lindarobin

Members
  • Content count

    478
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by lindarobin

  1. The "anti-alias" check box that Amanda mentions also appears in my PSE 8, so very likely it's in PSE 9. I'm sure you'll also find the Select options in PSE 9 as well.
  2. There are also options ( in PSE v8) under Select such as Feather and Modify>Smooth.
  3. Beautiful arrangement and color choice! I was wondering about a masked/blended photo of her, filling a good part of the background. When I've made layouts for other people, masked/blended photo backgrounds really impressed.
  4. Are you putting square layouts into a square book?
  5. All photobook printing services that have the option to size and position our JPG to fill the entire page, are suitable. The one I use refers to it as "make this photo the background" which auto fills the entire page with my completed scrapbook JPG. Very convenient! The most important thing to incorporate into designing your scrapbook JPG is a safety zone/bleed area. Assume you will lose up to half an inch all around the outside edges, so design accordingly by keeping photos and text well away from the edges.
  6. I think Shutterfly only accepts JPG files, so that eliminates all the embellishments which are PNG. You have to create something using the PNGs, then export your creation as JPG.
  7. PSE is no longer INTEGRATED with Shutterfly. Like all other graphics programs, you just export your project as JPG, then upload the JPG to Shutterfly.
  8. I really enjoyed the Sparrow - must have been over 10 years ago, though. More recently, Ready Player One. Excellent, and soon to be a Steven Spielberg movie.
  9. How else would I ever get on the cover of a magazine? Hee hee ABR_ChicInstinSpec_Cluster2 SNU_AlteredLife_JournalCardsSPEC
  10. Fun magazine for women over 50
  11. When using the lighten blend mode, the photo background takes on the look of the chalkboard. Cool.
  12. This is very cute. The chalk frame goes well. Try a cropped in close-up version of the photo as well, and see how you like it.
  13. Hey, I'm glad that works for you, too! Seems like the latest version, the developers realized that we most often want to resize without changing the aspect ratio, so they removed the need to hold down an extra key.
  14. This happens to me, too (PSE9). Using the Alt key works.
  15. This was pretty simple, using a combination of threshold and charcoal. It doesn't look like someone drew with white chalk, but it's kind of nice, and may co-ordinate with the chalkboard theme. Perhaps applying the overlay blend (or some other blend mode) with the chalkboard image underneath, will have the desired effect.
  16. Your pages will not look distorted at 8x8 because it is still a square. It's just a smaller square. So yes, the text may need to be enlarged in order to be readable at the smaller size print. Online photobook printing services do offer 8x8 albums with "custom printed covers". So you can design a "frilly fabric" page as the cover. Once the photobook is printed, you can hybrid scrap the cover and glue on real ribbon, bows, etc. This is an example of a custom cover at a photobook printing site. You can design your background with any digital paper you want, and add as many embellishments as you want.
  17. I love the whole chalkboard look. Personally, I would just do the whole card as chalkboard art (no border, no strings, no corner brackets) with the picture of your daughter "drawn in white chalk". That requires some styles and filters, but I think it would look very cool.
  18. For the weekend color challenge - blue, green and white A special 12x9 photobook page for friend's Mom who is turning 75. Originally a red page. Used difference blend to change colors to blue/green. DCA_PIecesofMe_Paper LLA_BrushSet_SafeHarbor_Paper JRA_BecauseYouLoveMe_WordArt 2 embellishments from mymemories, used as masks
  19. Really cool metal wire frame filled with such fun photos, cleverly cut and matted. I want to try this! Wonderful details. So happy!
  20. http://scrapgirls.net/forum/gallery/image/167858-my-friends-mom/
  21. Go to youtube and search for "photo shop non-destructive editing". There are so many, and not all of them are good at explaining, but it's a start. I like this one. The guy is really good. You only have to watch it once to grasp the concept. You need to watch it several times to learn how to duplicate his examples. That being said, there are times when destructive editing is perfectly OK! Red-eye? Click-click gone. Looks perfect. Didn't need or want a layer mask to do it.
  22. To be clear - destructive editing is not a bad thing unless you want to go back and undo something specific many edits ago. If you reopen your project and find you made a mistake, you can't simply undo it. Fixing the mistake may be so difficult that you just have to start all over! It's like putting up drywall and wallpaper, then realizing you've covered up the only outlet in the room. Horrendous work to fix. However, with non-destructive editing, the drywall and wallpaper can magically disappear and reappear, making your fix-it work minimal. However, if you have not made a mistake that you have to go back and fix (or the mistake is so easy to fix at any point in time e.g. crop off more edge), who cares? Your finished printed project looks exactly the same. Destructive editing (specifically, not using layer masks) has absolutely nothing to do with print resolution. Zero, zilch, nada. Enlarging a photo is entirely dependent on its original pixel resolution. If you downsample an image i.e. permanently discard pixels, then you have lowered its resolution and therefore limited the amount it can be enlarged before pixelation becomes obvious.
  23. Destructive editing sounds bad, but it's not a crime. I do it all the time for simple edits, say red-eye removal. Destructive editing means that once you close your project, all your edits are permanent. So when I reopen my project, there is no red-eye. I am happy. I continue with the project. Now here is a story where I am not happy. I want to erase a cluttered background. I use an eraser and spend an hour painstakingly erasing around people's heads and bodies. Then I close my project and go have lunch. After lunch, I re-open my project and to my horror I see that I erased someone's ear and another person's finger! Curses, destructive editing! However, in an alternate universe, I don't use the eraser tool, I use a layer mask. Painting with a black brush "erases". I close my project and go have lunch. After lunch, I re-open my project. Uh-oh, a missing ear and finger. No problem. On my layer mask, I use a white brush to paint back in the missing parts. Yay, non-desructive editing! I am happy. I continue with the project. For edits that take a lot of time and precise selections, I want to do non-destructive editing with a layer mask.
  24. Hmm... yes, this is an unusual way to go about editing. I thought when you said you were using layers that you were talking about adjustment or mask layers. This is how graphic designers do "non-destructive" editing. It seems that you intuitively want to do non-destructive editing, but you are actually doing destructive editing on a copy. This is why you couldn't see edits you were making - your copied layer was covering the layer you were editing. If you turn off that top layer's visibility, you can see that you actually were making edits. However, I would not edit in this manner. You can google for "photoshop non-destructive editing" or "photoshop adjustment layers". Also check out YouTube videos on the subject.
  25. Once you have a particular edit perfected e.g. teeth whitened, merge those two layers together. Now you can continue editing the layer (directly as MariJ suggested) or add another adjustment layer (as Debby suggested). I have a hard time working with too many layers. My brain can't keep track of them all - what one layer is doing to another, and is it covering up what I'm trying to do on yet another. So I tend to merge layers when I'm done a particular edit. I guess most of my projects end up with 9 layers at the most.