To me: no need to crop on top .. but give it a try .. hard to imagine that before for i don't know how much you'd like to crop. Some darkening on the shutters may be a good idea .. but on this one too: please post a second shot to show how much you have in mind. And, as Firestorm already did, some perspective correction is necessary (but to me, he did to much of it). Dunno if this is of any help to you ... Ohh, btw.: like the view out of that window too.

Oh .. i've forgotten something else: i tend not to comment on images that have no text with em. Just posting the image without saying a word looks a little rude to me. Like "Love it or leave it, doesn't matter to me" ... sorry, but that's what i feel sometimes. May be another reason for the lack of comments on at least one of your examples.

Hello Snakey, i think it's fine that you sent the linkage via IM. The artists may not like to get their work discussed over here. But as my answers are true on a lot of other shots too, i give it into the forums. I hope this is ok with you! :) In both cases, the images themselves are quite big. Nr. 2 is almost at the limit of 500kByte (no need to be THAT big). First, that is a reason for lot's of people not to look into the big images. No problem with DSL but there are people on dial-up (as Cindy for example). Second, this can be a problem with the thumbs as there is a limit of 15 kB too. If you can't get the image into a reasonable size, chances are that you can't get a 200*200 thumb beyond the 15k-limit. I've once asked the same question to an artist. He answered: my thumbs keep getting 40kB and bigger .. all because of not getting jpg-compression to work. That has been a reason for him to use a very small (and very ugly) thumbs. Bad thing as the shots were great .. as are the ones you've posted. Yep, those people need help .. thank you for giving it to them! :-) Tom

Hehe ... know that 4 hours Brenda .. sigh About that thumbs Snakey: you're right, but. :-) There had to be a "but" ya know? In some other gals, there have been real-thumb-wars. The thumbs had been better than the images - just to draw attention. Some even got that far as posting "wrong" thumbs just to lure people into the shots. So to me the only true and honest way is to just resize the image. If that doesn't draw attention, it's because of the shot beeing not to well (composed) and i feel that's ok. Take a view on the other side: often i'm very disappointed about what i see after clicking on a thumb. An example: i see a big bugger .. to me an immediate click. Afterwards .. the bugger is still at the same size, just more things surrounding it (usually ruining the image). A sure way for that author not to get any more clicks by me. I'm a fan of WYSIWYG. ;-) But that's just me. Tom

Thanks for asking MGD but it's some matter with private IP in LAN vs. Internet IP me thinks. Software is running quite fine but can't find it's partner on the other puter. If you have any idea on that, please drop me an IM. Thanks .. and, well .. thanks for the compliment. Yep, they are three .. no money and no empty spaces for any more of em. Should rent some scotish castle lol Tom

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.

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.

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! :-)

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

??? 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.

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

I wish i had brain-burps such as this. sigh :-)

Be welcome SaVas .. and don't be afraid of some loonys in that forums. They may look fierce, but they really aren't :-)

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