I am here. Just digesting all of the suggestions. The bird is not an image but a brush that I tried to paint, I could incorporate a real hawk but was trying to learn how to not use so much stock if that makes sense. I'll try to redo him. I will assume that when I moved the mask and revealed it caused the dups on the queens lace. Not clear on what I will do with that. Have alot of ideas but not sure of where I am going! Thank you all for your input!

Any time,    

A good idea is if you want to paint an item, to study images of it, and incorporate bits of what you see in to what you paint. Even with brushes they can be finessed, all i did was add a bit of transparency to your birds edges then add some texture and change the lighting a bit.

Not sure if folks know this but to see the image "full size" in FF click on it, click on it again in the new window to zoom, then right click and select "view image" from the menu. From here you can see the details of the edits.

I fail to see where a 'brush' differentiates from a 'stock' image.  BOTH are pre-drawn/made/painted/created images taken and used.

Whether it's copy/cut-and-paste from someone else's art... or an included image built/found within an image generating proggy it's still going to be ONLY as good as the vision of the user.

Cutting and using 'any old blob' of graphic MUST be done with an understanding of [in the case of landscapes] Nature.... of space... perspective...depth of field .... lighting.... atmospherics even, when clouds, sun, shadow, etc are involved.

Attention to detail.... like making sure you are NOT cheap-shotting the work by cloning - is what makes the difference between point-and-click image generators and actual HUMANS doing the work.

Again....those clones can be concealed by MANUAL editing.  This image SHOULD be a SINGLE Bitmap [even if it isn't yet...and comprises layers]....when it's a single bitmap it is IDENTICAL to such critters as Mona Lisa - each bit belongs to each other bit...and can be blended and worked as a whole ... and not lose its sanity and direction in a sea of layers.

Image generators and other 'shortcuts' have no intelligence, vision or soul.  They are machines.  Machines [by definition] do NOT create art.

The VERY FIRST time I saw a fractal [probably decades ago]  I thought "wow...the mathematics of line generation must be insane".

At no time did I think "wow! masterly Art".

Those cloned 'grass' bits..... they are as valid as clipart in Word95 .... Junk, mostly, that cheapens the result.

HG_E's ver of the hawk is significantly better....the feathers trailing on the wings look more translucent....there's less of the 'cutout' look and more of the sense of 'mass'.

Even if you don't use a photo of a hawk as an applique you still need to look at photos/real hawks/birds to get a sense of what to emulate.... and how.

A 15-20% blur with a small radius brush can achieve a similar result.

Okay, I changed out the brush on the bird and tried to make it more realistic. I have redone the mask on the ground as well. Tried to fix the pixel problem with the clouds. I tried adding some mtns but they just did not look right. I have a valid question. Working on an LCD screen, when the image is directly in front of me sometimes it appears too light but when veiwing it from a short distance, of say five feet, it appears to be right. Which should I go with? I would assume the up close because that would be how the veiwer is seeing it.

Looks better. Tho IMO the two smaller bushes "center right" should be as focused "crisp" as the grass along the ridge line running equal distance from the camera. Field of depth,vs focus. If i recall correctly when snapping a pic, everything in focus will be within a certain distance from the camera, depending on the distance the lens was set to. Everything else will lose focus or clarity to a degree as it gets further away or closer to the focal point in range of depth. The focus or lack there of must remain consistent throughout the entire image to keep the "realistic feel" of a scenic wall.

I have seen walls where there were plenty of clear focal points onset to blurry backgrounds or vise versa, this casts off the illusion of reality trying to be created and allows for pinpointing of the "Placed" items.

As for your query, I imagine your "typical"user will invariably not be standing 5 feet away from the monitor,so I would summit to utilize the view point from which you make your creations. Also I have noticed with my laptop if I angle the monitor back slightly it loses some of the washout brightness and gives a deeper look to my screen, you might try that if possible. It also helps keep my headaches down with brighter pages like these.

Keep up the hard work.

HG.

It's a beautiful fall day here in Colorado, so I went out this morning and took some pictures of the distant mountains in front of our house. Wanted to see if I could incorporate them into my image. My question is, does this work or do I have them too hazy?

Yes, it works just fine...improves the result as it helps define the horizon and thus restores/reinforces perspective.

Now, just get in there with a push brush [my fave tool in PSP] and deal with the cloned plants.  They CAN be actually DRAWN....blobs of colour and thin, whispy lines for stalks.

Pretend you are outside...where you took your photos...with some acrylics and canvas.... look around.... there WILL BE NO click-this-button-to-repeat-image option....

Okay, but they were not cloned. I removed the ones you pointed to, actually redid the whole ground area and the plants are exactly as they appeared in nature. I will surmise that the mountains are not too hazy?

I believe she's using Photoshop, and there is no push brush in Photoshop (if CS3 or higher, she could use the liquify function, but I don't think she has that high of a level of Photoshop).

yep.....way better with the mountains....  

I think so too. Also, I would lighten the left side of the bird's body.

The mountains really add to the image (not too hazy) , it's really looking good!

Frankie this last version is very nice. By far the best one yet. I must commend you in your perseverance to make this wall better. I know how how some of the comments have gotten to you but still faced with the impossible you have made something nice into something beautiful. No I don't think the mountains are too hazy. They add a bit of down home to your image.