/calibration problems. This wasn't even a problem a decade ago.

Bottom line: IMHO, don't put PNGs on the 'net. Use jpegs instead

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.
Coffee: \ˈkȯ-fē, ˈkä-\. noun. Heaven in a cup. Life's only treasure. The meaning of life. Kaffee ist wunderbar. C8H10N4O2 FTW.

#54
dencorso

dencorso

    Adiuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Super Moderator
  • 5,778 posts
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

I'm using IE8 on Win XP SP3, and, to me, the .PNG image Larry posted a link to appears *much* darker than the .jpg image. If they were meant to be exactly the same, well, I simply am not seeing them as the same at all. I think that was what Larry was referring to. Of course this is not IE9 on Win 7, but about 50% of all Windows users are still on XP, and IE9 is simply not available for this platform. IMHO, .jpgs for photos and most art and .gifs for line drawings and most everything that can be reasonably represented in up to 256 colors (or where the lossy compression is a problem) still is the way to go. And the .gif patents have al expired, AFAIK, so there's no reason anymore not to use them.

#55
larryb123456

larryb123456

    Confused but Happy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts
  • OS:Windows 7 x86
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

Again, thanks for taking time to respond, CoffeeFiend. I so very much appreciate all your hard efforts.


Bottom line: IMHO, don't put PNGs on the 'net. Use jpegs instead

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.

I'm using IE8 on Win XP SP3, and, to me, the .PNG image Larry posted a link to appears *much* darker than the .jpg image. If they were meant to be exactly the same, well, I simply am not seeing them as the same at all. I think that was what Larry was referring to.

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.)

IMHO, .jpgs for photos and most art


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

new_MSFN_static_signature.jpg

 

" What we achieve inwardly will change outer reality."  Plutarch

 

 

 


#56
bphlpt

bphlpt

    MSFN Addict

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,796 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
My findings were similar to dencorso, looking at the images in different tabs of my browser, Iron on Win7 x86, the PNG was darker than the JPG. And when I downloaded the two images and loaded them into Paint.net they looked the same, both the same as each other AND the same as the JPG image in the browser window, within reason. This surprised me since I also believed that PNG was a better format to use. I guess it all depends on the image.

Cheers and Regards

Posted Image


#57
CoffeeFiend

CoffeeFiend

    Coffee Aficionado

  • Super Moderator
  • 5,399 posts
  • OS:Windows 7 x64
  • Country: Country Flag

I'm using IE8 on Win XP SP3, and, to me, the .PNG image Larry posted a link to appears *much* darker than the .jpg image.

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). And yes, GIFs still work but PNGs are also smaller. I can't think of a single way GIFs are better than PNGs. The only thing people still use GIFs for is the animated kind.

See a proper PNG, saved by Photoshop > v5:
Posted Image
That works just fine, as expected. It looks just like his JPG but at about 1/4 of its size.

My images for gUiTaR_mIkE are "photographic" in nature, as shown in the image I posted.

Not really. There aren't that many colors as it's mostly monochromatic. Gradients don't help for indexed colors though (without gradients it would be more like 4KB). If there were even more colors then you could still save in lossless 24 bit PNG while still having the same size as your JPEG (no downsides)

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.)

The degradation is only negligible because it's almost 4x the size of my PNG... Lossy compression always looks worse, unless you don't compress much which isn't what you want for web content.

since the images will be very small (i.e., 50KB).

That's still pretty large for such a small image. Some of us are still on slow links. Multiplying the size of every avatars and such by 4 on each webpage = page loads darn slow. 50KB at dialup speeds is something like 10+ seconds worth of wait.

The bottom line is: use whatever gives the smallest file sizes while having great quality. For stuff that isn't photos that's usually PNGs, otherwise it's JPEGs.
Coffee: \ˈkȯ-fē, ˈkä-\. noun. Heaven in a cup. Life's only treasure. The meaning of life. Kaffee ist wunderbar. C8H10N4O2 FTW.

#58
larryb123456

larryb123456

    Confused but Happy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts
  • OS:Windows 7 x86
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

My findings were similar to dencorso, looking at the images in different tabs of my browser, Iron on Win7 x86, the PNG was darker than the JPG. And when I downloaded the two images and loaded them into Paint.net they looked the same, both the same as each other AND the same as the JPG image in the browser window, within reason. This surprised me since I also believed that PNG was a better format to use. I guess it all depends on the image.

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'm using IE8 on Win XP SP3, and, to me, the .PNG image Larry posted a link to appears *much* darker than the .jpg image.

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.


My images for gUiTaR_mIkE are "photographic" in nature, as shown in the image I posted.

