>>1980532I'm the Anon who gave you the
>>1980475 advice.
I'm NOT the person who, in
>>1980520, felt
>>1980489 was over-blurred.
I like
>>1980489 and agree with you that it's the best version so far.
>>1980532 is under-blurred and is getting jaggies again.A sure sign of this: Look at her right hand pom-pom. You can see white pixels _inside_ the thickness of her outline.
That's also a sign of under-trimming before selecting the border to blur and darken.
IMHO, only thing wrong with
>>1980489 is the line at the very bottom. The process can leave a border around the entire image, depending on the order of selection. Look for it and erase.
