[larryb123456]

In case you all are interested, my philosophy on creating/observing Art can be summed up as:
The creator of an image sees it differently than any observer, because the creator is intimately involved with each step in the creation, and he/she can not separate the observance of the art from its making.

Well, by no means am I a philosopher, so I had better stop here before I embarrass myself. (lol)

I sincerely hope that everyone has a holly jolly Christmas!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Up1t5siifEw

This post has been edited by larryb123456: 30 December 2011 - 10:31 AM

[Tripredacus]

JFYI, you cannot use an animated GIF as an avatar or signture on this forum.

[larryb123456]

I thought I might give a little background information on myself, just in case you all might be interested:

In making all the images in this thread, I use Photoshop Version 5.0, a really old version, which doesn't have the capabilities of the later versions -- but it is simpler to use than the later versions. I've developed a lot of "work-around" techniques (usually involving 80 to 100 layers in the .psd file) to make my images look a little more advanced (I think). I've more or less mastered the "basics" of this version, and I can use the program pretty quickly and efficiently, once I'm clear on what it is I want to achieve in a picture (font, color scheme, general layout, etc., etc.) -- that's what takes the most time and the most "problem solving".

Before I got into Photoshop, I was a painter, but I developed allergies to all types of paint (even acrylics), and had to stop painting. While working with Photoshop, I feel like I'm painting again, as I manipulate the colors and image around -- (that's a great feeling!). Photoshop has a pretty steep learning curve (IMO), but once you figure it out, it's not too hard to use. I'm still learning "new tricks" -- which I develop myself or find on the internet.

I've been into Art since I started coloring at about age 3 ! (lol).
Concerning 3-year-old coloring, you might check out the work of Jean-michel Basquiat on Google Images. I've given links to 2 of my *absolute-favorite* paintings of his at the bottom of this Post.
Basquiat was an internationally renowned mainstream artist, who died of a heroin overdose at age 27 (unfortunately). Without a doubt, he is one of my favorite artists.

In the distant past I used a *drawing* (i.e., vector) program (similar to Adobe Illustrator, but much, much, much, much simpler). I quit using it in favor of Photoshop.

Here are 2 of my favorite paintings by Jean-michel Basquiat:

http://artbrokerage....itled_Ernok.jpg

http://www.michaelar...iat-picture.jpg

Basquiat's paintings sell today for many millions of dollars !

This post has been edited by larryb123456: 30 December 2011 - 10:20 AM

[larryb123456]

I made 15 new signature/avatar pairs, in which I used blue letters and mostly blue tones, silver, and metallic-looking colors for the backgrounds.

What takes me the longest time in a project like this is making the "template" (i.e., the "structure" for the lettering layout) for the signatures and avatars. Once I have the layout, I like to change the background colors to see the interactions with the lettering and "bounding" box of the signature/avatar pair. Here, I "sampled" the colors in the signature to get the colors (and color "flow") in the avatar. That way, the signature and avatar form a unified set. This will become evident when you view the images at the bottom of this Post.

The font I used only had lower case letters, so I had to figure out how to separate the two words, "sammy" and "uglarring". If the 2 words *ran together*, as in "sammyuglarring", it wouldn't look right (i.e., it would be confusing). The best idea I had was to put a big, bright red "X" (with 3 blue periods underneath) in-between the 2 words. I chose the lettering to be standard blue, and this red/blue combination worked out very well (IMO). I "manipulated" the backgrounds of the images, as much as possible, so that the red X would really stand out.

Well, that's about it. You can fill in the rest of the details by just looking at the images.

So, here are the images in my second set of signatures and avatars.

