davidgoodland saidI would prefer to expect them to have knowledge. I have an author that doesn´t communicate and perhaps removed the plugin without notice and Envato doesn’t know ?
You can’t expect them to act on something they have no knowledge of.
You can’t expect Envato to automatically know about an issue you’re having. If you buy something from a shop then find out it doesn’t work, would you expect the shop to automatically know about it and offer a refund, or would you get in touch with them and tell them about the problem?
Would not be better if Envato would be checkin all of this issues and reporting back to buyers with an explanation?
But how would the staff know about these issues? Somebody – usually the buyer – would need to get in touch with them and let them know. There are over 1.5 million items listed on the marketplaces so you can’t realistically expect every one of them to be re-reviewed at regular intervals.
Anyway, the answer here is simple and has been stated many times. Contact support and give them all the details. You can’t refuse to take the necessary steps to get a refund and then complain that you haven’t been given a refund.
I agree with Moonworks – it’s possible that the author, after recieving questions or complaints, removed the item instead of dealing with the buyers’ issues. If this is what happened then you’d need to let Envato know about it. You can’t expect them to act on something they have no knowledge of.
In the case of files that don’t work, I’m sure getting a refund wouldn’t be difficult, but, as others have said, you’d just need to get in touch with support and explain the situation.
Having multiple accounts can be useful for many reasons – selling both exclusively and non-exclusively and collaborations, for example. It could also be useful to have separate accounts for different marketplaces or possibly even for different types of item in one marketplace.
The only issue I’d have with it is if people were selling the same items through multiple accounts, but that isn’t allowed anyway.
Good point about Liquify, Zeplix, glad you said that. Force of habit means I tend to go straight to Warp in a lot of cases, but Liquify would almost certainly be better for this.
Edit > Transform > Warp. It’ll show a mesh over the image or selection you’re warping – you can either click and drag the mesh or use the control points and bars to manipulate the warp.
Make sure you make a copy of the texture as you’ll likely need a few different warped layers for the whole facek. I used one layer for the nose and another for the rest in my small example and masked out any overlap. If I was doing the whole image I’d probably have separate layers for each finger, one for the rest of the hand, one for the neck, one for the face and one for the nose.
It’s definitely heading in the right direction, but the texture still stands out as being too flat, particularly on the fingers, nose and jawline. This is a quick and messy attempt, so forgive the poor quality.
What I tried to do, which hopefully shows, is to make the texture follow the subject’s skin. It’ll take a bit of time with the warp tool and masking, but the result would be much more realistic, if done well.
Also, your latest edit is pretty dark. I’d bring a bit more of the brightness of the previous image back, personally.
Here are a few things I’d change:
The blood. A trickle of blood would be thicker/wider than that.
The symbol. It has what look like highlights on the bottom edges, which makes it look a little off as the subject is lit from the top left.
The skin(?) texture. I’m assuming it’s intended to be a skin texture as it doesn’t appear to have been applied to the eyes. If so, at the moment it’s too obvious that it’s just a layer that’s been added over the top of the photo. It should follow the direction and contours of the skin to look realistic. Also, the blending mode used makes the texture less visible in the brighter areas, which you may want to do something about.
The hair. I’d allow a little more of the detail of the hair to show through and either remove the visible earring or possibly add one in on the other side to even it out. I’d also edit out where you can see through the hair to the background (just above her hand).
Can you explain what is happening when I save an image using Photoshop at 180 pixels/inch resulting in a file of 4.54mb; I then save exactly the same picture with the same dimensions and making no alterations other than changing the pixels/inch to 72 and then have a file only 991kb?
It sounds like you’ve got the “Resample Image” box checked when you’re changing the PPI . Resampling changes the pixel dimensions of an image so that the printed dimensions will remain the same. For example, if you had an image that was 180×180 pixels at 180 PPI , then resampled the image to 72 PPI , the pixel dimensions would change to 72×72 pixels to keep the printed dimensions the same size, which in this case would be 1” square.
Resizing, as opposed to resampling, keeps the pixel dimensions of an image the same, but changes the amount of pixels that will be printed per inch. A 180 x 180 pixel image printed at 180 PPI would be 1” square, but the same image printed at 72 PPI would be 2.5” square as there are less pixels being printed per inch of paper.
When you’re designing for the web the important factors are usually the pixel dimensions and file size. PPI doesn’t matter unless you’re designing for print as it deals with physical measurements which aren’t relevant to web images.
I’m sure I could’ve explained that much better. Hopefully you get what I mean
There shouldn’t be any technical reason for web files that aren’t 72 PPI being rejected, as it makes absolutely no difference to how an image is displayed on screen. In fact, the 72 PPI “standard” was created my Apple because that’s what their monitors display at the native resolution. Windows on the other hand uses 96 PPI . Laptop screens and non-standard monitors are a whole different kettle of fish, though. My laptop screen displays 140 pixels per inch, for example.
More confusion comes from mixing up pixels per inch and dots per inch. DPI is a printing term, and refers to the printer rather than the file. For example, a 1200 DPI printer will print 1,200 dots of ink per inch regardless of the PPI of the file being printed. So, if you were printing a 300 PPI file with a 1200 DPI printer, each pixel of the printed image would be made up of 16 dots of ink.
The PPI of a file only comes into play when designing for print. It doesn’t affect web files at all as the PPI that you actually see is defined by your monitor and screen resolution.
Having said all that, it wouldn’t be considered good practice to provide web files at anything other than 72 or possibly 96 PPI , despite the fact that it makes no actual difference. I would imagine that would be why non-72 PPI web files get rejected.