Cool ! 8)
Désolé, je ne connais pas beaucoup l’italien, sauf “Ciao!”. ;D
The shading does show up better in your second set of images! Enough to suggest the three-dimensional nature of the monoliths, and at the same time to convey the total, light-absorbing blackness of them. But in any case, the most important thing is for you to translate your vision of what it should be into pixels on the screen! I’m looking forward to trying this skin out! Very original concept. And I like Kamulko!'s comments about the feminine. There’s a powerful mythic element involved there.
You may also want to try the Gimp (free, open-source software from http://www.gimp.org/downloads/ ). It’s a very powerful image-manipulation program – but maybe not quite as friendly to use at first as PhotoFiltre. I use both.
Just wanted to add: In my opinion, don’t worry about the size. Like Sasha said, you can’t please everybody. That’s why there are different skins (or as my father used to say, that’s why they make chocolate and vanilla): some for people who want a small, minimalist skin, others for people who want something more complex.
You meant on this one, right ?
http://img220.echo.cx/img220/8940/untitled10sn.jpg
Yes, I didn’t want to go all the way with “silver” shades… I still kept oily black feeling of those monoliths… that’s what Newton wanted to keep in the first place I believe… but this way, monoliths much better blends with 3D beauty in red… It’s up to him is he going to use that idea in his skin, or he rather wants to make something from the scratch. I just tried to help somehow if possible… Anyway, I’m really glad to see someone else is also doing something regarding skins…
Cheers people !
Okay, this is what I came up with today.
The first pic try to explain why we can’t see any edge on the upper monolith. It’s simply because with the camera lens type and subjective position, its edges are all hidden because I wanted it to be right in front of your eyes panorama (see the lines of its sides : they go farther from you) . So the sides of the upper monolith exist, but they are invisible from this view (kind of complicated explanations for just a skin… hahahahaha ;D).
The second pic shows the new one with more reflection and less dark (on the right) in comparison with the old (left). Try to ignore the aliasing or “broken lines” in the contours.
Do you think it’s still too dark?
Or do you think it’s enough clear to understand the shapes better?
Don’t get me wrong here : Again, I can’t thank enough Sasha for taking the time to help me by creating his generous image of explanation. 
But I’ll have no choice but to try something out of my own program in order to fix my own problem.
Thanks to all who will take time to tell if they like this one better or not. 8)
Newton, in my opinion 1-the second picture is a little better but the 3D effect is more visible inthe “base” than in the monolith. 2- Can you evaluate a long-red-haired woman instead of the short-haired? 3- Is it possible (very relevant point, I know) to give more 3D effect to the avast blueball?
ADDED: 4- Can you think to something like a “luminous edge” surrounding the figure of the woman?
Kamulko,
1 - That’s good. I’ll try to exaggerate it a little more to see.
2 - It’s certainly possible, but then I would have to start from scratch all over. Maybe in another skin. 
Actually, what I hesitated the most about the superheroine for a long while was the color of her costume… violet was my other option.
3 - The Avast blue ball is already the best I can. It initially looked a little too mat. So I increased the contrast a little, so it looks more “twinkling”. Note that on this particular pose, I also enhanced the eyes of the model, as she’s fascinated by the ball… Maybe like a crystal ball :P. It’s hard to tell, but I know the ball and the eyes are what’s the most “twinkling” compared to the rest of the pic. ;D
4 - It’s another thing possible, but it would need me to start all over from scratch.
About the color of the costume… yes… I had also this impression but I’ve imaginated that this was an important particular for your vision of the symbolism of the figure. Red=danger=passion=blood=love=hell=evil=force=life… and on and on. Red is the Good and Bad at the same time. Honestly, if I could choose, I would prefer the deep blue or the “electric green” (the black is possible only with the “luminous light” behind/around the woman).
This is looking very good, Newton. I should have been clearer, earlier; your presentation of your idea against a solid background, along with less jpg compression perhaps, made even the earlier version show up as more three-dimensional.
After re-reading bits of 2001, I think I understand that, in order to remain true to your original concept, shading (or should I say “lighting”) of the monoliths has to be kept to the minimum necessary to suggest solidity:
... Even in the brilliant earthlight, it was hard to see the object clearly; his first impression was of a flat rectangle that might have been cut out of carbon paper; it seemed to have no thickness at all. ... though he was looking at a solid body, it reflected so little light that he could see it only in silhouette. ... beyond the geometrically perfect shape of the thing, there was little to see. Nowhere were there any marks, or any abatement of its ultimate, ebon blackness. It was the very crystallization of night ... .(Arthur C. Clarke, [i]2001 A Space Odyssey[/i])
I’m not familiar with the 3D software you’re using; however, would it be possible and effective to use, in addition to variations of shade (in pure tones of grey), subtle variations of hue, with lighting effects giving a warmer or colder effect?
Kumulko! has suggested some interesting possibilities for future versions. I’ll add one which could be a variation on the luminous outline. When David Bowman finally “lands” on the “surface” of the large monolith, he finds it’s hollow and “full of stars.” Possibly a faint luminous and/or starry surround or background for the figure when she appears on mouseover – as if the vertical monolith then is filled with stars?
In any event, I think it’s turning out nicely, and look forward to seeing the finished skin.
... Even in the brilliant earthlight, it was hard to see the object clearly; his first impression was of a flat rectangle that might have been cut out of carbon paper; it seemed to have no thickness at all. ... though he was looking at a solid body, it reflected so little light that he could see it only in silhouette. ... beyond the geometrically perfect shape of the thing, there was little to see. Nowhere were there any marks, or any abatement of its ultimate, ebon blackness. It was the very crystallization of night ...[i](Arthur C. Clarke, 2001 A Space Odyssey)[/i]
Hey, that movie was on last night.
What a boring film. :-\
It’s been 15 or 20 years since I saw it last, I guess, but I recall enjoying it. Something of a major sf film in its day – around 1968 – if memory serves. I wouldn’t mind seeing it again, uncut and uninterrupted by commercials.
Regarding the movie, the cinema industry rated 2001 the highest rank possible or “chef d’oeuvre”. Very few films (not only in sci-fi, but of any genre) get this rate in cinema.
So for people too used to usual unnecessarily flashy hi-speed animation sci-fi movies, it can appear boring. 2001 is actually the only movie that describes emptyness of space the right way : there’s no sound in space. So how can we hear explosions in those myriads of “space scenes” in other sci-fi movies? Because nowadays movies without violence, lightening fast animation or big explosions sounds all way through don’t bring the millions.
Inconnu, once again, you seem to have understood my goal very clearly. I also have the book and the movie here, and you understand why I opted for such an extreme dark black. I want to thank you to remind me of this. I’ll let this thread go on for a while and continue to experiment with the constructive comments. At the same time though, I am beginning to think, with your remark here, that I could also accept the initial concept as it is.
On my PC, the monoliths look like they are creating a “hole” on my screen, especially the upper one, because it has no buttons or visible sides. ;D
Thanks a lot again.