Well, I think it's safe to say that you understand the metallic effect and at least one or two ways to achieve it, but you may consider also looking at Newtek's Lightwave logo as it seems just a little too similar. As just a casual onlooker, I can offer one little piece of design advice...there are four elements of design that one should always consider...Contrast, Repetition, Alignment and Proximity...an easy way to remember them is with the acronym 'CRAP.' Your logo follows two of them. Contrast, as the edges are well defined and the name very easily read, and repetition as you're definitely sticking with a theme. Consider the placement of the titling, does it seem to line up with the logo or does it seem to be just stuck on? Also consider the overall flow of the image...does it seem to be one continuous shape or does it seem to be two shapes trying to work together but not quite managing? As far as first drafts go, however, I'd have to say that it's a winner that just needs a little extra push to cross the finish line. One last thing to consider, and you'll probably thank me for this later, you may wish to consider how the logo might look in print...Photoshop generated logos don't fit very well on letterheads or business cards unless you spend a great deal more on printing. To save the trouble, you might consider making a single-color rendition in Illustrator or some other vector-based program. Fortunately, your design should translate quite well in the vector-based arena. Keep up the good work...what the world needs is more artists.

That is very well done and it appears that you're getting the concepts rather well. If this sort of imagery is your fort you may want to visit blueskyheart.com, it features a lot of work very similar to this and may be a good source of inspiration for future projects. The one thing I see which I always try to advise against is the use of the Lens Flare. It produces a cool effect, granted, but it's limited to only three settings that are extremely easily recognized and after a while, become quite pass (Mind you, Knoll Lens Flare Pro is a different story...virtually infinite settings with that one). You might think about checking out some of the other brushes that ship with Photoshop, there are quite a few burst shapes, which are even more 'tweakable' in PS7 if that's what you're using. I'll be posting my tutorial relatively soon about how to achieve custom lens flares without using any filters. You may be interested in checking it out. Otherwise, stick to it...you definitely are getting the program.

True enough, as I've been using Photoshop since it was called Knoll Photoshop (before Adobe bought the program rights), I can safely say that PS7 is perhaps the most intelligent upgrade yet. I can't say it was quite as sexy an upgrade as the version 5 to 6 transition which introduced Liquify and enhanced the Extraction utility along with all the new layer effects...but it certainly is the smartest. There is one thing that upgraded in Photoshop 7 that Adobe didn't even know about, and apparently, I brought it to their attention at the Seybold Conference last month...Since the program was developed with OS's like XP and OSX in mind, the memory management system was upgraded considerably to handle itself more responsibly. This doesn't sound like much, until you figure that the upgrades extend to previous OS's as well (I'm running Mac OS9 on a really old machine). Photoshop, surprise, is a memory hog. It takes as much memory as it can possibly handle, and then takes a little more. 7 does the same thing, except unlike its predecessors, it puts it back when it's not using it, meaning that when Photoshop isn't the active application and isn't working on anything (running a filter or something), it surrenders the RAM back to the system as though it wasn't running at all. Plus, while the program's active, it actually manages its own processor allocations...leaving the system to do more important things. So to sum up, typically newer versions of software require more RAM to operate, and usually slow down older systems...this is the first update that does the opposite. It's even repaired memory leaks caused by other programs (Internet Explorer and Quicktime Player being the two biggest culprits) when it needs to access the leftover memory that they didn't put away upon quitting. For people trying to save time and increase productivity, I'd say PS7 is one of the wisest investments you can make...just be sure that you also invest some time and effort into getting trained with it. Getting a program like Photoshop to appear professional, without getting trained with it, will make one look like an idiot. I've seen it happen...it's not pretty. (It is a bit funny, though.)

