BlogRodent: Pentecostal Rumination & Review

The highlight of my night (The print of the finger of the son of the man with the camera that captured this shot. on Flickr - Photo Sharing!) - Thanks "Evil Bob!"

Rich T at the Big Z!Tag Browser (BlogRodent: Pentecostal Rumination & Review) - I hardly know where to begin, so many of you have sent me encouragement and kudos both here and via email, it's dizzying! I am warmed by the onslaught of well-wishing, and it tells me that I was in more folks prayers than I realized. I am humbled and pleased even while reminding myself of Rick Warren's mantra: "It's not about me...." @slw: Thanks for the kudos! It's hard to know what God's best is in every situation except to recognize that it's important to be joyful and content in all situations. Not easy, but it's certainly easier in context: my travails are nothing compared to what they could be. I have learned to count my blessings, friend. @Kyle: I don't know anything about Z's Latin textbooks, though I do know we've published an English, Greek/Hebrew, Latin triglot Bible. I don't know if that's still in print though or not. If you're serious, though, send an email to Verlyn Verbrugge and ask him. He's the in-house editorial expert on ancient languages and if he doesn't know where to find a great Latin textbook, he'll know who does know that answer. @Michael: Thanks, Mike, for your continued prayers, that pumps me up! I second that Amen. @Travis Johnson: Dude, if you have a book idea, let me know. I'll pass it along to an acquisition editor or give you a contact. Honestly, if you have a good idea, you should start working it out. Write a book outline, write your first chapter, and flesh out a proposal -- who your audience is, what you have to say, and why you think you're the guy to say it. If there's the slightest chance for interest, getting that done will be a huge help. I can't say that being the "new guy" gives me any cred at all, but who knows? @tmzydowicz: Resurrected Todd! Thanks for stopping by and thanks for lending your kudos! After looking over your blog, I can see you are well acquainted with difficult situations -- probably more than I am! I do, indeed, have much to be thankful for. I am in relatively good health, I have lovely children and a sweet bride, and to top it off, I have a great job! Praise God! I, too, pray that this is where I'm supposed to be. But I also recognize that wherever I am, that's where I'm supposed to do whatever God gives me, too. He'll lead me on if I need to be elsewhere. I just hope he lets me pay some bills first! @Carl Thomas: The advance is in the mail. I'm sure you're be as delightful to work with as your book was easy to write. :: grin :: @Clay: Bro, thanks for your excitement by proxy! I sure miss working with you and my fellow CTI peeps, but especially you and those long, rambling post 5 pm conversations about everything from typography to cameras to dogs to children to ministry to theology to sports. Well, never sports. But, everything else! And congratulations on your 10 years at CTI! Wahoo! Did they give you a celebration? What's the bling for the 10-year mark? A clock? I shall always cherish my wood Post-It holder... PS: I hope it's either more than 10 years at the Big Z, or that it leads to a truly phenomenal ten years somewhere else. Otherwise, if I get laid-off ten years from now, I'm blaming it on you! @Don: Thanks for the kudos, Don. I'll trust that you don't mean it when you wish me luck, right? Blessings, brother! Blessings! Not luck! :: grin :: @Tim Heard: Thanks for the kudos! I have already passed your feedback on to the HR folks at Zondervan. Whether they appreciate it or not will be hard to say. I can say, however, that I found the employment page easily enough about 9 months ago. I set up a tracker to watch the page and email me the instant anything changed on it. That's how I knew about three job openings the day they were published. A truly motivated job-seeker will find those pages. A motivated and knowledgeable job-seeker will figure out ways to monitor those pages and act on new positions. (Incidentally, I was interviewed for all three positions that I contacted Zondervan about -- I guess they got tired of me bothering HR!) I had several employers in my tracking file: I was watching for jobs at Zondervan, Tyndale, Baker, Group Publishing, GospelCom, my denominations district offices in Illinois, InterVarsity Press, LifeChurch.tv, Regent University, Saddleback Church, Willow Creek, the Willow Creek Exchange, and more. And on each of those sites I never bothered scanning the page for the employment link: I always used Google to search a site with queries like employment|career|jobs site:zondervan.com. Saved me the hassle of searching. Of course, not everybody uses that strategy when searching for job pages. But I learned a long time ago that most companies don't have a clue how to design pages for usability. That's something the job-seeking handbooks need to point out. At the end of my first full week at Zondervan I can report that things are, indeed, going well. I think, anyhow. It's been non-steep meeting after meeting after meeting, sometimes with as many as seven hours of meetings in a day. So, I've had very little time at my desk to work on figuring stuff out or even assimilating what I'm hearing. But on the other hand, it's been great because I'm getting a very broad overview of the Zondervan culture and I'm totally immersed in that process without having to worry about being productive in my first week. I have a mentor to help me out (assigned to me, but he's a great guy, and he's a smart editor to boot), I had four of my five lunches in the first week paid for, I never ate alone in my first week, and I've met with HR four times to touch base in my first week. I've probably spent 15 hours with my manager in this time, and another 15 hours meeting folks from vice-presidents on down to various secretaries. It's been dizzying, but comforting at the same time: the Zondervan work culture is family-like, but still unlike any other place I've worked. It looks to be a very good fit for me. Thanks, again, friends, for all your support. I mean it when I say I appreciate it. You can't know how much... Regards,

