Couple, Washington Park (Page 2): Here 'tis.

jim hill Loc: Springfield, IL

minniev wrote:

I looked at this one several times before commenti... (show quote)

Here 'tis.

Couple, Washington Park - Sans Topaz

(Download)

mallen1330 Loc: Chicago western suburbs

Uuglypher wrote:

Jim,
Looking closely at the "portcullis"(which is not, in fact, a portcullis) ...

It's a "pergola".

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

jim hill wrote:

Here 'tis.

I prefer this one. I think it is absolutely grand, crow, pagoda (or whatever it is), cat and all. The moon is pretty wonderful too, and it can be mistaken for a cloud in the other version.

Have you tried blending the topaz one with the non topaz one on layers? I have never tried it with the squiggly filter (not sure it's exact name) but I often do that with Topaz because some of its filters are a little too strong for what I'm trying to do. I'm wrangling with one as we speak, not sure which of us will win, me or Topaz.

Thanks for sharing the other version, hope you didn't have to do too much digging...

jim hill Loc: Springfield, IL

minniev wrote:

I prefer this one. I think it is absolutely grand,... (show quote)

The problem is that there are different versions under different titles. Blame it on age.

There have been some postings where Topaz was used minimally. That would be ideal. Have to learn how to do that on my own. Has to do with sliders in combination, methinks.

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

jim hill wrote:

The problem is that there are different versions under different titles. Blame it on age.

There have been some postings where Topaz was used minimally. That would be ideal. Have to learn how to do that on my own. Has to do with sliders in combination, methinks.

For me, the topaz sliders are very tricky and sometimes don't do exactly what I think they will. Likewise its masking tool, which seems to have a mind all its own.

Thus, I often end up, if adjustment within Topaz won't work right, moving on to layering and brushing in the effect at a reduced opacity so the original can show as much as I want and where I want. (such as that cute moon).

jim hill Loc: Springfield, IL

minniev wrote:

For me, the topaz sliders are very tricky and sometimes don't do exactly what I think they will. Likewise its masking tool, which seems to have a mind all its own.

Thus, I often end up, if adjustment within Topaz won't work right, moving on to layering and brushing in the effect at a reduced opacity so the original can show as much as I want and where I want. (such as that cute moon).

I have heard y'all talking about layering for lo these many moons but I have yet to do it. I don't know how to do it with my Serif and don't recall an occasion where it might have been necessary. I am pretty sure Serif has layers but I haven't any idea how to use them.

I think I'll load the manual and try to see what I'm missing. When I decided to use a composite it's done with my clonig tool. Have to be careful to get the rights size beofre cloning but it has served me fairly well. Is that a case where layering could be helpful? Amongst other procedures?

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

jim hill wrote:

I have heard y'all talking about layering for lo t... (show quote)

Oh my yes my friend. A whole new world will open to you. Just to get you started https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdWU76k3Oic. Once you get it figured out you may never leave the computer again, with all those wonderful images you have to harvest from. Infinite...

Don't know Serif, but in PS you can add your element on a layer and then resize in a second without bothering other layers such as your background. You have to wrap your mind around masking to make things visible and invisible, and a few other tricks but once it clicks, you're off to the races.

Think of layers of cellophane or glass with images on them, stacked up. That's layers. Where the glass is clear you can see through to the next layer, all the way to where the glass is painted over with some image part. But you can jump to that part and mask out (erase) something else, or paint in something else on whichever layer you want it.

It will make sense to you, I predict, because of your background.

jim hill Loc: Springfield, IL

minniev wrote:

Oh my yes my friend. A whole new world will open t... (show quote)

Thanks Judy,

I will check into it tomorrow before rehab. Who knows - maybe a whole new world will open up to me.

I am going to print out your response, if it's alright with you. If not, just say so.

And thanks for your willingness to share. So very helpful.

Jim

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

jim hill wrote:

Thanks Judy,

I will check into it tomorrow before rehab. Who knows - maybe a whole new world will open up to me.

I am going to print out your response, if it's alright with you. If not, just say so.

And thanks for your willingness to share. So very helpful.

Jim

You do whatever you want with it. You are in for a treat, it will make you really crazy for a couple of days while you figure out what to do.

If you want to hide a layer and see the one below it, you create a black layer mask on that layer and paint in white to reveal the things you want to keep from the top layer. If you want to show most of a layer, create a white layer mask and paint in black to hide parts of it and reveal the things you want to show through from the layer below.

That's the formula.Black hides, white reveals. The opacities of the layers also controls how transparent that whole layer is. Yell if you start pulling your hair out.

jim hill Loc: Springfield, IL

minniev wrote:

You do whatever you want with it. You are in for a... (show quote)

An offer I can't turn down. Thanks, my dear. You are a gem.

jim hill Loc: Springfield, IL

mallen1330 wrote:

It's a "pergola".

Even if the sections are not connected. Which they aren't. I know it looks like a pergola but is that true with this configuration?

mallen1330 Loc: Chicago western suburbs

jim hill wrote:

Even if the sections are not connected. Which they aren't. I know it looks like a pergola but is that true with this configuration?

I had to look more closely to see that. Not a pergola, definitely not a portcullis. Perhaps we can call it a Japanese Torii Gate. Perhaps we can call it a night?

jim hill Loc: Springfield, IL

mallen1330 wrote:

I had to look more closely to see that. Not a pergola, definitely not a portcullis. Perhaps we can call it a Japanese Torii Gate. Perhaps we can call it a night?

Not 'til I have my sarsaparilla.

I Googled Portcullus. Have no idea where the docent (my term) of the park district came up with that name.