At first, i do want to say thank you all for giving helpful critique. I really appreciate that. :-)

This said, please let me explain why i did what i did. I love this icy sculpture in the front .. since first seing it at the end of a long walk. But there was no chance to get the background blurred out or find a POV with a more pleasing backdrop. Also there was heavy snow beginning so i had no chance of playing with aperture. Still took the shot ..

Afterwards those twigs and the like in the back started annoying me more and more and i've been looking for a way to hide them without ruining what i wanted to show. That banner (with lots of gaussian blur) seemed to be a fine way. Seems i was wrong with that?

So i put this new version in for you to discuss. Do you like this one more .. even less? What are your ideas on that shot? Don't the twigs bother you at all? What would you do? Please don't hesitate to tell me if you even think, that shot is lost for the bad background!

Thanks in advance
Tom

I like the first one at the top more... but both work just fine for me. :o) Excellent shot! Jinx

I like the first presentation..... Louis

i am still drawn to the cutting edge graphic design of the 2nd with the thin sheet of ice banding... love the way it demands the eye in both images i still feel the font is too large for such a delicate image ...just mho :]

Thank you Jinx and Louis!! :-)) Hmmm Cindy ... do you have spare 30 minutes? If you so wish, i can send you the image in 900*600 without any postwork just for you to play with? Of course, that's demanding a lot .. sorry .. just an idea as i'd love to see how a real artist such as you would do that job :-) hugz Tom

oh :p... i'm no real artist or i would be making $ at this, i just have a big mouth... but i do like the original one you posted (2nd here)... you were not "wrong"... there is no right or wrong way... i shall see about the font, with what i have here... i may find what i envision doesn't work... brb :]

aaaaaargh... i forgot the s... but you can see what i mean

Thanks a lot Cindy. Now i know what you've meant .. and i like it. Have to sleep some days over that .. let's see what will finally happen to this image :) And .. even if you dont make big bucks with it, to me you are an artist. Maybe, i can agree on that big mouth instead? Ahhh .. lol Sorry, but i'm sure you don't get that wrong! :-) hugz and a great afternoon to you. Have to find my way into bed in time this time yawns Tom

hi Thomas ! Dont remove the banner, they adds super.vielleicht etwas schmer und her schieben, das noch etwas Motiv mit dazukommt. einfach mal testen. Die neue Version oben geflt mir nicht so gut.jedenfalls das Grundlayout beibehalten. gerhard #:O)

I really like the way cynlee set it out. The spacing of the letters (covering the banner side to side) makes the whole thing gel. The banner itself, clean crisp and very graphic. I would keep it. I like the banner over the free-floating letters myself.

I think cynlee hit the nail on the head.... I like it much better with the smaller, lighter font...

Ok .. i think i can live with that g It may have been fear of the large empty space (and some love for the text-effect) that made me use that large font (250Px lol). I like Cindys version most .. after one night of sleep. Just one final question: how do you space the letters that wide dear Cindy? In Potatoshop the maximum spacing is 1000% which still needs that fontsize of my final version to get the whole width covered (or i made some mistake .. could very well be). Or do you use single letters you place manually? Thanks a lot for all that help!! hugehugz

i'm happy i could help & that you like it :] well i use PSP... 72pt size font on a large original, space out the ...l e t t e r s, stretch, then convert to a raster layer to apply the glow effect... must be something similar in PS? someone will know :] now it's my turn to sleep sweet dreams ...er, have a good day! zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Sleep well my dear! :-) Of course, rastering (?) is an option .. but i'd like to keep that text .. ehmmm ... keep me able to change it (editable? - edible .. looool) and that's gone after rastering it. But using simple spaces will do fine ... dunno why i didn't think of that? sigh

As long as you keep the text on a seperate layer you can change it as often as you'd like. Raster or vector.