Trains in an airplane place? I love this country! (Broken Finger and a Pout (desaturated) on Flickr - Photo Sharing!) - Thanks, pompey shoes and medieval panda!

Waffle House: My Beacon in the Night. (watercolor treatment) (Broken Finger and a Pout (desaturated) on Flickr - Photo Sharing!) - Thanks, pompey shoes and jjbullock !

Balance, in contrast (black and white) (Broken Finger and a Pout (desaturated) on Flickr - Photo Sharing!) - Just for kicks, here's the B&W version.

Balance, in contrast (color) (Broken Finger and a Pout (desaturated) on Flickr - Photo Sharing!) - Thanks, ki.ka67! For the interested, check out: Rich

Flickr: Discussing TAG 5 Contest #2 (Depth of Field - blogrodent - Winner) in 5 Flickr Favs (pool & (Flickr: Discussing TAG 5 Contest #2 (Depth of Field- OPEN) in 5 Flickr Favs (pool & contest invitation required)) - Thanks, all! How about vanishing point, then? Regards, Rich

Sometimes you gotta just take a stand (blogrodent's photostream) - Thanks, all!

Summer is for playing (b&w cutout) (Broken Finger and a Pout (desaturated) on Flickr - Photo Sharing!) - Mário Silva, thanks!

Land of the Lost (Flickr Photo) - Seen in Five Flickr Favs.

Flickr: Discussing Help with Romans series in Church Marketing Lab (beta) (Flickr: Discussing Help with Romans series in Church Marketing Lab (beta)) - How about the light/transformation idea? I have in mind a ray of light through a prism/glass being transformed. One reason this appeals to me (off the cuff) is the idea of transformation in Romans 12 plus the way Paul structures many of his epistles from "indicative" to "imperative." In fact, one basic division of Romans is that chapters 1-11 set up Paul's arguments (his "indicative") for his imperatives in the rest of the book -- all hinging on the "therefore" in 12:1. Maybe these will spark a couple design ideas... or at least tell you not to use my cliche idea! Regards, Rich

Water Cricket at Night (blogrodent's photostream) - Thanks, Losy!

Flickr: Discussing TAG 5 Contest #7 (Decay - OPEN) in 5 Flickr Favs (pool & contest invitation requi (Flickr: Discussing TAG 5 Contest #2 (Depth of Field- OPEN) in 5 Flickr Favs (pool & contest invitation required)) - #1: "Locked box" next: texture

Flickr: Discussing TAG 5 Contest #1 (Black & White - OPEN) in 5 Flickr Favs (pool & contest invitati (Flickr: Discussing TAG 5 Contest #2 (Depth of Field- OPEN) in 5 Flickr Favs (pool & contest invitation required)) - #3: "Balance, in contrast " next: night photography

Flickr: Discussing TAG 5 Contest #3 (Action - OPEN) in 5 Flickr Favs (pool & contest invitation requ (Flickr: Discussing TAG 5 Contest #2 (Depth of Field- OPEN) in 5 Flickr Favs (pool & contest invitation required)) - #1: "Locked box" next: texture