-----------------------
002_Sa_Ug_V03_sig, http://postimage.org/image/xs2vswg8n/

002_V03_av, http://postimage.org/image/sep6pbqx3/
-----------------------
002_Sa_Ug_V04_sig, http://postimage.org/image/3kzlhtdtj/

002_V04_av, http://postimage.org/image/c57byd1vr/
-----------------------
002_Sa_Ug_V05_sig, http://postimage.org/image/4tnh3g5s1/

002_V05_av, http://postimage.org/image/mhoknbp3l/
-----------------------
002_Sa_Ug_V06_sig, http://postimage.org/image/x1h3d9sfh/

002_V06_av, http://postimage.org/image/5m9fobjdd/
-----------------------
002_Sa_Ug_V07_sig, http://postimage.org/image/qsyh4ec01/

002_V07_av, http://postimage.org/image/gtjlvcutj/
-----------------------
002_Sa_Ug_V08_sig, http://postimage.org/image/p4zbpqy4h/

002_V08_av, http://postimage.org/image/a32ppqvhh/
-----------------------
002_Sa_Ug_V09_sig, http://postimage.org/image/w65p1htfb/

002_V09_av, http://postimage.org/image/b47jsm1ut/
-----------------------
002_Sa_Ug_V10_sig, http://postimage.org/image/qcqzzznnb/

002_V10_av, http://postimage.org/image/cmgugcy27/
-----------------------
002_Sa_Ug_V11_sig, http://postimage.org/image/4euj678mv/

002_V11_av, http://postimage.org/image/pc5ypdcc3/
-----------------------
002_Sa_Ug_V12_sig, http://postimage.org/image/74hwk61jf/

002_V12_av, http://postimage.org/image/9nwg6nb47/
-----------------------
002_Sa_Ug_V13_sig, http://postimage.org/image/sc320uxc1/

002_V13_av, http://postimage.org/image/wut8sdc63/
-----------------------
002_Sa_Ug_V14_sig, http://postimage.org/image/hw9wv8h87/

002_V14_av, http://postimage.org/image/rh43voi4x/
-----------------------
002_Sa_Ug_V15_sig, http://postimage.org/image/riwxf0ox9/

002_V15_av, http://postimage.org/image/twjvfkf5p/
-----------------------
I put these 2 signature/avatar pairs at the bottom of the list, because they are not as "exciting" (IMO) as those shown above, which have all the pretty colors.
-----------------------
The letters have a subtle drop shadow against the MSFN background (i.e., no "bounding box").

002_Sa_Ug_V01_sig, http://postimage.org/image/shscxkw8n/

002_V01_av, http://postimage.org/image/c7t1qp1b9/
-----------------------
The letters are straightforward, with no "tricks", sitting on the MSFN background, with no "bounding box".

002_Sa_Ug_V02_sig, http://postimage.org/image/99ekta3hp/

002_V02_av, http://postimage.org/image/gk962vr7d/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“A Picture of many colors proclaims images of many Thoughts.”
Donna A. Favors
and
"Why do two colors, put one next to the other, sing? Can one really explain this? No."
Pablo Picasso
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This post has been edited by larryb123456: 02 January 2012 - 10:08 AM

[dencorso]

I cannot resist meddling in from time to time, so here's my 2 ¢: I think the dollar sign should be made from the original capital S, to be in complete harmony with the font. So I've turned just the S green to ilustate it. Of course, there's still need to draw the cross stroke(s). But this illustrates my concept well enough. I mean: in 001_Sa_Ug_V02_sig the dollar sign is made of too thin a line, making it difficult for its good harmonising with the rest of the letters.

Attached File(s)

•  nu_Clipboard01.jpg (17.73K)
  Number of downloads: 1

[larryb123456]

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

This post has been edited by larryb123456: 30 December 2011 - 11:57 AM

[larryb123456]

I made new versions of the signature using the same background as in versions 001 and the same red-with-blue-outline letters (but in a different, bolder, but still funky, all-caps font). Because the lettering was in all caps, I used a green "X" to separate the two words "SAMMY" and "UGLARRING" in the signatures. This green provided a nice contrast with the other red letters (i,e., green and red are complimentary colors.) To make the green "X" show up well on the burnt-orange parts of the background, I outlined them with yellow. (I think that was a nice touch -- it kind of unifies the green better with the background.)

The first image I made was:
003_Sa_Ug_V01_sig, http://postimage.org/image/ewuovuedx/
This image is rather balanced compositionally, because the "X" is more or less in the center of the image.

