[larryb123456]

gUiTaR_mIkE, on 10 August 2011 - 09:44 AM, said:

@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

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.

This post has been edited by larryb123456: 10 August 2011 - 01:33 PM

[larryb123456]

Tripredacus, on 10 August 2011 - 12:47 PM, said:

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.

Tripredacus, on 10 August 2011 - 12:47 PM, said:

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.

[Tripredacus]

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.

[CoffeeFiend]

larryb123456, on 10 August 2011 - 07:17 AM, said:

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)

larryb123456, on 10 August 2011 - 07:17 AM, said:

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

That would be photographic alright!

CoffeeFiend, on 10 August 2011 - 04:19 AM, said:

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.

gUiTaR_mIkE, on 10 August 2011 - 09:44 AM, said:

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

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

Tripredacus, on 10 August 2011 - 12:47 PM, said:

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

[gUiTaR_mIkE]

CoffeeFiend said:

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.

[Tripredacus]

CoffeeFiend, on 10 August 2011 - 04:24 PM, said:

Tripredacus, on 10 August 2011 - 12:47 PM, said:

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.

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.

[CoffeeFiend]

Tripredacus, on 11 August 2011 - 08:11 AM, said:

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

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!

Tripredacus, on 11 August 2011 - 08:11 AM, said:

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

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.

[gUiTaR_mIkE]

...speaking of older tools, it rings a bit like trying to code a modern 'standards compliant' website in IE6 ( 5,4,3,2,1 ) - that was pretty easy, no niggling needed

[Tripredacus]

CoffeeFiend, on 11 August 2011 - 03:54 PM, said:

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.

[larryb123456]

@ 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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This post has been edited by larryb123456: 13 August 2011 - 01:58 AM

[larryb123456]

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

This post has been edited by larryb123456: 14 August 2011 - 01:32 AM

[bphlpt]

@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

[larryb123456]

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

This post has been edited by larryb123456: 14 August 2011 - 02:30 AM

[larryb123456]

bphlpt, on 14 August 2011 - 02:25 AM, said:

@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.

[bphlpt]

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

[larryb123456]

bphlpt, on 14 August 2011 - 04:42 AM, said:

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?

Your signature image is one of the most beautiful pictures I've ever seen. I can't believe the different *subtle levels* of depth back into the picture plane -- from the white out front in "<The Old Man />, etc." all the way back to the binary in "deepest space". The first thing that popped into my eyes was that maybe the bphlpt was a little too bright -- in that it competed with "<The Old Man />, etc." I opened the image in Photoshop and bphlpt was *pure white*. If I changed *anything* with your signature, it would be to tone down the bphlpt a very little bit (i.e., move it to a visual plane a little behind "<The Old Man />, etc."). Fortunately, it would be very easy to adjust the color of bphlpt, since the lettering is not anti-aliased. It consists of a bunch of *solid white* pixels, so I could just color them in using the pencil. I wouldn't tone the white down to a light gray. I think I'd sample the "purple" color behind bphlpt and use a brighter shade of that. (It wouldn't appear purple, though -- it would just fit in with its "environment" better.) What I can do is make 5 or so versions in order of decreasing brightness so you can see the effect and maybe choose one of them. If, for example, if you felt brightness 1 was too light and brightness 2 was too dark, I could easily make a version with brightness between 1 and 2. This "project", as I've described, is very simple to do. The image now is a GIF. I always thought that JPEG was best to display on the internet (and in the discussions in this thread, CoffeeFiend and dencorso "seemed" to agree -- by no means am I an expert on this subject.) I can save it as a GIF if you want -- just let me know. Do you want me to proceed with the signature "project" as I've described ?

Oh, I just noticed that there is a rather small, white area on the Old Man's right leg. IMO, this should be removed, because it is distracting. It will be very easy to do, and I'll remove it in such a way that "the absence" will blend in perfectly with the rest of the leg.

That transparent GIF avatar is one of the worst I've seen -- as far as being rough around the edges. In Photoshop, it opens on a black background, so the roughness is even more apparent. In straightening it up, I *expanded* the outer border a little -- [using the MSFN background color -- (which fit in very nicely with the pastels at the outer edges of the "binary sphere")] -- rather than cutting into it -- for I very much liked the soft transition from the blue (on which the binary is) to the light outer color. I spent a lot of time on the mushroom. I put a simpler, lighter brown outline around the stem and graphically simplified the outline around the right-bottom of the mushroom cap. I very much liked these simplifications, because the mushroom outlines are not as distractingly busy -- and the mushroom "pops out" some to the foreground compared to the "binary sphere". To make sure that the GIF was *correct*, I e-mailed it to myself on an aqua background. It looked perfect to me (it also looked perfect in Photoshop when I saved it). If you want, you can e-mail it to yourself, and you can see *exactly* the outline I put around the "binary sphere". If, for some reason, the GIF doesn't work for you, let me know and I'll try to correct it.