Flickr: 5 Flickr Favs (pool & contest invitation required) (Flickr: Discussing TAG 5 Contest #2 (Depth of Field- OPEN) in 5 Flickr Favs (pool & contest invitation required)) - #2: "Sometimes you gotta just take a stand" next: decay

Flickr: Discussing TAG 5 Contest #2 (Depth of Field- OPEN) in 5 Flickr Favs (pool & contest invitati (Flickr: Discussing TAG 5 Contest #2 (Depth of Field- OPEN) in 5 Flickr Favs (pool & contest invitation required)) - #2: "Sometimes you gotta just take a stand"

Dangerously brilliant smoothness of light (The print of the finger of the son of the man with the camera that captured this shot. on Flickr - Photo Sharing!) - Thanks Anna and Insashi!

Flickr: Discussing Question on portrait pictures in Nikon Digital Learning Center (Flickr: Discussing Abstractions in Nikon Digital Learning Center) - Rotating an image in photoshop (or anything) will change its dimensions. If you have a 5 pixel wide image by 10 pixels high, rotating it will only change it to a 10 pixel wide image with 5 pixels in height. In either case, you're still only talking about 50 pixels total. Resolution often refers to the output of a given device. Many monitors output images at 72 dots-per-inch (DPI). If you're viewing an image at 72 dpi resolution, you should be seeing 72 pixels for each inch of "dots" on your monitor (though this too can be murky because each dot on a monitor is actually made of a red, green, and blue dot). When you're thinking about printing, though, you're going to use a printer to output your image. If you're printing to a 300 dpi printer, for every 300 horizontal pixels in your image, you'll get one inch of horizontal ink on your paper. I often see discussions of pixels, dpi, and resolution use these terms interchangeably with no regard to what's actually going on and it can be very confusing to the novice. Heck, it's confusing to non-novices. In fact, I might even be confused right now.... Rich

Flickr: Discussing Lens or Skill ???? in Nikon Digital Learning Center (Flickr: Discussing Abstractions in Nikon Digital Learning Center) - I am a firm proponent of learning the craft before investing in the tools. Ignorance turns the best equipment into fancy accessories but skill turns the cheapest tool into a creative forge. I would love to have a good $10-15K to spend on professional quality equipment. But for now I'm stuck with an inexpensive Nikon 3200 that is about four years old. By now the lens is fogged by scratches (thanks to my children) and I'm continually frustrated by my inability to manually focus, control the aperture, or control the shutter speed. But with patience, perspective, and a few minutes in post-processing, I am quite happy with many of my images. Take a look at my photo-stream, you might like some of them, too. Would I generate higher-quality images with better glass? I hope! But, then, if I'd waited until I could afford it I wouldn't have had any images at all. Meanwhile, I shoot. And someday, I'll spend. Regards, Rich

Flickr: Nikon Digital Learning Center (Flickr: Discussing Abstractions in Nikon Digital Learning Center) - Here's my contribution: "Anti-Gravity Dreams" This photo is far from "flat" for me and evokes a strong sense of dimensionality for a few reasons. Correct me if I'm wrong: • Contrast: The contrast between the highlights of the marble against the relatively flat background (fire hydrant) bring the subject out of the photo's ground. At least in terms of color and contrast, the photo avoids being "flat." That alone probably wouldn't provide dimensionality, but it may contributes to the perception at least a little bit. (If the marble were red it might not appear to have as much dimension.) • Interaction of subject with background: I don't know how to say this eloquently, but it seems to me that the way the marble casts a shadow below itself -- and simultaneously disconnected from itself -- implies a strong dimensionality. The illusion of the marble floating in mid-air makes the marble "pop out" to the eye. Though it's an illusion, it's a compelling one. • Juxtaposition and Shallow Depth of Field: While the marble and its background are clear, the glass marble itself has created a very shallow depth of field for the air bubbles trapped within the transparent glass of the marble. The DoF here is not provided by the camera lens but by the focusing/diffraction effects of the spherical glass in the marble. Looking at the marble, you can see the progression of sharp and clearly defined bubbles near the surface to less- and less-defined bubbles deeper within the glass. Since we might assume the bubbles are of a similar size, the diffuse localized focus tells us this object has dimension. Not that any of this went through my mend when shooting. But this discussion helped think about this. Thanks! Again, please correct any fallacies I've dredged up here. Rich