Next, I replaced the "S" in "SAMMY" with a dollar sign, which I *absolutely love* in this font. As I explained before, replacing the "S" with a dollar sign wasn't a "genius move" on my part, because in the music business, for example, "Rap" artists whose names have "S"(s) do it all the time.
The result is shown in:
003_Sa_Ug_V02_sig, http://postimage.org/image/7m8db7cpv/
To me, this image is more interesting than V01, since we have *both* the dollar sign and the "X" -- (each with a yellow outline) -- adding to the visual interest.

To get an even *more balanced* look, it is clear that we need some more yellow on the right side of the image. There is nothing better for adding a big "splash" of yellow than the "generic", yellow Smiley Face.
The result is shown in:
003_Sa_Ug_V03_sig, http://postimage.org/image/r9gvvbgtl/
This is, by far, my favorite version of the three signatures. Smiley provides a little "comic relief" and a "closing" for the image, as we "read it" from left to right.

To be totally honest, I wouldn't have made these new signature versions had it not been for dencorso's input about compatibility. I really didn't do dencorso justice in my response to his compatibility issues. These issues are the most important in all of Art (from painting, logo design, etc. ,etc.) That is why I made these new signatures -- to achieve a much better degree of compatibility between all the graphic elements. What do you think of these, dencorso? And, again, many thanks for your input. It was that input that helped create these versions of the signature.

I made 2 companion avatars to go along with these three signatures:
003_V01_av, http://postimage.org/image/6qlj6kw6p/
and
003_V02_av, http://postimage.org/image/5r9gzi4on/
I kept the "ME for Me !" exactly the same as in Versions 002 (same font, same size, but I made the blue darker to match the outline around the red letters).

This post has been edited by larryb123456: 02 January 2012 - 11:30 AM

[dencorso]

I like the new dollar sign, with a pair of barbs above and below, much more than the former one. But i do think it might even work with all the other letter in the other font, too. Now, one thing I didn't address (although it was implict in my example) is that you're using a shade of green which is near black, while I used a much more "greener" green, which I think works better, although the one I used is maybe too luminous.

[larryb123456]

Hello, dencorso:

I re-read my response to your input last night and it seemed rather curt/brusk. I hope you didn't think I was "blowing you off". I didn't intend to, even though my response kind of seemed that way.

I also like the new dollar sign better than the other one.

But I do think it might even work with all the other letters in the other font, too.

I don't think so at all. We are back to "compatibility" again. The new dollar sign has absolutely nothing in common with the letters in the other font (no serifs, thickness of the structural elements for the same letter height, etc., etc.), as you can see by comparing
001_Sa_Ug_V01_sig, http://postimage.org/image/huhlj6lwn/
to
003_Sa_Ug_V02_sig, http://postimage.org/image/7m8db7cpv/
where the dollar signs are roughly the same height. 003 is a much *bolder* font than 001, and it doesn't have any serifs.

Now, one thing I didn't address (although it was implict in my example) is that you're using a shade of green which is near black, while I used a much more "greener" green, which I think works better, although the one I used is maybe too luminous.

The shade of green is "rather" dark, but it really isn't near black at all. It has a luminosity of 30 -- ( r,g,b )=( 0,64,0 ), while black has a luminosity of 0 -- (r, g, b )=( 0,0,0 ). On my monitor, in Photoshop, it doesn't look near black at all -- it looks dark green. Images appear differently on everyone's different systems. Perhaps that is why it looks very, very dark on your screen (?). I use a low actual screen resolution of 53 pixels/inch. (I prefer it that way, so I can work with larger images and especially larger pixels in PS.) What is your actual screen resolution? I often e-mail my nephew some of my small images so he can tell me how they look much smaller than on my screen (he has an actual screen resolution of 90+ pixels/inch). He always says my smallest images show up well (i.e.,clear and well defined) on his monitor.
I first tried a more luminous green, and it didn't look good *at all*. There was not enough contrast with the yellow outline around the dollar sign and "X". Plus, the darker green worked better with the other bold colors in the image, red [(r,g,b )=(255,0,0)] and dark blue [(r,g,b )=(0,0,128)].

