I am really new to this and I accept all critisism, comments and suggesstions

Are you new to Graphic Design or the forum Sailedship? I personally don't like filters of any kind. Once I see a filter applied to a graphic "Lens Flare" I immediately find no interest in it. Now, with that said. When I first started using Photoshop, I must have used all the filters in every thing I did. It was fun, and that’s how you get to know the software.

This attached image. I find the stars placement distracting along with the “hollow” centers. To improve this image I would fill in the centers and have the stars all different sizes. I would also change the opacity of some of them are more apparent and others are faded. Depth.

This image is a 5

Thanks for the suggestions. Lets just say I am new to everything, which would include the forum, adobe photoshop and graphics it's self.
And what are wrong with filters? I think their fun...then again I am a noob.

Nothing wrong with filters, they are fun, and its always neat to see what the newest ones are, but don't rely on them to carry your design.

I'll post the link of the image when I am done correcting the mistakes.

Will you be aroud for further suggestions?

as long as this site does not go offline in the next year..

The key to using filters well is for the viewer to not be able to tell you used them.

How can I use filters without the viewer knowing I use them. If you can't explain show me an example.

intergrate them into your design well.

Skinns said it perfectly - do not relay on them to carry your design.

Let me rephrase. If you are making a new image simply by applying one filter, then that is the wrong approach.

Filters should be used in subtle ways in different parts of an image to enhance the look. You don't want the viewer to look at the image and see it as a big filter. A monkey can do that.

Is this any better?

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y23...per/finish.jpg

I think the main problem is your aproach... Try thinking about how you want the finished picture to look, before you even start, then play with different techniques/filters until you get the picture you had imagined!

If you look at the image and can instantly see that a zoomed radial blur was used, then it hasn't really worked. You want the effect to appear as if it's a natural phenominon (well, you might not i suppose!?!), but you get the drift!

A very good exercise in photoshop is tomerge together seperate photograph parts to create a composition which "appears" as if it was created by camera - without manipulation.

This will teach you more advanced techniques and uses of photoshop (color, saturation, levels, etc.). Then you will also need to deal with placement, scale, perspective and so on to create a successfull piece believable to the eye.

Then after you have everything put together use filters if you feel they will enhance your composition - sparingly.

This will make for a much more successfull design and beliveable manipulation of the parts then so prior.

For instance, take a background and car photo then merge them together to appear as one. As if the car was actually shot with background in the origional photograph.

Here is something i did afew weeks back for my photoshop assinment.

- Not my most successfull piece (vector all the way,lol) - but you might get the idea.



The cup and water bottle were shot seperatly... if i can find the origional photo's i will show you.

After i merged them to create the illusion of one picture instead of two.

Do you see the filters?

That is because they are used very sparingly at the end to bring out the highlights in the water. This is what is meant when we say intergrate them into your composition.

Use filters to enhance individual parts of the design... not to carry it.

Generally, i find the best guidline in using filters is to use them as if they are textures... not effect.

What i mean is use them to enhance individual parts of the natural picture compostion.

ex. if i need to emphasis the appearence of a rusted shovel then I use filters to do this - in sparingly amounts.

This advice is only relevent on a more naturalistic appearence success.

If your goal is for your work to look as if it was unnaturalistic and fake then my whole "spiel" is irrelvent.

In the end, it all depends on yourdesign goals per a particular piece.

However, generally speaking work with a more successfull presence looks as if the piece appears as a whole rather then individual parts (i.e. elements, filters, color, ect).

Everything needs to be intergrated well in combination of the parts. This will make for a more naturalistic and beliveable representationthen so prior - if that is what you are going for.

if not... then disregaurd


hope that helps

furthermore... something can not be rated without knowing the origional design outcomes and goals for a particular piece.

It is unjust to judge work on individual standards on successfull appeal.

Individual standards differ so you must tell use what we need to judge you on (ie. naturalistic qualities, unrelaistic qualities, composition, etc).

We need to know your intended outcomes/goals for the piece. Only then can be judge those in conjunction with your piece presented.