 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
You've got a bit of a thing about "sparklies" haven't you?... Is there
something you wanna tell us??
[only kidding ;-)]
Oh, yeah - lovely image by the way. It's like the image I tried to do,
except 982% better. I like that background...
Thanks.
Andrew.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Did you postprocess it? *shakes finger*
Good image anyway!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Other than resizing, no. The original
is 1280 x 1024, reduced to 66 %
Best,
S.
--
Steven Pigeon, Ph. D.
pig### [at] iro umontrealca
"Greg Edwards" <edw### [at] hotmailcomremovethis> wrote in message
news:155### [at] 40tudenet...
> Did you postprocess it? *shakes finger*
>
> Good image anyway!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 23:47:26 -0500, Steven Pigeon wrote:
> Other than resizing, no. The original
> is 1280 x 1024, reduced to 66 %
>
> Best,
>
> S.
Oh? Wow. Looks sharpened. Must be your resizer. Even better!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It seems to be missing a "luster" like quality to the finish. Hope this
helps.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