*Thanks again* for your input, dencorso.

This post has been edited by larryb123456: 02 January 2012 - 02:23 PM

[dencorso]

It's OK, Larry! I'm just tossing in some ideas, from time to time. Feel free to ignore them as you see fit. Now, just to answer your question: 900x1600. And no, it's not a mistake, it's really 900x1600, because I'm using a Dell U2410 LCD monitor in portrait mode (i. e.: rotated by 90º).

[Kelsenellenelvian]

Hey guys?

If I may be so humble as to suggest this here:

http://www.freewareg...228&category=18

Jasc made animation shop 3.1.1 freeware BEFORE they became corel (Or when I am not too sure)

At 10-ish megs it is rather small but has suited me VERY well in all of my gif endevours.

Please give it a try.

This post has been edited by Kelsenellenelvian: 28 December 2011 - 11:15 AM

[larryb123456]

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

This post has been edited by larryb123456: 30 December 2011 - 07:58 AM

[larryb123456]

I made a collection of avatars -- each avatar having one "generic" Smiley Face.
The avatars are of 2 types.
The first type uses the layout of my previously posted 002 avatar series, with Smiley above the red "X".
The second type uses just the phrase "ME for Me !" with Smiley above it.
For the background colors of each type, I used some of the best colors of the previously posted 002 avatar series. I also made some avatars with solid-colored backgrounds, just to provide a little contrast with the non-uniform backgrounds.

This is a note for ME "diehards":
The odd-numbered file names below are linked to the avatars having just "ME for Me !" with Smiley above it. You are free to use these avatars as you see fit, without any restrictions whatsoever on MSFN or on any other of your Forums. If you want to use a few on MSFN, just "lay claim to them" in a Post on this thread by giving their file names, and I can go back and edit this Post saying that those avatars are no longer available for use on MSFN. That way, we won't have *different* members using *identical* avatars. Thank you.

The file names and links for these avatars are:

002_V16_av, http://postimage.org/image/tnrt65kij/

002_V17_av, http://postimage.org/image/m5vmu8c1f/

002_V18_av, http://postimage.org/image/67x0ybugt/

002_V19_av, http://postimage.org/image/y2rusg3cj/

002_V20_av, http://postimage.org/image/fb2ylkpwb/

002_V21_av, http://postimage.org/image/4zrh8foqp/

002_V22_av, http://postimage.org/image/cy9bq61vv/

002_V23_av, http://postimage.org/image/oucnf1ddz/

002_V24_av, http://postimage.org/image/cvt61jx1t/

002_V25_av, http://postimage.org/image/59punivwd/

002_V26_av, http://postimage.org/image/gwmtr4pid/

002_V27_av, http://postimage.org/image/6y1v4ng2j/

002_V28_av, http://postimage.org/image/ouqdwzs8p/

002_V29_av, http://postimage.org/image/75vvx77ev/

002_V30_av, http://postimage.org/image/uislgsdgl/

002_V31_av, http://postimage.org/image/hakfsiarl/

002_V32_av, http://postimage.org/image/h2n78dbf5/

002_V33_av, http://postimage.org/image/ywip9nuhd/

002_V34_av, http://postimage.org/image/crbx57rpj/

002_V35_av, http://postimage.org/image/9bouss0sn/

002_V36_av, http://postimage.org/image/57x2rrjlz/

002_V37_av, http://postimage.org/image/wslb5abrv/

002_V38_av, http://postimage.org/image/khjkpvkld/

002_V39_av, http://postimage.org/image/v5dq1366p/

The avatars below have solid-color backgrounds.