Flickr: Discussing 3 Dimensions in a photograph in Nikon Digital Learning Center (Flickr: Discussing Abstractions in Nikon Digital Learning Center) - Here's my contribution: "Anti-Gravity Dreams" This photo is far from "flat" for me and evokes a strong sense of dimensionality for a few reasons. Correct me if I'm wrong: Contrast: The contrast between the highlights of the marble against the relatively flat background (fire hydrant) brin the subject out of the photos ground. At least in terms of color and contrast, the photo avoids being flat. That alone probably wouldn't provide dimensionality, but it probably contributes to the perception at least a little bit. Interaction of subject with background: I don't know how to say this eloquently, but it seems to me that the way the marble casts a shadow below itself -- yet also some disconnected from itself -- implies a strong dimensionality. The illustion of the marble floating in mid-air makes the marble "pop out" to the eye. Though it's an illusion, it's a compelling one. Juxtaposition and Shallow Depth of Field: While the marble and its background are in focus, the light coming through the glass marble itself has the unusual effect of providing a very shallow depth of field for the air bubbles trapped within the transparent glass of the marble. The depth of field here is not provided by the camera lens, but by the focusing effects of the spherical marble itself. Looking at the marble, you cansee the progression of sharp and clearly defined bubles near the surface to less and less defined bubbles deeper within the glass. Since we assume the bubbles are of nearly the same size, seeing the difussed focus tells us this object has dimension. Not that any of this went through my mend when shooting. But this discussion helped think about this. Thanks! Again, please correct any fallacies I've dredged up here. Rich

Flickr: Nikon Digital Learning Center (Flickr: Discussing Abstractions in Nikon Digital Learning Center) - I appreciate this thread because it's instructive. I haven't focused a lot on abstraction, but this discussion has helped me think a little differently about my photography, and that's great. So, okay, here's a recent one from my photostream: "The Vandal Constellation" Some concerns I already have about this piece: I should have gotten rid of the bit of white in the top left - it's distracting and deosn't serve the photo. Also, I probabliy should have flopped the photo since the eye is drawn naturally to the left to follow that streak out of frame away from the "action" in the photo on the right. On the other hand, I don't know. Any and all comments welcome. Rich

Flickr: Discussing Abstractions in Nikon Digital Learning Center (Flickr: Discussing Abstractions in Nikon Digital Learning Center) - I appreciate this thread because it's instructive. I haven't focused a lot on abstraction, but this discussion has helped me think a little differently about my photography, and that's great. So, okay, here's a recent one from my photostream: "The Vandal Constellation" Rich

Unsleeping Beauty (1 of 2) (The print of the finger of the son of the man with the camera that captured this shot. on Flickr - Photo Sharing!) - Thanks, Rescue Fire 911, and sorry about goading you into complimenting me! I appreciate it all the same, though.

Flickr: Discussing Photo appeal discussion in Eye for Composition - Post 1, Comment 2, Invite 1 (Flickr: Discussing Photo appeal discussion in Eye for Composition - Post 1, Comment 2, Invite 1) - swisscan, I don't moderate here, am only a member, but if you don't mind, can I chime in with my thoughts? While this photo does focus on shapes and forms, I'm not sure I'd qualify this as truly abstract -- it's too easy to identify the subject. To help on this score, I like the definition offered in a thread from the Nikon Digital Learning Center by "Getting Closer": Quote: "Non-objective, or non-representational art is that which may be about line, form or color, but includes no readily identifiable original subject. I think this type of shooting has a purity in compositions that must satisfy without the context of knowable content. Shooting this type of image is a great way to strengthen one's compositional skills." Or, more succinctly, from Wikipedia: "Abstract art is now generally understood to mean art that does not depict objects in the natural world, but instead uses colour and form in a non-representational way." As to the composition, my niggle about the photo (and again, I don't moderate photos) is that there are too many ways for the eye to escape the picture. There is no definite subject in the photo. I see there is a sky and there are buildings, but what is your photo trying to say or evoke? The buildings are not imposing enough to produce claustrophobia and the sky is not expansive enough to evoke a sense of space. The message seems conflicted. That said, yes, it's a pretty picture. But, at bottom, it seems like a snapshot taken in a big city. I don't mean to offend, and I hope none is taken. I hope this helps from at least my perspective. Regards, Rich