The direct link for the GIF is:
http://postimage.org/image/2bn30tqw4/

Thanks again for the project. I really enjoyed fiddling with the GIF.

Larry

P.S. added in edit:
Your current avatar is 80x80 px. The maximum size allowed on MSFN is 100x100 px. If you want, I can enlarge to 90x90 and 100x100 so you can see how these sizes look compared to your signature. Sometimes images tend to look blurry when enlarged too much in Photoshop, so this might not work very well. We could just try it and see, if you want.

This post has been edited by larryb123456: 14 August 2011 - 05:21 PM

[larryb123456]

@ bphlpt

Long story short:
I decided that I wasn't satisfied with the avatar I did for you, because the "binary sphere" wasn't perfectly spherical --(I left *that part* as it was in the avatar that you had been using).

So I made it "perfectly" spherical. (It didn't take long, since I had all my Photoshop settings saved.)

Please use this version
http://postimage.org/image/213syylj8/

and *not* the earlier version
http://postimage.org/image/2bn30tqw4/

You can directly compare the images to see the improvement. In your new version, the binary sphere (excluding light-colored outline) and the mushroom are perfectly centered. The size of your new file is 81x83 px.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Larry

This post has been edited by larryb123456: 14 August 2011 - 10:07 PM

[bphlpt]

Thanks for the work on the avatar Larry! You could really tell that I just threw a couple of stock jpegs together in a Paint type program, couldn't you? Great job on smoothing out the sphere. I REALLY liked it better when you made the sphere perfectly spherical. That was MUCH better. [It was jagged due to the automatic settings in the program I used to convert the jpeg to a gif and add the transparency layer.] I wouldn't of thought of adding the extra outline. It looks good on a white background, but on a black background the extra outline looks a little bright. It looks kind of like a halo is around the sphere. Maybe if it was narrower by at least half? Or it might be better to just leave it off - try it and see how it looks on both white and black backgrounds. The more I look at it, the more I might like it, but I'd rather have a more uniform look regardless of the background. Play with it and see what you think. I also like the brown outline of the stem, a nice finishing touch, but maybe a slightly darker brown? Overall the avatar looks much better, but then how could it have looked worse? LOL I would like you to please round off the far right of the mushroom cap though - it looks a little "cut off". The size of the avatar is fine at 80x80. I would prefer if we can have it end up as that. I see no reason to use any more space since all the elements are visible as it is. I also want to minimize the size of the file as small as possible without any apparent visible differences and keep the transparency layer, so I guess that means staying as a gif?

As to the sig, I see nothing wrong with what you propose for it. It doesn't matter to me whether it ends up as a gif, jpeg, or png. Like the avatar, I just wanted it to end up as the absolutely smallest possible file without visibly degrading the image. The dimensions of it are fine as is. To make it easier for you, I've attached the original psd file for it below. It was made for me back in 2003 at another forum in similar circumstances to now. Someone was volunteering to make sigs. I told him I wanted the old man, mushrooms, night time, and coding elements, and that was what he came up with. (Note the misspelling of bphlpt, so you'll need to correct that, as I had to do when I got it, and maybe use a smoother font?) In fact, that might be something to consider for the jobs you do for others. In addition to providing the images to them in jpeg or whatever format, if you also give them the psd file as well, then if they ever do want to make any changes or fixes to it, then they can operate with the original file to maintain the quality of the image. I will want the psd of the final image. I also attached a gif of a version of the image that had the 10101010 layer more prominent, but at the time I thought that it detracted a bit from some of the other background elements. Do you agree? I'm not sure I still do, but probably.

I had tried to tie in similar elements to both avatar and sig - blue as a major color, mushrooms (because I felt like I was treated as one - kept in the dark and buried in s**t compost, LOL), 1010101 representing programming, night since that seemed to be when I did most of my programming - the sig is supposed to be in moonlight and the avatar sphere is like a moon, but I missed the old man part in the avatar. Could we possibly add that in and not have it look too crowded? Maybe the old man's head, reduced in size if necessary, to the left of the mushroom and in front of the sphere? The mushroom could be in front of part of the beard if necessary and could even be reduced in size. And maybe even add in bphlpt superimposed centered across the bottom? Then it truly would be a unified set. Those are just crazy thoughts, so if it just ends up looking like a mess we can scrap that idea. I guess that's an indication that you do good work - when people expect you can OBVIOUSLY perform miracles until you finally tell them NO!

I really appreciate your enthusiasm and work ethic. I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with.