002_V40_av, http://postimage.org/image/es3dsslq5/

002_V41_av, http://postimage.org/image/autfp8m57/

002_V42_av, http://postimage.org/image/raozj9hq9/

002_V43_av, http://postimage.org/image/k6kyfhh6v/

002_V44_av, http://postimage.org/image/iaabs2gb5/

002_V45_av, http://postimage.org/image/lkyory68h/

002_V46_av, http://postimage.org/image/67rz17o4z/

002_V47_av, http://postimage.org/image/7pmm497nr/

002_V48_av, http://postimage.org/image/t98k6yntx/

002_V49_av, http://postimage.org/image/liy23lmo1/

This post has been edited by larryb123456: 02 January 2012 - 12:08 PM

[Tripredacus]

Back on topic, I got bored and made this. I didn't spend a lot of time on it. Strangely enough, I didn't actually use any fonts or font effects.





Resources
http://en.wikipedia....0_years_old.jpg
http://en.wikipedia....k_signature.svg
http://photos.aip.or...nstitute_e1.jpg
http://www.wildlifea...k-Institute.jpg
http://www.spaceandm...x-quantum-1.jpg
http://freethoughtal.../Max-Planck.jpg

This post has been edited by Tripredacus: 29 December 2011 - 09:06 PM
Reason for edit: resources

[CoffeeFiend]

Not bad at all! The design, the color you chose and everything work nicely together. I like it

[Tripredacus]

As far as a signature goes, I made it within the signature limits we allow here. It would probably look better with a dark skin tho, since I can't really see the border.

[larryb123456]

Tripredacus, I love your image.
It is so "powerfully delicate" -- if that's not an oxymoron.
Any website would be happy to have an image like that.

I started out to make a short Post, but when I start talking Art, I don't know when to stop. Sorry.

I downloaded your JPEG any made some very minor changes to suit *my* artistic tastes. I couldn't make 1 other change I wanted, but I'll discuss it, and maybe you can explore it if you want. I couldn't make the change because the image was JPEG and not .psd, for example. BTW, do you have a .psd version, so I could explore making the change myself ? That would be fun for me.

Please know that I'm not *criticizing* your work, but I'm just describing my *my* artistic tastes. As you know, observing Art is a very subjective matter. 2 different people might create 2 different versions of the same thing -- and both would be acceptable. There is really no "right or wrong". Well, enough rambling, let me get to my "analysis" of your image -- that is, if you don't think I'm being too forward.

Let me say that I haven't yet read any of your links yet, but I will *certainly* study them in detail, and I'm sure I'll have some questions. I think this will be a *great* opportunity for me to learn a lot! Thanks for Posting the image, Tripredacus!

Here is the link to my (very moderately) revised image:
http://postimage.org/image/5d84zw55t/

Basically, all I did was to alter the horizontal green stripe going through the image and the border around the image. I don't have the capability to make a final change *from this JPEG* (as I discuss below) that I think would improve the picture.

Now, for a few details that can be skipped, if you want.

First off, I sampled a color in the 2 pixel horizontal line -- (which had transparency effects) -- within the image, and I colored in this line with that solid color, being careful not to color *over* the outer glow around the "P" in Planck. That way, the "P" would be on a visual plane *above* this solid line. I also made a 2 pixel border around the outside of the whole image with this color. (I had to come inside the "bounding box" of the image by 1 pixel to maintain the 380x100px image size.)
This color of green had ( r, g, b )=(156,193,186 ) and luminosity=164. I wanted the horizontal line within the image and the border around the whole image to read as a "unit".

To see how dark the Max Plank signature was, I sampled the "x" with "Sample Size: 3x3 average".
Here, ( r,g,b )=( 21,109,94 ) with luminosity=61. This is a pretty dark shade of green that shows up well on the outer glow around "Max Planck".

To see how dark the lettering in "GESELLSCHAFT" was, I sampled the color on the vertical leg of the "L", again using "Sample Size: 3x3 average".
Here, ( r,g,b )=( 66,149,135 ) with luminosity=101.

Bottom line:
In order of increasing luminosity, we have the Max Plank signature (61), "GESELLSCHAFT" (101), and the 2 pixel horizontal line and border (164). This corresponds to the degree these 3 elements "pop out" (lower luminosity pops out more than higher luminosity) in visual space on a light-colored background. To me, these 3 elements are in *perfect harmony*.

Of course, all this can be seen by simply looking at the JPEG. One really doesn't need all the above RIGMAROLE.