Typically, a smart thing to do with Photoshop in any version is to leave the default filters in Photoshop's folder (i.e. where they are when you install), and put the third party filters in a different folder located somewhere else on the computer. Preferably a place where they'll be out of the way, but easy enough to find should you need to. This is what I do with my filters, and my version of KPT 3, 5, 6 & 7 all work just fine with PS7. You may need to remove KPT7 and reinstall to the new location you select. Another thing to consider is that some filters (I don't think KPT7 does this, but Corel does some goofy stuff these days), require the bonding to the particular copy of the program installed on your computer. If you've installed filters like this (Flaming Pear, Eye Candy, Panopticum...all good examples) then upgraded Photoshop, you need to give Photoshop 7 your old program's serial number. It's in the same place with the Plug-In's and Scratch Disks with the preferences, and it's called Legacy serial number. It's the serial number of your old version to wich all your third party filters were bonded so they think you still have the same program and continue to function like good little filters. At least one of these two solutions should work. If not, I'd be giving Corel tech support a shout, or even Customer service as you may have a defunct copy of the disks.

The rest will be available to you, however...so the remainder of the chalenge still stands. Hwaaaahhhh! >Kung-Fu stance assumed< And actually, I could use some more toothpaste...I'm about out. Aquafresh OK?

Actually, I just realized that I gave you an unfair challenge. The
technique for that image involves a tool setting that wasn't
introduced to Photoshop until version 6. However, for the sake of
anyone still interested in trying to solve it, I won't post the
answer just yet. Oh, and just to keep with the theme... Who's your
daddy? >disclaimer: again, it's all in good fun. I would never
think of insulting anyone or claim to be superior to any member of
this or any other community. Nor do I wish to question Dodger's or
anyone's parentage in any way.

By the way, for anyone else interested in trying to tackle this one...no filters means NO filters. No Gaussian Blur, no Noise, no Render Clouds, and especially no Lens Flare. No Layer effects means no Outer Glow, Bevel&Emboss (if you were even thinking about it), Inner Glow, or Overlays. Blending Modes are still allowed. No custom Brushes means only round brushes, no shaped or effect brushes. Everything else is open game, save the fact that use of any programs other than Photoshop is prohibited. It's a post to prove a point...this is Photoshop technique, not functionality...but I will admit defeat if someone can call me on this one.

In regards to the comment I posted earlier regarding Dodger's vendetta against me, I would like to reenforce the fact that there is no actual conflict between Dodger and myself. Any jibes we throw at one another we are both well aware are simply in good fun. Were anything serious to come of any conflict developed (and it's really tough to imagine why something like that would ever happen), the forums would not be the place in which to handle them...and I'd like ot think that we're all sophisticated enough not to let something like that occur.

In regards to the challenge at hand, I will admit that with this particular effect, I'm not certain that I have a 100% answer. It would appear to be the result of the clouds and displacement filters, probably used more than once, but I cannot for certain say.

I will admit defeat and have a pizza delivered to Dodger, on one condition. The challenge I stated was not totally clear, and Dodger posted a challenge to me in regards to Photoshop technique, rather than functionality...which from now on, will be the terms of the challenge. There are always more than ways to achieve results than any one person could develop on their own, and leaving the challenge open in that regard, well, let's just say I'd probably keep Domino's in business for a couple years.

So, my condition is based on two things. Firstly Dodger, since you stated the same challenge, I'd like you to tell me how the above image was achieved...using no filters, no layer effects, and no custom brushes or actions. Secondly, a vote from the members that have so far participated in this little exchange. If I am in fact wrong about Dodger's technique, considering the rules of the challenge, do I still owe him a pizza?

We're going to need to make a new thread, I think...the challenge hasn't been clearly stated, and so far seems to be dedicated to a small vendetta Dodger seems to have to get me to order him an Anchovy pizza (it'll never happen). As for Total Training, you really can do no better. I was a Photoshop teacher for years and I'm nowhere near as good at it as Deke McClelland. You will learn a ton from him, but only if you expand and attempt the techniques elsewhere on your own. I don't mean to sound arrogant (I'm going to, but that's not the intention), but Deke is one of five people of whom I know that knows more about Photoshop than I do. He's been using the program longer than I have (which is saying something considering that I was using it before Adobe bought it or it had version number...1985 for you history buffs. Anyway, I've learned a great deal from him. I think it actually takes effort to not learn from him...he's that good. He also writes the Photoshop Bible and Photoshop for Dummies if you're interested. Both wise investments for users at any skill level. Dummy or not.