Flickr: Discussing Abstractions in Nikon Digital Learning Center (Flickr: Discussing Abstractions in Nikon Digital Learning Center) - Any new takers? I like this thread... Rich

Flickr: Discussing Glass and lights in FlickrToday (only 1 pic per day) (Flickr: Discussing Playing with effects in FlickrToday (only 1 pic per day)) - Me, too! Rich

Flickr: Discussing Playing with effects in FlickrToday (only 1 pic per day) (Flickr: Discussing Playing with effects in FlickrToday (only 1 pic per day)) - I certainly enjoy playing! Rich

Flickr: Discussing Look through the last person's photostream and pick your favorite night image! in (Flickr: Discussing Look through the last person's photostream and pick your favorite night image! in Night Images) - (off topic) It's a shame that more folks haven't figured out how to post the images of their favorite photos here. That's how a lot of us decide whether to go visit the photo stream of the featured artist. Just a quick summary: For many images, click on the "All Sizes" button, then click on the Smal or Medium size icon to get the proper sizing for posting in a forum thread, then scroll down and copy the HTML. I encourage those of you who don't allow your images to be reused this way to do so in order that we can fully enjoy sharing images in forums like this. It's not like turning this option off prevents a truly determined image thief from stealing your images. If that's a concern, you' probabliy should't post your artwork online... Regards, Rich (/off topic)

Flickr: Discussing Invite Me! (Your photo here) in 5 Flickr Favs (pool & contest invitation required (Flickr: Discussing TAG 5 Contest #2 (Night Photography - VOTE) in Five Flickr Favs (Invite your favs too)!) - Or even the abstract thread. How about inviting this one? Rich.

Featured Blog: The Digital Sanctuary (I’m Curious: Blogging Platforms at LifeChurch.tv : swerve) - Cynthia's secret is that she's really an underground Artificial Intelligence project designed to usher in a technological revolution in the Church so that the Beast can more easily take over in these end times. She is a program being constantly re-written and hacked by underground wired ninjas working in damp basements deep in the heart of California. For clues note these facts: - "Cynthia" is a name derived from Greek mythology meaning "From Mount Cynthus." If you add up the values for "Cynthus" (where a=1 and z=26) you get "110," clearly a binary number. And if you multiply that number by 6 and add 6 you get ... 666. Coincidence? - "Ware" is obviously a ploy to distract us from the obvious by being so overtly obvious. I mean, really. Ware? Do these evil one-world programmers think we won't see through their devious ploy and recognize this blogging software for what it is! Soft WARE! Again, I ask, coincidence? But, uh, seriously ... I've found Cynthia to be endlessly entertaining, humorous, serious about serving the Church, and always eager to learn new things. She's also humble enough to ask for editorial help when she needs it. And she is quick to give praise where it's due. I like her lots! Regards, Rich BlogRodent

Power To The People (Flickr Photo) - I graduated from Highland High in 1986, left for college, and have only been back for visits since. Used to live on the cordner of Zuni and San Pedro where my parents managed a nursery/plant shop. I miss the red-tinged sunsets bouncing off the granite mountains. :: sigh ::

Like a glove... (Broken Finger and a Pout (desaturated) on Flickr - Photo Sharing!) - I wrote this out for one of the Flickr forums and thought I'd share here what I did to arrive at this photo -- for anyone who might care. I was a little bored one night so I thought I'd return to an old photo that I'd passed over now that I have a little more experience at post-processing stuff. I found a picture of some old shoes that I took when I first got my digicam. So, I thought that'd be a great candidate. I played around with this image for probably half an hour and didn't take notes, but at one point I did accidentally lose the image and had to start over, so I was able to replicate my work fairly quickly. As I remember it: • Duplicate the background layer (I always leave the original image untouched as a reference point) • Smooth and "de-noise" the image using various tools such as "digical camera noise removal", "edge preserving smooth" and "noise ninja" (plugin). I use Corel's Paint Shop Pro, in case you don't recognize those terms. • Duplicate the smoothed layer and leave the original alone (I treat the basic smoothed layer as a second reference image in case I want to start over). • Play with local contrast enhancement (unsharp mask set at 50 pixels width with about 30 for strength) and PSP's "Clarify" command until I'm happy with the contrast. • Play with the histogram until I have the highlights blown out a bit and the shadows blocked up • Duplicate the layer, reverse the colors to a negative image, run the "soft focus" command to further diffuse the dark areas of the image. Convert it back to a positive image. Play with the opacity until I like what I see and merge the active layer down. • Duplicate the layer. Run Red Paw Media's RPM Beautifier plugin (free plugin) on a new layer (There are other plugins that do similar things - you're basically increasing the hue, diffusing the highlights and increasing the contrast all at once). Play with the opacity until I like what I see, merge the layers down. • Play with the HSL until it's where I want it. • Duplicate layers again and run PSP's "Sepia Tone" command. Play with the opacity until I like what I see, merge down. (I do this to warm the image without killing all the saturation.) • Add noise to taste • Add border. Add slight vignetting. • Et Voilà! Please feel free to comment.