Here is the one area in which the image can be improved, IMO -- and that concerns the Roman or Greek outline/face below the above three elements. (First, I really like the way you have put the white "glow" in front of the lower part of the face so that "GESELLSCHAFT" shows up well.) I think the face outline should be *somewhat darker* so that it occupies a "visual plane" (i.e., "value") about half-way between the light background and the 3 structural elements discussed above.
That way, the picture would essentially be in three well-defined levels -- the foreground, the face outline, and the light gray/white background. I bet you used vector graphics in making the face outline (?), so it might not be too hard to darken the outline up some.

Being kind of an artist, I'm *very curious* to see if my suggestion would improve the picture. It might not improve it -- what do I know (?) lol

Well, let me quit rambling and start reading your links. Again, sorry for all the verbiage.

This post has been edited by larryb123456: 31 December 2011 - 01:25 AM

[bphlpt]

LOL You should have "read" his links first Larry, if you call looking at images "reading", since it looks like that would have given you all the elements you needed to edit the signature as you wanted to.

Cheers and Regards

[larryb123456]

Thanks, bphlpt:

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

This post has been edited by larryb123456: 30 December 2011 - 09:43 PM

[larryb123456]

Well, bphlpt, I checked out the links and they weren't very helpful (for me, at least).
See especially the 4th link below.
To *quickly* use this image, I'd need it on a transparent layer in a .psd file.
As I explain, it's a JPEG.

1st link -- for Planck's signature
Only a JPEG, which I can't easily and accurately edit.
But, I don't have any problems with the signature in Tripredacus' image.

2nd link -- for Planck's signature
#1 Max Planck signature (svg), which PS 5.0 can't open.
#2 This image rendered as PNG -- PS opens it but it as a totally black field -- unusable.
#3 Some JPEGs, which I can't easily and accurately edit.
But, I don't have any problems with the signature in Tripredacus' image.

3rd link -- for background image in Tripredacus' picture.
A JPEG which I can readily use if desired, but I don't feel the need, since I'm perfectly happy with Tripredacus' background.

4th link -- for outline of the Greek/Roman face.
A very large JPEG (3,590x1,980px). I could obtain the outline by opening it in PS, putting a transparent layer above it, and then "tracing over" the image on this transparent layer, and then reducing it to the appropriate size, and manipulating the fade to white at the bottom. This would be a very tedious, labor intensive process (especially tracing it rather accurately) I wonder(?) how Tripredacus got the image. He said he didn't spend *much time* on his picture, so I'm sure he didn't use this approach.

5th link -- a JPEG image of Max Plank.
This image was *not* the one I used in my avatar, but it is rather similar. You can compare the avatar image with this JPEG to see that they are different.

6th link -- a JPEG image of Max Plank.
Again, this image was *not* the one I used in my avatar.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The big question I have for Tripredacus, is how he *quickly* got the outline of the Greek/Roman face (?)
If the image were traced over at the large size, it wouldn't have to be *too accurate*, since the size reduction would tend to "smooth" things out.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT:
*Of course*, the way to do it is to open the green image on the white background and use the Magic Wand Tool to remove the white, leaving the green on a transparent layer. This would also work for "extracting" the Max Plank signature from a JPEG. I knew that, but in all my rambling, it slipped my mind (or what's left of it anyway -- lol).
Tripradecus, I now have the face outline on a transparent layer (as you say, it was quick and easy to do). The problem is that it would be kind of tedious to try to work it behind the horizontal 2px line and the GESELLSCHAFT lettering, etc. I really don't want to do the whole thing from scratch, since I'm sure you have all the *layers* already stacked in place. Would you mind using my border and horizontal line idea and just darken the face outline in a few increments (i.e., versions) to see if that would improve the image. (I'm just curious.) Of course, if you don't want to do it, that's perfectly *fine and dandy*, too, and we can just consider this image *complete* as is.
Again many thanks for posting it. (I can't believe I forgot about The Magic Wand Tool. It has been some time since I had to remove a background.)

This post has been edited by larryb123456: 31 December 2011 - 01:21 AM