Revised Baby Invitaion

The only thing for me that looks odd is using the " @ " instead of the word " at " .

This does look a lot better without the previous gritty font.

__
Online Portfolio - in progress
jammindesigns.co.uk
scrapbook.jammindesigns.co.uk

hi, the card is looking much better now.
i would suggest you to keep a nice clean border around the photo. so it does not touch all the margins... because you got fixed dimensions i would try to shrink the photo a bit.
a 0.3inch margin should make the piece more elegant.
maybe you want to try it out.

I like the card, but a few things are bothering me.

That brush or stamp that you are using in the background should be on a layer behind the photo and frame. Right now it is running over the right side of the picture frame and doesn't look right. I also think you could lighten up that stamp a little bit to make the type a little easier to read.

The photo of the baby is straight on, and the photo frame is tilted. In other words, if this frame were set on a desk, the baby picture would be crooked. Not a huge problem, but it looks strange.

I'm curious if RNCH CUCMONGA is correct. I am familiar with Rancho Cucamonga, so I would tend to believe that is a typo, but maybe not. I also agree with Jammo that using the @ symbol does not look right. You can't mix a sophisticated look and shorthand. Things in this style tend to look better spelled out. If you look at a nice wedding invitation, you'll see how they spell "nineteen hundred ninety nine" (as an example).

On the bible quote, the words Joshua 24:15 should be on their own line under the quote because it is a credit.

I think it looks nice, and that is a great photo of the baby. It should be well received.