Flickr: Saturday Shutterbugs (Invited Photos Only!) (Flickr: Discussing VOTE - Sunday (9/23) Theme: Relaxation in Saturday Shutterbugs (Invited Photos Only!)) - Here's a very recent example of some post-processing I did: I was a little bored one night so I thought I'd return to an old photo that I'd passed over now that I have a little more experience at post-processing stuff. I found a picture of some old shoes that I took when I first got my digicam. So, I thought that'd be a great candidate. I played around with this image for probably half an hour and didn't take notes, but at one point I did accidentally lose the image and had to start over, so I was able to replicate my work fairly quickly. As I remember it: • Duplicate the background layer (I always leave the original image untouched as a reference point) • Smooth and "de-noise" the image using various tools such as "digical camera noise removal", "edge preserving smooth" and "noise ninja" (plugin). I use Corel's Paint Shop Pro, in case you don't recognize those terms. • Duplicate the smoothed layer and leave the original alone (I treat the basic smoothed layer as a second reference image in case I want to start over). • Play with local contrast enhancement (unsharp mask set at 50 pixels width with about 30 for strength) and PSP's "Clarify" command until I'm happy with the contrast. • Play with the histogram until I have the highlights blown out a bit and the shadows blocked up • Duplicate the layer, reverse the colors to a negative image, run the "soft focus" command to further diffuse the dark areas of the image. Convert it back to a positive image. Play with the opacity until I like what I see and merge the active layer down. • Duplicate the layer. Run Red Paw Media's RPM Beautifier plugin (free plugin) on a new layer (There are other plugins that do similar things - you're basically increasing the hue, diffusing the highlights and increasing the contrast all at once). Play with the opacity until I like what I see, merge the layers down. • Play with the HSL until it's where I want it. • Duplicate layers again and run PSP's "Sepia Tone" command. Play with the opacity until I like what I see, merge down. (I do this to warm the image without killing all the saturation.) • Add noise to taste • Add border. Add slight vignetting. • Et Voilà! Please feel free to comment.

Flickr: Discussing Share your techniques & tips. in Saturday Shutterbugs (Invited Photos Only!) (Flickr: Discussing VOTE - Sunday (9/23) Theme: Relaxation in Saturday Shutterbugs (Invited Photos Only!)) - Here's a very recent example of some post-processing I did: I was a little bored one night so I thought I'd return to an old photo that I'd passed over now that I have a little more experience at post-processing stuff. I found a picture of some old shoes that I took when I first got my digicam. So, I thought that'd be a great candidate. I played around with this image for probably half an hour and didn't take notes, but at one point I did accidentally lose the image and had to start over, so I was able to replicate my work fairly quickly. As I remember it: • Duplicate the background layer (I always leave the original image untouched as a reference point) • Smooth and "de-noise" the image using various tools such as "digical camera noise removal", "edge preserving smooth" and "noise ninja" (plugin). I use Corel's Paint Shop Pro, in case you don't recognize those terms. • Duplicate the smoothed layer and leave the original alone (I treat the basic smoothed layer as a second reference image in case I want to start over). • Play with local contrast enhancement (unsharp mask set at 50 pixels width with about 30 for strength) and PSP's "Clarify" command until I'm happy with the contrast. • Play with the histogram until I have the highlights blown out a bit and the shadows blocked up • Duplicate the layer, reverse the colors to a negative image, run the "soft focus" command to further diffuse the dark areas of the image. Convert it back to a positive image. Play with the opacity until I like what I see and merge the active layer down. • Duplicate the layer. Run Red Paw Media's RPM Beautifier plugin (free plugin) on a new layer (There are other plugins that do similar things - you're basically increasing the hue, diffusing the highlights and increasing the contrast all at once). Play with the opacity until I like what I see, merge the layers down. • Play with the HSL until it's where I want it. • Duplicate layers again and run PSP's "Sepia Tone" command. Play with the opacity until I like what I see, merge down. (I do this to warm the image without killing all the saturation.) • Add noise to taste • Add border. Add slight vignetting. • Et Voilà! Please feel free to comment.