Cheers and Regards


 bphlpt_sig-optimized.gif (15.28K)
Number of downloads: 2

 bphltp_sig-orig.rar (482.16K)
Number of downloads: 3

This post has been edited by bphlpt: 15 August 2011 - 12:08 AM

[larryb123456]

Hello, bphltp:

I will try to look at your attachments tomorrow and start on the Old Man signature. (If I possibly can).

I'll respond to your main comments in your last Post next -- for purposes of completeness. I've organized *all* the images at the end of this Post -- to keep things straight. Basically, the images tell the whole tale.

I made your transparent GIFs as you requested. I really *don't like* the "aliased" look of them, but I didn't know of any other way to do it. (I basically had to go around the outside of the image -- pixel by pixel -- trying to make the "stairsteps" as least-noticable as possible.) In Photoshop 5.0, an anti-aliased image will not successfully "GIF 89A Export".

The main contribution of this Post is that I made you *absolutely perfect*, anti-aliased image versions in both JPEG and PNG form for use on MSFN and forums that have a white background. These are in images # 7 and # 6, respectively. I just wouldn't understand why you would use the GIF on MSFN, when you have the *far superior* images. My strong recommendation would be for you to use the PNG version -- since the degradation introduced into the jpeg due to the compression in the one-time "save as JPEG" in Photoshop made the MSFN background ( r,g,b ) values read as ( 250, 251, 253 ) -- where the correct values are ( 250, 251, 252 ). The PNG image had the correct values. As far as your concerns about keeping file size small, you can make a copy of the PNG and do a "save as PNG" and adjust the file size accordingly to get the best trade off between file size and image quality. But the PNG is only 9.55 KB, so why bother (IMO) ?

Now, to respond briefly to your comments:

I wouldn't of thought of adding the extra outline. It looks good on a white background, but on a black background the extra outline looks a little bright. It looks kind of like a halo is around the sphere. Maybe if it was narrower by at least half? Or it might be better to just leave it off.
As I'd mentioned, I added it to make sure I didn't "cut into" the blue in straightening up the outer border of your original "binary sphere". *Much, much* better to leave it off -- so that's what I did.

I also like the brown outline of the stem, a nice finishing touch, but maybe a slightly darker brown?
I went back to your original avatar and made # 4 based on the exact pixel colors in that image. IMO, that outline was way too dark -- it competed with the soft yellows in the stem. I made # 5, the version with the lighter outline around the stem, by increasing the luminosity of *each pixel* in # 4 by 30. IMO, this is the far superior image, because we can now subtly see the 3 separate elements in the picture: the sphere, the mushroom cap and the stem.

I would like you to please round off the far right of the mushroom cap though - it looks a little "cut off".
I agree, and I knew it -- I just didn't know if you'd mind or not. ( I thought you might think it was a little graphically "cocky" -- lol. ) I rounded it off. The distances between the vertical center of the stem and the left and right edges of the mushroom cap are identical. (I measured them in Photoshop.) I made the "rises" of the bottom of the cap symmetrical from the middle of the stem. The top of the cap is a little right of the center of the stem. I didn't change that at all, since I liked it. After all, I didn't want to make the mushroom look totally symmetrical -- like an umbrella.

The size of the avatar is fine at 80x80. I would prefer if we can have it end up as that.
No problem. Done. The images are centered both vertically and horizontally in the 80x80.

I also want to minimize the size of the file as small as possible without any apparent visible differences and keep the transparency layer, so I guess that means staying as a gif?
You have the best of both worlds -- *visually perfect* PNGs (or JPEGs) for MSFN and forums with a white background AND GIFs for forums with black, green, aqua, purple, pink, turquoise, etc., etc., backgrounds.

As to the sig, I see nothing wrong with what you propose for it. It doesn't matter to me whether it ends up as a gif, jpeg, or png.
I liked the approach I used for gUiTaR_mIkE -- providing both PNGs and JPEGs. The PNGs (lossless format) would be your master copies, and you could upload the JPEGs (best for photos) to the web. In this case, JPEG would be fine, because we are not trying to match up perfectly a particular color -- as discussed earlier with the background color of MSFN.

I will want the psd of the final image.
Shouldn't be a problem. Generally, my psds are a little messy -- since they are just for me and I can follow them. I'll just have to clean up my act a little and maybe provide comments in the layers themselves -- so you can understand what I'm trying to do.

I also attached a gif of a version of the image that had the 10101010 layer more prominent, but at the time I thought that it detracted a bit from some of the other background elements. Do you agree?
I absolutely love the way the 10101010 layer works in your present signature -- and I wouldn't change it at all. It's like you are looking back, back, back into space, and the "subtle conclusion" -- 10101010 -- is seen at the deepest space.

the avatar sphere is like a moon, but I missed the old man part in the avatar. Could we possibly add that in and not have it look too crowded? Maybe the old man's head, reduced in size if necessary, to the left of the mushroom and in front of the sphere?
I have another good idea to try, and, if I can get it to work right it should look pretty neat.

