SkewedAle said:
Brewpastor said:
ian said:
I'd suggest that you try cropping the original image to an oval shape so that the moon stays round (as opposed to deforming the image as has been done).)
Well, most of the coloring and all of the composition were created by me. Some of the images were "borrowed" from a quick image search on Yahoo. My advice is to just create an image in your head and then try to match it by whatever means you have.HurricaneFloyd said:
Thanks a lot man. My girlfriend definitely told me the same thing, I am really stubborn and really wanted that tall oval shape, not a more horizontal one, but I guess it must be done.Surfrider said:There is one major problem; the moon and stars' deformation. The thing is, humans have an uncanny knack at being able to percieve even the slightest defect or malformation in a circle. And your moon there is so seriously out of round; it looks like an easter egg!
Fix that elongated moon, and IMNSHO, you'd have damned near a perfect label that would most certainly work for even a commercial product. Good job!
-Surfrider
No no, I think you misnderstood. You can certainly have both. The image you used is originally circular, right? Then just "cut out" an oval section of the original image. Viola! Properly round moon and stars, but the picture itself is still an oval.SkewedAle said:
Gimp is free, and gimp is nice, but comparing it to Photoshop is like comparing an old cga video card to one of the new ones you're working on now.Imperial Walker said:
The image of the moon and stars I created is really cool, but its not the tall, its more wide. I wanted to add as much of the original image as possible. That is why I stretched it out...Surfrider said:No no, I think you misnderstood. You can certainly have both. The image you used is originally circular, right? Then just "cut out" an oval section of the original image. Viola! Properly round moon and stars, but the picture itself is still an oval.
Either I'm not adequately articulating what I mean, or you've inbibed too much of that brew to grok what I'm sayingSkewedAle said:
D), but here's a visual representation of what I meant when I said you sould keep the image undistorted (ie, round), then cut out an oval section to be used in your label:
It looks scary at first, but Photoshop really isn't that hard. Years ago when I first decided to use PS (back in '95/'96) it took me maybe two months of casual use to become comfortable with it, and able to do most things I needed to without referencing a book. Another four months of active use gave me the skills to produce a picture of you, say...drinking a beer and partying with a sheep whilst wearing a clown suit...with enough realism to fool even you.HurricaneFloyd said:
The first place to start is google; "photoshop tutorial" will yield LOTS of useful resources. There is no trick to learning to use this app; just start doing it. Too, Adobe has produced several commercial "training suites" for Photoshop that are most excellent.
Surfrider said:
SkewedAle said:
The WERE nearly impossible to "crack," yes, for about 24-48 hours after their release.SkewedAle said:
Not at all. Penalties for piracy haven't really changed that drastically over the years. The only difference is, when some 13 year old kid gets "busted" but the RIAA for sharing a few Metallica cuts over a P2P network, the media is all over it like white on rice. But I digress, this is a topic for another time in another thread. Sorry to go off on a tangent and hijack your thread.SkewedAle said:
As for the real reason we're all here (your label)... I think 99.9% of people aren't going to notice the difference one way or the other, but being the sort of person who sweats minutia like that, I myself would probably make it a bit narrower, too, just to make myself happy.