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.

since the images will be very small (i.e., 50KB).
That's still pretty large for such a small image. Some of us are still on slow links. Multiplying the size of every avatars and such by 4 on each webpage = page loads darn slow. 50KB at dialup speeds is something like 10+ seconds worth of wait.

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.

The bottom line is: use whatever gives the smallest file sizes while having great quality. For stuff that isn't photos that's usually PNGs, otherwise it's JPEGs.

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

Edited by larryb123456, 10 August 2011 - 07:25 AM.

new_MSFN_static_signature.jpg

 

" What we achieve inwardly will change outer reality."  Plutarch

 

 

 


#59
gUiTaR_mIkE

gUiTaR_mIkE

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 107 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
@Larry

Use .jpg for me and be done with it, this thread is turning into Mike's avatar, please someone else get an avatar or sig :blink:

See if this snippet from a 1999 O'Reilly book, PNG: The Definitive Guide helps with PS 5 and .png.

Edited by gUiTaR_mIkE, 10 August 2011 - 10:01 AM.

Mike :)

#60
Tripredacus

Tripredacus

    K-Mart-ian Legend

  • Super Moderator
  • 9,693 posts
  • OS:Server 2012
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

Neither of those PNGs are truely PNGs anymore, except perhaps if they had any alpha transparency in them. These are already flattened and not longer maintain their vector properties! I've encountered this before trying to export items from Photoshop in order to work on them in Fireworks, I found the PNG format is not preferrable. Photoshop makes them basically act like JPGs, which is why the zooming makes them appear to be JPGs. Also the color difference isn't a fault of the browser, as Fireworks shows them in that color as well.

IMO, PNGs should only be used when you need a high resolution image that contains transparencies. For this, GIFs are not a good use, use PNG instead. Otherwise, the complexity differences are negligable in the PNG vs JPG debate.

AFAIK the browser does not do anything with the layer or vector metadata in a PNG file. I rarely will keep a PNG around unless I feel the need to work on something again in the future. In that case, I can re-open an old PNG and make changes easily, but only if the PNG wasn't exported or flattened. This is even possible between different versions and installs of Fireworks. However for some reason Fireworks isn't a commonly used program so you'd be hard pressed finding any PNGs online that were natively saved with it.

Example, PNG created by a different Fireworks on a different computer, opened on this PC (after it wants me to replace fonts) shows layers and vector properties still intact:

Posted Image

And I made a PNG just for test with 5 layers. Two are shapes and three are word blocks.

Posted Image

If I download this "yarrr" (its on Photobucket) and open it in Fireworks, the layers and vector shapes are still usable.

Edited by Tripredacus, 10 August 2011 - 12:59 PM.

MSFN RULES | GimageX HTA for PE 3.x | lol probloms
msfn2_zpsc37c7153.jpg

#61
larryb123456

larryb123456

    Confused but Happy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts
  • OS:Windows 7 x86
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

@Larry

Use .jpg for me and be done with it, this thread is turning into Mike's avatar, please someone else get an avatar or sig :blink:

See if this snippet from a 1999 O'Reilly book, PNG: The Definitive Guide helps with PS 5 and .png.

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.

Edited by larryb123456, 10 August 2011 - 01:33 PM.

new_MSFN_static_signature.jpg

 

" What we achieve inwardly will change outer reality."  Plutarch

 

 

 


#62
larryb123456

larryb123456

    Confused but Happy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts
  • OS:Windows 7 x86
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

Neither of those PNGs are truely PNGs anymore, except perhaps if they had any alpha transparency in them. These are already flattened and not longer maintain their vector properties!
Photoshop makes them basically act like JPGs.


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.

I rarely will keep a PNG around unless I feel the need to work on something again in the future. In that case, I can re-open an old PNG and make changes easily, but only if the PNG wasn't exported or flattened.


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.

new_MSFN_static_signature.jpg

 

" What we achieve inwardly will change outer reality."  Plutarch

 

 

 


#63
Tripredacus

Tripredacus

    K-Mart-ian Legend

  • Super Moderator
  • 9,693 posts
  • OS:Server 2012
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

The only vector objects are shapes and paths. Fonts do not count! Let me try to explain.

PNG will do one of the three anti-aliasing types (strong, feather, crisp) applied to a group of characters. So say you have a 14 point font object with Crisp AA. It will only AA at 14point, so doing a normal resize on the image will cause the pixels to appear. Because the resize is stretching a 14point font and not making it like 18 point or something in order to make it bigger. I believe Photoshop works in the same way as far as font scaling. Now Illustrator will actually scale up the font point size if you try to enlarge the image, as will using an SVG format, since "fonts" or letters do not specifically rely on the client to render them but are actually stored in a coordinate system.