Ahem...as I was telling you before, I'm going to have to disappear for a bit. However, the term 'photorealistic clouds' could also be taken several ways. Perhaps you'd be so good as to post an image as an example of the kind of clouds you're looking to achieve so as to prevent me posting every cloud technique limited to two stock filters in my repertoire? I really don't think I'd even have time to type them all up... At any rate, post soon and I'll reply tonight if it's in the cards...otherwise, I'll have to reply sometime next week. Cheers! :-)

Well, therin lies my principle weakness...I never learned Dreamweaver. I have it, I just never learned it. GoLive's functionality, however gave me the familiarity that comes with Adobe Interfaces...hence my reasoning. As far as IR's html capabilities go, it does make wonderful graphics and I've never had a problem with the table tags it lays out, I just wouldn't use it to upload straight to the internet, mostly because i usuall include Flash stuff along with some relatively complex javascripting...which isn't altogether easy to incorporate using IR. But as I said, I just never learned Dreamweaver...and I should. If for no other reason than to find out what the buzz is all about...know anywhere with some decent tutorials?

OK, last post off-topic...I'll start a new thread a bit later on for challenges like this. Now as, I've said before, there are usually 5 or six ways to do things in Photoshop, so asking for the 'easiest' technique is a bit of a loaded question. However, since we were on the topic of layer effects, I'll go ahead and share my technique using them, and hopefully someone will learn something...:-) Apply Bevel&Emboss effect to new, empty, layer. Set foreground color to taste (you may want purple clouds, who knows?). Using a Painting tool (Paint Brush, Pattern Stamp, Airbrush if you not at version 7 yet (7 introduced Airbrush as a setting for painting tools rather than as a stand-alone tool, meaning the Clone Stamp can be used as an airbrush if that's your fancy), change the brush shape to something with some texture. Natural brushes work nice, but keep it relatively round. Patter the brush in the layer, which will display with the Bevel&Emboss effect applied. Result - photo realistic clouds. Now, this is an easy technique for me...especially since I have brush and layer styles already set up to do it, however, ease of application in Photoshop is somewhat relative to the user, and some people may prefer the Alpha Channel/Render Clouds/Render Lighting Effects technique I think you're probably thinking of...I, personally, like to maintain as much control as possible, which is why I usually go manual. Still, one might pose the question 'what's the best way to hold a pencil?' and get the same probable number of replies...Photoshop is an artist's tool, not a mechanical device with specific parameters, so there will always be alternative solutions to any given task.

OK, for 5.5 and below Dodger's technique is the better technique, and he makes a good point. My technique does change the entire spectrum. There is one other feature, which cancels this out and adds the Gradient Map as a more subtle effect, or more pronounced depending on how you use it. They're called Adjustment Layers and they can be accessed either by using the little button on the layer palette that looks like a half-moon (it's a pop-up menu), or through the Layer menu, under the Add>/Add Adjustment>/whatever submenu happens to have them (they appear in several areas, increasingly so in later versions...7 makes them available in five locations). Anyway, applying the Gradient map in this fashion opens the possibility of bledning modes and opacity settings being applied to the effect...plus the whole slew of layer effects and layer masks. This does, however, take more time and Dodger's technique is far and away the faster and simpler of the two. However, one of the inherent beuties of Photoshop is that there are usually 5 or 6 different ways to approach any problem, and none of them is neccessarily better than another.

And bump maps are features specific to 3D programs. Excluding a few third party filters, Photoshop refers to them as displacement maps, texture channels and the like...Adobe's big on terminology. On a similar note, the third party filters in question are made by companies attempting to create filters with a 3D feel to them.

OK, first off, Flaming Pear's LunarCell filter creates very photorealistic clouds in a single step. You never said using Photoshop's stock features. Secondly, I think we should make a new thread if people are going to be seriously challenging me on this. These existing threads are really here for the purposes of answering the originally posted questions. And yes, I'm serious about the pizza.