ringbearer, thanks for the link. I read it, and it's close to what I'm looking for, but not quite. The User Leaf uses a 2D plane with a pic on it to create custom leaves, while the default leaves (.lps files) are actual meshes. I want to add my own meshes as leaves. That would allow all sorts of great effects. I'm working around it, and I'll post some results in a few days. (tip: leaf size can be smaller than 1. Just type in the decimal you want. You can achieve some great particle effects this way) Phantast, that is a very interesting comment. I've been thinking about it a while now, and I thought I'd share my thoughts. I understand that a signature should not interfere with the art, and the web plug does seem to meet the guidelines of a signature (though that is actually secondary, I'll cover that later). I tend to feel that the rules are a little different with digital art, just as the medium is. Photoshop will allow a user to sign an image invisibly with metadata. I think that satisifies the concept of a signature, yet it's invisible to the viewer on the web. Perhaps, the signature is a form of advertisement. Many digital artists are still placing the signature on the image and since there are more discrete ways to sign a digital file like with metadata, it has to be an ad -- or a misplaced ideal of tradition. I'll give you the real reason that I mark my images so intrusively: It's an anti-theft measure. Yes, it's sad but true. I've seen too many stolen pictures online, and so if anyone wants to steal my art, it's more difficult for them. That is, a really good photoshopper could steal it without too much trouble but probably wouldn't steal it if he were already so skilled. But an amateur (who is probably more likely to steal, whether it be by ignorance or not) would likely have an ugly blur there if he tried to remove the sig, and so it's really a theft deterrent. And though it would work if it were smaller, if the viewer likes the image, the signature gets people to visit my site, which isn't important to me now (the site is still in its alpha phase) but when the site is complete, it will be a good way to get more people to visit my galleries and get more exposure. And that is why we post art in the first place, isn't it? Ultimately, all of the pics I create and post online are merely reproductions of the real deal. It's just a thumbnail of the real art, which I hold on my computer, or print, or whatever. The real art doesn't bear any obnoxious signature at all (I do agree that it's obnoxious), but the online reproduction does. This could be a really heavy discussion. I'm still thinking about it and I wonder how others feel about it.