And of course, since you flatten the image in order to save you end up making any paths or shapes (which you don't have in the guitar_mike example) raster objects. Or technically they cease to become objects since the entire image becomes the one raster object and can't actually keep any metadata in it in order for the JPG or BMP to do something else... except keep a RAR file in it, but that's another story. :lol:
MSFN RULES | GimageX HTA for PE 3.x | lol probloms
msfn2_zpsc37c7153.jpg

#64
CoffeeFiend

CoffeeFiend

    Coffee Aficionado

  • Super Moderator
  • 5,399 posts
  • OS:Windows 7 x64
  • Country: Country Flag

Can you elaborate some on what a screwed up gamma setting does to a PNG file -- if you want to, of course.

It tells the browser "how bright" it is. If it writes a bad value, then the result looks too dark or bright. Most likely Photoshop is aware of that particular problem (bad values) and ignores incorrect settings (replaces it with a sane default value)

in most of my signatures for gUiTaR_mIkE, I incorporate actual photographs -- guitars, amps, and more.

That would be photographic alright!

since the images will be very small (i.e., 50KB).
If what you say is such a concern for MSFN

It's not a MSFN-specific thing (and yes, it's perfectly ok by the forum rules) but rather a overall "think of those on slow links" rule that mostly everybody on the web obeys. I'm not on dialup myself but my DSL is pretty darn slow sometimes... 10-ish KB is definitely better than 40-ish KB if that's possible.

this thread is turning into Mike's avatar, please someone else get an avatar or sig :blink:

Don't give us ideas, we just might change the thread's title to that! :lol:

Neither of those PNGs are truely PNGs anymore, except perhaps if they had any alpha transparency in them. These are already flattened and not longer maintain their vector properties!

You got it completely reversed. "Standard" PNGs don't contain vector data, and an alpha channel is entirely optional. It's an indexed-color, raster image format (again, pixels, no vectors). It's only Fireworks who tacks on its own Fireworks-only data chunks at the end in a proprietary format to pull some of its tricks aka a special "Fireworks PNG" and not a "standard PNG" (which is what you'd probably call a "flattened PNG"). Those Fireworks-only data chunks are in no way part of the PNG standard. You can think standard PNGs as an enhanced GIF basically. Either ways, I knew there had to be someone out there who still uses Fireworks
Coffee: \ˈkȯ-fē, ˈkä-\. noun. Heaven in a cup. Life's only treasure. The meaning of life. Kaffee ist wunderbar. C8H10N4O2 FTW.

#65
gUiTaR_mIkE

gUiTaR_mIkE

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 107 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

Those Fireworks-only data chunks are in no way part of the PNG standard.

:}

@Larry

I haven't said anything yet but your work looks good :) I do have a few things though, maybe using PM is better to help keep the thread down to say between 900 and a 1000 posts by days end. Not now, down the road.

The PMing is for discussion about personal changes to an avy or sig, I'm not referring to the open discussion or getting other users in here.
Mike :)

#66
Tripredacus

Tripredacus

    K-Mart-ian Legend

  • Super Moderator
  • 9,693 posts
  • OS:Server 2012
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator


Neither of those PNGs are truely PNGs anymore, except perhaps if they had any alpha transparency in them. These are already flattened and not longer maintain their vector properties!

You got it completely reversed. "Standard" PNGs don't contain vector data, and an alpha channel is entirely optional. It's an indexed-color, raster image format (again, pixels, no vectors). It's only Fireworks who tacks on its own Fireworks-only data chunks at the end in a proprietary format to pull some of its tricks aka a special "Fireworks PNG" and not a "standard PNG" (which is what you'd probably call a "flattened PNG"). Those Fireworks-only data chunks are in no way part of the PNG standard. You can think standard PNGs as an enhanced GIF basically. Either ways, I knew there had to be someone out there who still uses Fireworks


Well that is interesting then. I wasn't aware of any other programs to support PNG (even natively) until my first experience with Fireworks 2 back in college. I had presumed that it started there. Either way, it would seem that Fireworks PNGs are actually more superior to "real" PNG files. :rolleyes:

Of course I used Fireworks 2 for a few years but now I am at MX 2004, which was the latest version I got from college. I'd tried CS4 but it was only really UI changes so didn't care for it. :whistle:
MSFN RULES | GimageX HTA for PE 3.x | lol probloms
msfn2_zpsc37c7153.jpg

#67
CoffeeFiend

CoffeeFiend

    Coffee Aficionado

  • Super Moderator
  • 5,399 posts
  • OS:Windows 7 x64
  • Country: Country Flag

that Fireworks PNGs are actually more superior to "real" PNG files. :rolleyes:

More superior in the incompatibility department, yes. Very much like taking a standard file format then tacking on DRM or such, while parading with the same extension as a standard file to confuse everyone. That sure was a great idea!

