In my second stamping, everything looked reasonably good, so I added an abundance of bling in shades of green to coordinate with the green spectrum ink. Note how five groupings of bling form a rough line from the upper left to lower right, with two other bunches creating a zigzag effect across each fern. Movement in a design is important, and you want the eye to move through the design pleasingly. I hope I achieved that with all this bling.
Yay, bling!
Now, I'm going to show you the unblinged version that I didn't stamp properly. The branch on the top left smeared close to the edge of the card. Now, this wasn't a huge deal (I debated trashing it at this point but figured I keep going just to make sure the design worked), and the second branch stamped nicely. Hmm, maybe bling would distract enough from the slight smearing on the top left.
But then I didn't properly ink the sentiment so that the final "L" looks awful. You can click on the image to see this better. Since I had dorked up the first branch AND the focal-point sentiment, I knew this version was not bling-worthy. But I took a picture to show you that yes, indeed-ee, I screw up. Regularly.
I'll cut the front off the card, put the clean back in my scrap drawer, and pitch the front in the recycling. Lots of people might flip the stamped front over and use it, but I generally don't, as paper does have two sides!
Most of my layers, however, go on plain white bases with dimensionals, and I noticed long ago that colors on the back of popped panels reflect out onto the white base, often with unfortunate, ugly results. If you layer on colored card stock or use mats of colored card stock, this won't be a problem for you.
And there you have it. My AR/OC thought process for this card.
Supplies
stamps: Hero Arts branch (discontinued wood-mounted rubber), Papertrey Signature Greetings
ink: Kaleidacolor
paper: Papertrey white
accessories: lots of rhinestones
You are so right, properly placed bling is so effective - I play around with it quite a bit before adhering. You've got it just perfect, very pleasing to the eye. Beautiful - pure and simple.
ReplyDeleteGreat card, the balance looks perfect and I love the way you graduated the bling the same as the ink. Now a question, hope I dont sound totally stupid but I get the OC but what is the
ReplyDeleteAR = An*l Retentive. Can't spell it out because then sad, strange little men end up here. So disappointing for them.
DeleteSorry hit enter, meant to say whats AR
ReplyDeleteBenefit that both issues were on the same card...and what a difference the bling makes! When I've had stamping issues with a line I have at times been able to fix it with the same color of marker... Thanks for explaining details of your process, I keep learning and it does make this hobby more enjoyable!
ReplyDeletelove all that bling on the second card; the card is lovely.
ReplyDeleteI don't do bling very well so I rarely use it, but when I am stamping I often think of you adding bling to my cards! LOL love these colors too.
Thanks for sharing your mistakes, Susan. It makes me feel a bit better about the mistakes I make. The other day, I had to make an Easter card for my grandson 4 times. I kept reminding myself of an older post of yours saying "It's only paper." I mostly use clear stamps so I had problems with the wooden stamp I used for my grandson's card. Perhaps a stamp positioner would have helped. I may invest in one later. Your bling is always perfectly placed. I've been making cards for about 6 years, and though I love it, I struggle constantly. I love your lessons. (BTW, I will stamp on the back of a paper with a messed up image.)
ReplyDeleteSusan, I am a faithful follower of your blog, and I LOVE your work! This is beautiful!
ReplyDeleteYou have a great eye for placement. I love how you share your mess ups as well as your successes. Your blogs are very educational. Thanks
ReplyDeleteEverything you do is much better than anything I could do (I am not visual whatsoever). You got talent!
ReplyDeleteIt's so PRETTY! I thought you'd used markers to get the gradient color, but Kaleidacolor? Of course!
ReplyDelete