The lighting/modeling is awesome, but I prefer the more abstracted version on the bottom; my brain wants to follow the shape in a predertimed fashion, but the composition forces my eyes to travel differently, if that makes any sense. Both are beautiful, nice work.

Have you tried using the gradient tool to fill a rectangle -and then use image>adjust>posterize - and then set the level how many steps you wish to produce? Each step should measure out fine in it's own color space (use the info palette), but converting will (and has?) changed the values. best to have a spearate scale, one for each colorspace you need or intend to use.. I dunno, just tryin to help :) good luck!

keen image, if it wasn't titled, I probably wouldn'thave guessed what it was..

Welcome back=) was wondering if you disappeared =) hope it was a positive experience, and can't wait to see what kind of photos you came up with.

Well, I'm no lawyer but here's my two cents: you own the rights to the photo. you granted rights for your photo to be used for a particular purpose. and it has been used as intended. i would think you still own/control the rights of the photo for any OTHER uses. like if they update the manual again or something. but of course, if none of this is in writing, i suppose it would get trickier. there are all kinds of rights you can grant with an image; you granted them a specific right (right?) and they used it for that. above and beyond that, I would think they have to obtain your permission again. anyhow, thats my oversimplified version of it.

The web is such a strange venue. so much exposure to possible 'customers', and one would think that: more exposure = more possible sales. but purchasing art is a strange world altogether. Even getting in a real 'physical' gallery does not gaurantee sales. Anymore, it's not even necessarily the art that sells, but the marketing. IMO, any 'successful' artist is that way because they've taken the time to market themselves appropriately. I think it's almost harder to do that on the web than in the real world - even given the massive exposure (or maybe BECAUSE of massive exposure). I'd be a bit wary offering anything up for free. It's a nice sentiment and all, but if you get into a collectors market (and that's where you'll make the $$$), it could work agianst you - at least in the instance of that particular image - and at most against you entire body of work. If you could work the free thing into some kind of marketing strategy, like the first 20 downloads are free, then you charge, or something like that, I dunno. -once the market is saturated with your 'free' images, it will be harder place a value later if you decide you actually want to make money. sorry, just my two cents. I started out selling my work (murals, designs, etc.) VERY cheap. word got around. and that's what people expected. A Difficult mould to break. Good luck =) and take care

Nice to meet you Gitte, look forward to seeing more of your work. I tend to lurk around here, but pop up say something once in a while. amazing, I can even be introverted on the web! Good luck on your plans and we'll all be looking for your work in the galleries. Take care, Jerry

Yea, really dig the last one, but they're all pretty keen.

Attached Link: http://www.angelfire.com/film/jhazard

Hi Bsteph, The skinny on the s602, or any fuji super ccd camera has been debated and argued to death, and still remains rather contraversial. DPreview.com is probably the most informative place on the web to learn about it though. I use the predecssor to the s602, the 6900z which also uses a 3 megapixel super ccd yielding 6mp images. The super ccd is an chip made up of octagon sensors, as opposed to the square sensors on traditional image sensors. This means (put simply) there is more contact between actual pixels, meaning it actually gathers MORE information than a regular (3mp)square pixel camera. When the camera shoots, it actually records a 6mp image first, then scales it down to 3.1 afterwords (if you choose the 3mp setting). As far as interpolation is concerned, ALL digital cameras interpolate to obtain their images, that is, they all have to "make up" some information to arrive at a complete image. The fuji just does it differently, not necessarily more/better/worse than any other camera. "post interpolation" - using software like Qimage, or genuine fractals will work of course, but the results are not as good as the images that fuji will produce "out of camera". The actual "effective" resolution of the super ccd lies somewhere between 3 and 5. It does capture more info that most 3, but definately less than a real 5mp camera. But your best bet it to check out DP review.com and either go to the fuji forum, do a search in the forums for super ccd, and definately read the reviews. The reviews post sample images of the camera itself, and compare them to other cameras in the same range so you can judge the results for yourself. And you can check out my gallery, of which 95% was shot using the 6900z, plus my photo diary (check the link). I've had mine since february and so glad I got it. I'be tripped the shutter over 12,000 times so far and it's still going strong (please don't ask me what my success rate is though =)... hope that helps a bit, and is not too confusing. Good luck and take care.

cool image. I like (?) how the center of the tire remains dark, while everything else went green. after looking at the duotone, the color now looks like green sand, and I can't see it as algae anymore! And that "branch" has what looks like a claw on the end of it, creepy.

Dreamy. Can almost 'hear' the silence, and (to me) it doesn't look painterly. Surreal - but not painterly - if that makes any sense. really pretty work, and not too heavy handed =)

Attached Link: http://www.ofoto.com/HelpAboutPrints.jsp?UV=724640949522_97313172105&US=0

Thanks for the link Bevichron! it just takes a second to realize that different printing technologies take different specs to achieve a quality print. With digital, especially photography, resolution has been such a confusing issue to come to terms with. We've had it drilled into our heads so much that you need at least 250dpi for a good inkjet print, and so on, so that seeing such a large size final output from from only 100dpi seemed, well, strange =). For any doubters, really look at some of the online photofinishing sites that offer print sizes larger than 11x14, and see what the file requirements are, and also look and see what kind of printer they use. The 16x20 I received today is amazing. I could never had got this print quality even at 11x14 or 13x19 on my epson, not with the file size i used. These printers know their stuff, and like Clint pointed out to me: check the reviews out on the r'ostiy front page. I did a little research into LED digital printing, and it helped me feel a bit more at ease with the 100dpi thing. Not to say that renderosity is using that particular process, but it shows that the 300dpi rule does not necessarily apply across the board. check the link below and look at the required file sizes... Thanks again everyone who responded! take care.

wow, I wouldn't really care what they say, as long as they say it without their stingers. good BRAVE shot!

Thanks for the replies everyone! With inkjets, I get more than acceptable prints with the quadtone inks and my 1270 at anywhere from 250 to 360dpi (or with photoshop really its ppi). I try to get 300dpi but sometimes with a crop or what have you it's not possible. has anyone noticed much difference with inkjets when printing at over 300 dpi (i have not)? I've also res'd up files using other software: genuine fractals and Qimage, and they both work very well for larger sizes like 13x19. (I prefer Qimage) That's why I was so puzzled at the 100dpi specs with the r'osity prints. but when you look at the pixel dimensions, it scales down close, at least at 11 x 14. I bet they have a program similar to genuine fractals, if indeed that's not what they use. also, if they use anything like the kodak LED print process, I can see how they get such good results (i did some reading this afternoon!) I just received a 16x20 from ofoto (using the kodak LED method) today that i had printed as a test, and the file size was actually only set at 240dpi, and that was after res'ing it up in photoshop. The results were stunning considering the file they had to work with. so, yes, the 100dpi at 2800x3400 should work pretty well, and in cmyk, it produces about a 34meg. file... thanks again!

Sorry, all my kidde pics are still locked away at gramma's house.. but maybe this will help: Friday night and the lights are low Looking out for the place to go Where they play the right music, getting in the swing You come in to look for a king Anybody could be that guy Night is young and the music's high With a bit of rock music, everything is fine You're in the mood for a dance And when you get the chance... You are the Dancing Queen, young and sweet, only seventeen Dancing Queen, feel the beat from the tambourine You can dance, you can jive, having the time of your life See that girl, watch that scene, dig in the Dancing Queen