I'd tried CS4 but it was only really UI changes so didn't care for it. :whistle:

That's 3 versions newer, and if you can write off:
-plenty of new handy panels
-new symbol libraries
-more default styles, patterns and textures
-tons of new blend modes
-working with more formats
-improved slicing
-improved image compression
-improvements to many tools, including the vector tools
-a new lorem ipsum generator
-9-slice scaling
-slideshow creation
-hierarchical layers
-smart guides
-exporting as interactive PDFs
-importing from photoshop and illustrator
-much improved compatibility/interoperability with Flash and the rest of the suite
-working far more with CSS at every level
and more stuff as "just minor cosmetic changes" then I'm not sure how familiar you really are with it ;) Not that I ever cared for Fireworks in any way. I'd happily opt out of having it if that shaved off a single dollar from the suite's price.
Coffee: \ˈkȯ-fē, ˈkä-\. noun. Heaven in a cup. Life's only treasure. The meaning of life. Kaffee ist wunderbar. C8H10N4O2 FTW.

#68
gUiTaR_mIkE

gUiTaR_mIkE

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 107 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
...speaking of older tools, it rings a bit like trying to code a modern 'standards compliant' website in IE6 ( 5,4,3,2,1 :realmad: ) - that was pretty easy, no niggling needed :crazy:
Mike :)

#69
Tripredacus

Tripredacus

    K-Mart-ian Legend

  • Super Moderator
  • 9,693 posts
  • OS:Server 2012
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

That's 3 versions newer, and if you can write off: //
and more stuff as "just minor cosmetic changes" then I'm not sure how familiar you really are with it ;) Not that I ever cared for Fireworks in any way. I'd happily opt out of having it if that shaved off a single dollar from the suite's price.


I only got to use it for a limited time when my old company was in business so I didn't get into it too much. Then again, art programs are for what you use them for. I rarely would use a lot of those features you speak of (like slicing) that it wouldn't occur to me that they would have been improved.
MSFN RULES | GimageX HTA for PE 3.x | lol probloms
msfn2_zpsc37c7153.jpg

#70
larryb123456

larryb123456

    Confused but Happy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts
  • OS:Windows 7 x86
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

@ 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 [center]...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[/img][/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[/img][/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[/img][/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[/img][/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[/img][/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[/img][/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[/img][/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[/img][/url]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication."
Leonardo da Vinci

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited by larryb123456, 13 August 2011 - 01:58 AM.

new_MSFN_static_signature.jpg

 

" What we achieve inwardly will change outer reality."  Plutarch

 

 

 


#71
larryb123456

larryb123456

    Confused but Happy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts
  • OS:Windows 7 x86
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

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

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited by larryb123456, 14 August 2011 - 01:32 AM.

new_MSFN_static_signature.jpg

 

" What we achieve inwardly will change outer reality."  Plutarch

 

 

 


#72
bphlpt

bphlpt

    MSFN Addict

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,796 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
@Larry, you have obviously put a lot of work into this. It is apparent that you enjoy working on it and learning new tricks as you go. I hope you find people who wish to use you work.

Cheers and Regards

Posted Image


#73
larryb123456

larryb123456

    Confused but Happy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts
  • OS:Windows 7 x86
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

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....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

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited by larryb123456, 14 August 2011 - 02:30 AM.

new_MSFN_static_signature.jpg

 

" What we achieve inwardly will change outer reality."  Plutarch

 

 

 


#74
larryb123456

larryb123456

    Confused but Happy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts
  • OS:Windows 7 x86
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

@Larry, you have obviously put a lot of work into this. It is apparent that you enjoy working on it and learning new tricks as you go. I hope you find people who wish to use you work.
Cheers and Regards

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.

new_MSFN_static_signature.jpg

 

" What we achieve inwardly will change outer reality."  Plutarch

 

 

 


#75
bphlpt

bphlpt

    MSFN Addict

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,796 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
Well, I'd be interested in seeing what you might come up with for me. I like my current avatar OK and my sig a lot, but they might could both use some polishing up. I don't necessarily want to change their general themes too much, but the avatar especially is a little rough around the edges. Any ideas?

Cheers and Regards

Posted Image





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



How to remove advertisement from MSFN