i made a catbox album for my three (3) captions so far:
https://catbox.moe/c/7vd589

i added "stroke" (outline, in this case black) text versions of each caption, and also realized that "merging" text layers in gimp before reducing the opacity makes the black text layer not bleed through the white, so fixed "stroke" and "drop shadow" versions are included

i actually incorrectly tried to fix the black text layer bleed-through by adding a white text layer on top, but obviously basic logic dictates that as long as the black bleeds through, the white is compromised. but it took me a second to realize that. but i recorded my screen as i fixed it:
https://files.catbox.moe/hwdnmf.mp4

i'm really feeling not having material to caption, so i might try editing smegma soon, even procrastinating as much as i do
>>11346233
>and i don't know how to unselect a selection
i learned this is bottom left of the "selection editor" at the top right
>>11346138
sorry, the lighting stuff you said in your post before basically entirely went over my head. i didn't follow at all, besides you saying that the light source should dictate where the shadows are. but, with your trying angelauxes' style of smegma, i see, now, that i was intimidated by it being 3D, but if you can depict 3D, it's doable. but i still think you're not seeing the distinction i do between angelauxes' and mamimi's smegma. angelauxes' smegma itself requires shading, because you need such to depict the smegma being clumps. mamimi's smegma does no such thing, so to me it appears 2D. i keep saying it without adding any new information, so i'm not getting it across any better. i get that for example, under the dick, mamimi's smegma gets darker because it's in the shadow. but the smegma itself does not have a physical mass that is casting a shadow, so to me it looks easier
>>11347327
i think there might be too much in this one, but to me these capture angelauxes's smegma perfectly (unless video quality is obfuscating the detail)