Tess (Flickr Photo) - Great pet portrait! I love how "thoughtful" she looks! ------------------------------------------------------------ You have my vote for Challenge #2: Animal Portraits in Saturday Shutterbugs!

Flickr: Discussing VOTE- Challenge #2: Animal Portraits in Saturday Shutterbugs (Invited Photos Only (Flickr: Discussing VOTE - Sunday (9/23) Theme: Relaxation in Saturday Shutterbugs (Invited Photos Only!)) - #1 -1+2+3 #2 -1 #3 -1 #4 - #5 -1+2 #6 - #7 - #8 -

Flickr: Discussing OPEN: Challenge #4: Black and white in Saturday Shutterbugs (Invited Photos Only! (Flickr: Discussing VOTE - Sunday (9/23) Theme: Relaxation in Saturday Shutterbugs (Invited Photos Only!)) - #1 - 1 #2 - #3 - #4 - 1 #5 - #6 - 1+2 #7 - 1+2 #8 -

A Notable Lineage (2 of 2) (The print of the finger of the son of the man with the camera that captured this shot. on Flickr - Photo Sharing!) - See also:

A Notable Lineage (1 of 2) (The print of the finger of the son of the man with the camera that captured this shot. on Flickr - Photo Sharing!) - See also:

Flickr: Edit comment (The print of the finger of the son of the man with the camera that captured this shot. on Flickr - Photo Sharing!) - See also:

A Notable Heart (The print of the finger of the son of the man with the camera that captured this shot. on Flickr - Photo Sharing!) - See also:

Flickr: Discussing NEED MORE VOTES - Challenge #3: Statuesque... in Saturday Shutterbugs (Invited Ph (Flickr: Discussing VOTE - Sunday (9/23) Theme: Relaxation in Saturday Shutterbugs (Invited Photos Only!)) - #1 -1 #2 - 1+2 #3 -1+2+3+4+5 #4 -1+2+3 #5 - #6 -1+2+3+4+5 #7 - #8 -

Flickr: Discussing OPEN - Challenge #6: Things You Do on the Weekend in Saturday Shutterbugs (Invite (Flickr: Discussing VOTE - Sunday (9/23) Theme: Relaxation in Saturday Shutterbugs (Invited Photos Only!)) - #2. Hangin' out at the local diner...

Mug shot (Flickr Photo) - I actually like how stark and blown-out this image is. It works for me, but I like a little chaos mixed in with rigidity. I think the fact that the mug is broken means that purely straight lines everywhere else would be too much of a contradiction for me. Who says you cannot have pure whites or blacks in your art? Go for it!

Flickr: Discussing VOTE - Weekly Theme: Q is for... in Saturday Shutterbugs (Invited Photos Only!) (Flickr: Discussing VOTE - Sunday (9/23) Theme: Relaxation in Saturday Shutterbugs (Invited Photos Only!)) - #6 #4

Flickr: Night Images (Flickr: Discussing Look through the last person's photostream and pick your favorite night image! in Night Images) - I like this one: the details and contrasts are lovely: Rich (My night-time and low-light photos are here.)

Hangers On and the Number Five (Broken Finger and a Pout (desaturated) on Flickr - Photo Sharing!) - Yeah, the colors are nice and bold, I like that. The number five sticking out like that was pure luck. I didn't touch the hangers before I took the shot, so I was fortunate that there was something more interesting that just random hangars. Random hangers and a random number anyhow.