??? I gladly admit, that i don't know to much on Potatoshop but i always thought, that text can only be edited when it is still text. If i rasterize it, how can i change single letters (or even words), fonts or whatever? I can't even .. let's say "rise fontsize" without loosing quality because they are no vektors anymore. Or is "rastering" in english something else as what ist called "rastern" in german? With "rastern" i talk of the layer-option that makes pixels out of vektors (e.g. letters). Sorry .. i try to explain that in another way (sorry 'bout my english): if i want to change the title of that pic in two weeks, i want to be able to just type in the letters of the new title, all effects and the like shall be unscathed afterwards.

To add the missing words to the last sentence: ... That works as long as it is still a text-layer.

Ok I see what you're saying. I'll admit that I'm a bit confused by this myself. But I thought I thought I worked with layers in raster, but I see that I am wrong. I think I'm getting vector and raster confused. This from the help files: Some commands and tools--such as filter effects and painting tools--are not available for type layers. You must rasterize the type prior to applying the command or using the tool. Rasterizing converts the type layer to a normal layer and makes its contents uneditable as text. A warning message appears if you choose a command or tool that requires a rasterized layer. Some warning messages provide an OK button that you can click to rasterize the layer. So I guess I was wrong.... I just tried playing around and I see what's going on. It can't be edited. I always save a copy of the final work with all layers intact. I don't raterize. I always just leave text on it's own layer. If I want to edit the text, I highlight the layer of text. Click on the text tool, highlight the words I want to change, and then retype new words, or change fonts, size etc.... It's always worked.

Yep, that's the way i like to work too. Usually there's no need for filtering and the like on text-layers - so rasterizing is a rare need. Thank you Michelle! :-)

...morning :] 'chelle... i really don't know what i'm doing in PSP half the time, (really? no kidding... hehe) i've used the hit & miss method for so long... the reason i change the text layer to a raster layer is to apply effects to the lettering like a dropshadow, otherwise it won't let me... i noticed i'm selecting text in "vector" mode... should i be using "selection" or "floating" instead? i guess i should read the directions ...back to school... :]

well... i think i like the vector mode cuz i can pull the text around

oh & thomas... i was trying out your semi-opaque band in different colors on a picture last night with the text over it... sure like that ideal... thank you :]

Glad you like the idea Cindy!! But i can't say this is my invention ;) About shadows: hmmm ... another reason to dump PSP and get into the real thing? Sorry, this just had to be ... but in PS this is no problem at all .. thank god as i'm playing a lot with this and there always seems to by some type mismatch or something like that after being finished. Oh, btw.: here's another good-morning-cappuccino for ya.

well i have seen it used as a border but not really stuck in the mid area of a photo... sigh... i do try using PS more, just got so use to PSP thanks for the cappuccino! :D

I've owned PSP since version 5 and PS since version 4.... have to say when it comes to text they work a bit differently.... not crazy about the way PSP handles text. Especially since version 7..... blech....

k... i've heard this once before from a PSP user, she uses PS for all her text work... thanks 'chelle... you know you're my hero hmmm... back to playing in PS :]

I find I don't have a problem with PSP and text. I simply save the image as a psp image. Then, I make a copy of my original vector text, hide the original vector, and make the copy into a raster. I make my changes to the copy of the text (now, since version 8 using commands I've written into a script). If I like the changes, fine. If I feel the need to resize or change the text, I make a new copy and run the script again on the new copy. How much trouble a program gives you is sometimes related to how well you learn to work with the program. PS is just too damn expensive for some of us (who want to blow all our money on plugins).

hey thanks for the tip ricky! :D

Ooops ... just to be sure: i don't think PSP is bad in any way. It's just some joke of mine knowing Cindy is really good with PSP and .. :) Btw.: 2 years ago i got my PS6 via ebay for a price that's not above the price of PSP in the shops over here. These days you get Potatoshop CS (full) for below 300 Euro ... not to much money compared to .. let's say a good digicam.

Actually just to add to what Raven said, PSP is a more than excellent program. And you certainly can't beat the price. As I said I've used both for years, just used PS alot more because it does a few things PSP doesn't. FWIW.....I think that PSP could be stiff competition for Adobe if they could bring their color management functions up to par with Adobe's..... as it is now their color management is really bad, and that is a shame because such a function is a necessity when printing is important.