There are some printers, like the one I just used, that also act as distributers. So, you could potentially go through them, and they would ship directly to the customer, saving $ on shipping too. I haven't really looked into that yet, but it seems like it might be a good idea.

I had mine printed on high end watercolor paper, using a six color RGB Giclee/Iris printer. THe prints (saved one for myself) are gorgeous! I wouldn't have bothered putting it up for sale there if it hadn't been. I think it'll be more cost effective to offer the smaller size though. Those are much easier to find standard frames for. I figured I'd try this as an experiment. I've had one bid already, so we'll see how it goes I guess.

You can take a piece of the picture and use it as a thumb, along with the nudity tag, or; you can pixelate the naughty bits or blur them so that the nudity is obscured for the thumb. I have done that for the Green Glow Web Ring image that I am required to have on my index page as a member of the ring. My index page also contains my adult content and nudity warning, so I thought it best to censor the image. Doesn't make much sense to me to warn folks about nudity if I'm going to plaster it on the same page. Same should apply for thumbs....although I really think people just need to get over themselves (OMG! It's a nipple! never seen one of them afore...)

I'm impressed! Thanks so much >^_^

Yup...I think that's a great idea. I just had a couple of prints done here: http://gicleeart.com/ They came out beautifully, and the prices are reasonable. I put one of them up for auction on Ebay. I dunno if it's ok to do shameless plug stuff here, or I'd post the URL.

Been there, done that. It makes it look as though her collars are
made of silly putty >^^^~). Vicky poses can be modified for
her fairly easily though >^_^

She's not another Vicky though, and won't ever be. They are too different.

Posette does though. Her underarms are too high as well.

Very, very cute! I agree; Dina has much morphing potential.

BTW, I won the top 2 prizes for the adult division in that contest. I feel it was ill gotten, however, because I had so little competition. I would have liked to go up against the work on the other side of the cubicle...the ones that I went " WOW" at. ::grrr::

Renderotica is a cool place. AAMOF I'm a mod there. However, I want a broader audience for my work than just those who are looking for "Adults Only" images. I don't consider most of my images to be adult only (many people do, and they are usually the ones who take issue with nudity in general, hence the tags and warnings, and disclaimers). A lot of people are uncomfortable going to sites like Renderotica and Thralldom, but have no issue with nudity in art. I truly despise being told that because my images contain nudity, that they belong automatically segregated at a site lite Rendrotica. Some of my images are of a more erotic nature and so they are, indeed, more appropriately placed over there, but most of them are artistic nudes or fun pin ups. I went to an anime convention over the summer and entered the art contest and auction. They had my work in a little cubicle (only two other artists had nudes), away from everyone else, and only persons over 18 could enter. Out of 5 or 6 images, one should have been stuffed in that cubicle. The others were completely harmless nudes. I feel like I lost sales because of that. Because there are adults who dislike srtong sexual themed images, but still appreciate nudes, who would not step into that cubicle because of the "Adults Only" stigma. Why are Americans such prudes? Hmph! Next we will be censoring Degas at the MFA.

You should check your email. I got the updated cr2 earlier this week.

Sometimes it is also caused by one or more of the objects you are using having a corrupted rsr file

Sorry, I labeled them. I forgot to reiterate. THe starting images were each 100x100 pixels. From the first image, you can see the number 72 in the top left corner, and in the bottom right, it says 100x100...that is it's dimensions. It to be read the same way for each of the top three images. The far right top image is the one that started out at 300ppi 100x100oixels and was resampled to 72ppi. The bottom three images are simply the top three images after 200% enlargement. Each image component looks exactly as it did on my monitor before they were composited and saved as one image. As you can see, the image created at 72ppi(top left) is considerably less clear than the image created at 300ppi(top middle). However, the image created at 300ppi, then resampled to 72ppi (top right), looks exactly the same as the original 300ppi image. This means to me, that even if you are only publishing your work for the web; it is better to create your images at a higher resolution. Once you have completed the image, you can save your web copy at a lower resolution, to conserve file size. Now, what I'm still confused about, is how an image with 72ppi, can look exactly the same size as an image with the same pixel dimensions (ex:100x100), but with a higher resolution. In other words. 100pixels x100pixels at 72ppi, will print larger than an image that is 100pixels by 100pixels at 300ppi; yet they both look the same size on your monitor. Why?