And maybe even add in bphlpt superimposed centered across the bottom? Then it truly would be a unified set.
No problem to do.

Those are just crazy thoughts
IMO,"crazy" is not too bad. "Insane" -- well, that's another story.

I guess that's an indication that you do good work - when people expect you can OBVIOUSLY perform miracles until you finally tell them NO!
Thanks for the compliment. I'd really like to feel that the avatar phase of this project is finished. Right now, I just don't see how I could do any better than I've already done. Please let me know on this, bphltp. Thanks.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY OF IMAGES IN THE bphlpt AVATAR PROJECT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# 1: original bphlpt MSFN avatar -- transparent GIF
http://postimage.org/image/143hqh0uc/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# 2: first version -- sphere not spherical, light-colored outline around sphere, right side of mushroom cap is flat -- transparent GIF
http://postimage.org/image/2bn30tqw4/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# 3: second version -- sphere perfectly spherical, light-colored outline around sphere, right side of mushroom cap is flat -- transparent GIF
http://postimage.org/image/213syylj8/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# 4: no outline on sphere, darker outline on mushroom stem, rounded right side of mushroom cap -- transparent GIF, 80x80 px
http://postimage.org/image/144tp235w/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# 5: no outline on sphere, lighter outline on mushroom stem, rounded right side of mushroom cap -- transparent GIF, 80x80 px
http://postimage.org/image/144yno4n8/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# 6: image # 5 (but with a perfect, anti-aliased "binary sphere") on a white background, 80x80 px
(for use on forums having a white background)
JPEG: http://postimage.org/image/14elyj0ck/
PNG: http://www.freeimagehosting.net/a8722
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# 7: image # 5 (but with a perfect, anti-aliased "binary sphere") on the MSFN-colored background, 80x80 px
(for use on MSFN)
JPEG: http://postimage.org/image/2pfjtpbok/
PNG: http://www.freeimagehosting.net/1c71f
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“I am going for a level of perfection that is only mine... most of the pleasure is in getting the last little piece perfect.”
The artist Chuck Close
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P.S. added in edit:

I should have thought of this in the Post, but I didn't:

Suppose you posted on "X" number of forums -- with "X" number of different background colors. With your modern OS and browsers, you could accurately get the complete set of
"X" ( r, g, b ) background colors from screen saves. If you let me know the values (soon, while my psd file still makes sense to me) I could quickly make the *perfect* images suited to these forums -- just like I did in #6 and # 7 above. It would be no trouble at all.

This post has been edited by larryb123456: 16 August 2011 - 11:05 AM

[bphlpt]

Of the GIF's you produced, #5 is by far the best, as you already knew. LOL I can understand your point about having specialized backgrounds for different forums, and even more than one per forum when they offer different skins that change the color scheme. But hey, I'm as lazy as the next guy, so just having one with a transparent background that you can put anywhere and not worry about it is much easier. I was comparing #5 to the PNG #6 and noticed that when you "improved" the image, #6 actually "grew" down and to the right. I noticed this by opening the two images in different tabs of my browser and switching back and forth between the two. Nothing of consequence at all, just was a curiousity.

Anyway, I took the #7 PNG and ran it through a "Convert to GIF" right click option program I've had for so long I've forgotten where I got it or even what the name of it is, and it made the image I've attached below. Comparing it to the PNG and JPG in three different tabs shows no perceptible difference at resoloutions up to 300% on a white background. BUT, since there were a few white pixels in the image itself, it made those transparent as well which shows up on other backgrounds. Could you doctor it up for me just to get the last few kinks out? Your eye for the artistic nuances is FAR better than mine, and I am color blind. (Typical male red-green, really, I am - that's why I either have to rely on programs with automatic functions or depend on kind folks like yourself.)

 001_avatar_image.gif (4.27K)
Number of downloads: 1

In my reading and searching for programs that could do a PNG to GIF transform for me, I discovered that PNG's can also have a transparency layer, which would seem to be a way to have the best of both, but I don't know if any imaging software that can handle that task can run on your system - you'll have to check that out.

Other than the above and waiting to see what the idea you had was about adding the old man and the bphlpt, I agree that the avatar is as good as I'll need it to be, and just the way I want it.

Carry on the great work!

EDIT: Looking at this post and being able to compare the work you've done to my current avatar shows just how badly I needed your help! And I used to think what I had was OK - well, no more!

Cheers and Regards

This post has been edited by bphlpt: 16 August 2011 - 11:53 AM