Wapsi Square Forum

Well done!

Glad you've got the image posting thing sorted out. Looking forward to more!

You might want to put the more risqué ones behind a NSFW warning link, and instead of using the img tag, use the url tag and direct it to where the image is on your Photobucket account... (That last one in particular, comes to mind...)

lake_wrangler wrote:You might want to put the more risqué ones behind a NSFW warning link, and instead of using the img tag, use the url tag and direct it to where the image is on your Photobucket account... (That last one in particular, comes to mind...)

Please do.

Yes, people do look at things like this from work on their breaks, and for some workplaces it does matter.

--FreeFlier

Kudos to both Shadow (whose effort I had previously missed, and who made me laugh) & Bolverk whose efforts demonstrate a light and deft hand w/ the additions of both textures and 'extra-bits'.

(Ive always wished Paul had put those extra-bits in from the beginning, but I can mind-shop them in, in my imagination.)

I hope none take offense, I find the modifications are done both artfully & tastefully as well.

Thanks for bringing up that concern, I've sanitized my original post.

I think.

Bolverk wrote:Thanks for bringing up that concern, I've sanitized my original post.

I think.

Yes, and no...

Actually, is it indeed sanitized. However, you might want to consider linking to the individual images, rather than to the album the images are contained in. The reason for this is that as you add images to that album, it will become more difficult to know what you are referring to in newer posts added to this thread, unless you start linking to the images themselves. To do so, just look at each image in your Photobucket, and instead of using the IMG portion of the "Share this photo" section, use the "Direct" link.

So your original post would now look like this:

Bolverk wrote:*Edited to put the images behind a link, due to NSFW-ishness.*

Been practicing my photoshopping, and I thought I'd add a little sexiness to some of my favorite pics.
I know it doesn't necessarily fit the character development, personalities, or canon (especially the colors), but I figured if I was fooling around with this stuff I might as well share it. Somebody might like it.

[Statement modified by lake_wrangler]I am placing them behind links, due to NSFW: [/Statement modified by lake_wrangler]

Feedback has been very useful! Thanks everyone! I have included links to Paul's original art for comparison purposes. A lot of the changes I made are minor. Maybe I should post side-by-side? I dunno.

[Section below modified by lake_wrangler, to show how to do it with individual links]

December 29, Perfect Dress, original:
http://wapsisquare.com/wp-content/uploa ... -dress.jpg
Modified:
http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k117/ ... gqqbem.jpg

December 30, Suck on a Lemon, original:
http://wapsisquare.com/wp-content/uploa ... -lemon.jpg
Modified:
http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k117/ ... gkdxdl.jpg

December 31, New Year's Eve, original:
http://wapsisquare.com/wp-content/uploa ... rs-eve.jpg
Modified:
http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k117/ ... 0klyzr.jpg

(I originally posted here: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=2944. )

[Nerdgasm/diarrhea of the keyboard - i.e. additional stuff for completeness sake]
A few notes about the URL tag on the forum:

If you post a long URL on its own, it will show up truncated, using ellipses, but will still work. Using the following: will result in this:
http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k117/ ... 0klyzr.jpg

Whereas using this (inserting the link inside a URL tag): results in this (the full URL text showing up as a link, without being truncated):
http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k117/ ... 0klyzr.jpg

Apparently, so does using the URL tag without a specific URL specified in the tag, provided the text between the tags is itself a URl (just learned that today): Also results in the same as the above example:
http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k117/ ... 0klyzr.jpg



Finally, I noticed one more thing about the links provided by Photobucket. The first link ("Email & IM") directs to an HTML page as part of the link:
http://s86.photobucket.com/user/bolverk ... r.jpg.html

The second link provided ("Direct") points to the image itself (a jpg, in this case), but clicking on the link will still take you to the same page:
http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k117/ ... 0klyzr.jpg

You can see, by looking at the two links, that the only difference between them is the ".html" added at the end of the "Email & IM" link. What difference does that make, you might ask? Not much, if you actually click on the link. However, for those who use a browser extension that pops up the full size image when hovering over a thumbnail link or a direct link (like the second example just above), it will make the image appear without having to click on it to go to the Photobucket page. I use the "Hover Zoom" extension for the Chrome browser, and that's what it does. Why would you want to use one over the other, I can't tell you. As long as people know that the link is there because of NSFW reasons, they may still just want to hover over the link to see the image (takes less time to load than going to the actual page, which then needs to load the rest of the Photobucket stuff). But if you don't want people to just hover over, but to actually go to the Photobucket page, for whatever reason, then you would use the first link provided (Email & IM").

It's up to you, but I think the "Direct" link should be sufficient.

To add to lake_wrangler's nerdgasm, if you use the url tags then the text of the link doesn't have to resemble the url at all.

For example:
produces

some other text

(Obviously, this link doesn't actually go anywhere interesting.)

(There are many of us who 'Know Stuff!' and find learning new things enjoyable...) Thx people...

This needed to be done -- especially now that I've got my tablet working again...

Ooogh.

Would it be at all meaningful to you, if I were to say I thought that this particular collection of colors would have been right at home in the interrogation scene in
"Retief and the Warlords"?

Dave wrote:Ooogh.

Would it be at all meaningful to you, if I were to say I thought that this particular collection of colors would have been right at home in the interrogation scene in
"Retief and the Warlords"?

It's not that bad.

And they haven't uncorked the aroma of sanctity yet.

And even that wasn't as bad as dealing with the paper golems . . . unless I get a plasma cannon!

--FreeFlier

Dave wrote:Ooogh.

Would it be at all meaningful to you, if I were to say I thought that this particular collection of colors would have been right at home in the interrogation scene in
"Retief and the Warlords"?

Ah, no, actually -- haven't heard of it. Following her plant theme, I kept her purple hair, added pink to her gray skin, themed her in green and yellow, and the red as offset. A pale blue background seemed a suitable frame.

So now I have a reference to look up!

And, wow! Blindly I've matched an Amazon book cover. Hmmm -- maybe I'm finally getting the Palette thing sorted out, eh?

Funny, I went with a different color palette:

Who's to say that her color perceptions are the same as ours?

There's enough variation between ordinary humans . . .

--FreeFlier

Not gonna finish it tonight, just a little WIP of what I'm working on:

Yeah, I don't think Bud is that pasty white...

Do let us know when you finish it, because I'm gonna want to print it off...

Applause! Looking forward to the finished product!

Done. This was truly an awful picture to color from a technical standpoint. (thin, not completely black lines and lots of JPG artifacts) If I felt like spending a couple of weeks on it I would have cleaned it up leaving pure unshaded line art but whatevers.



edit: updated Monica's eye color

Clapclapclapclapclap