Keiphus

This thread is funny.

I have the completed one... the computer it is on is acting silly... I'll try and get it up later... Anyone wanna do a 4 piece mural with me? If so we can claim 7,8,15,16 or something.... Let me know, otherwise I'll take #2

Your sig looks fine to me.... I think you did it right but like the other guy said, it's a problem with IE.

Exactly my concern.

What's it for?

Thanks. I actually did that at school today because I didn't have anything better to do. I'm going out of town on the 10th and won't be back until the 13th. I have a huge project due at work on the 15th, and we haven't even started on it yet. Which means I'll be working my [wagon] off starting tomorrow. That's what you get when you are trying to do so many projects at once... Anywho, I'll be busy for a while, if there are other ones left after the 15th and I have time I'll try to get around to it.

Had some free time... Kinda sloppy, just eyeballed most of the lines. Was having a hard time with the mesh at the top. Tried using the meshtool and did not achieve a very nice result. I need to work with it a bit more.

Are you really playing RS again?! Got trusty walmartchamp by your side... :lol: I like the first one, only because I think the second one's text isn't as good. Nice to see you around.

I was thinking about this the other day, and I came up with a concept you might try and illustrate... Try maybe making the feather have that fiery phoenix attribute, but then make it into a quill pen. This would illustrate both the Fenix part of the word, and (if done correctly) would also show the Design part of the name. That might be something fun to play with.

youneverceasetoamazeme. Your stupidity is beyond all measure. I didn't go offtopic at all, you are just too thick to understand what I'm saying. I clicked the "Reply" button just now with the full intention of proving you wrong, and making you look more stupid. But I think your counting skills have done that for me, so I won't waste my time. Good day.

I'd be interested to know how you made the mountain, my deal pupil. :twisted: Because it looks too good; for you. :P jk jk jk Excellent job, I think you particularly (sp?) excelled on the shoreline and the clouds. I do think though, that the clouds are bit too 3d... there seems to almost be a shadow behind them, and it doesn't look all that realistic. I also don't like how dark the undershadow on them is, bit too gray for me... Maybe a lighter blue/white? For your first try, excellent job.

Erm, I really don't think this makes sense... How does taking a picture of a pre-made girl and working on from there, yield the same result as you illustrating/drawing the girl up personally? I really don't think it does, cause your using someone else's artwork and they would have their own style/skill/etc... Not to mention that THEY made it, and you'd have to explain that you didn't make the linework... Btw, why do you speak of us as "children", when in reality, we may be older or more mature then you... Oh and I have no idea what "roto-scoping a walk cycle is ripping" means, so I won't say anything to that... Um, waht are you talking about? Casue first you said you "took a picture" of the car, and later, you speak of it as a "drawing of a car, and not the real thing"... But if you mean you take a photograph of your own car and trace it, no, that is obviously not ripping... Why? Casue you are the owner of the photograph... You are the one that took the photograph, why can' you use it if you took it? If you mean drawing, well, I'd say that's ripping (or atleast dishonesty) to use someone elses drawing and say you made it... No, that's not ripping, cause you just said it yourself... You just clearly stated, that you took it from a "STOCK SITE"... Stock site's allow you to use the images without permission, as stock sites give you enough possesion to use the item for your own use (as long as you don't go and sell the stock image, for real life purposes)... I however, am talking about cases, that are NOT from stock sites... You just contradicted your 1st sentence with your second sentence... You said, in your first sentence, that you can trace, but if you don't tell the person you traced, your dishonest, but not a ripper... Then, in your second sentence, you said that claiming someone else's work is yours, is ripping... Wow... are you mental? I think what you are trying to do here; correct me if I'm wrong, is sound more intelligent than you really are? Did you fully read my post, or did you just throw out your stupid answer without even thinking? I said that I myself took those pictures of those girls. The pictures is my copyright as soon as I took it. I don't understand how you think that's bad... and you lost me on the "pre-made" girl statement. Second, you then told Mercifull he can take a picture of his car and then trace it, that isn't ripping. That's exactly what I said... so either you aren't reading close enough or you're a walking contradiction. Just because you trace something and you don't tell anyone, doesn't mean you are a ripper. ALOT of professionals trace ALOT of things, because it yields the same result. That statement obviously lost you on the last post, so let me try to better explain. Have you ever seen a really well done illustration? Go over to CGTalk and look at some of the work there. Some of it is so good that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a picture and a painting. Well, my point is this. Why torture yourself trying to get every detail right, when you can simply reference certain features to do a better job? In the end, it will all look the same. Isn't that the goal? To make it look as realistic as possible? So then, wouldn't the logical method be to use as much reference as you can....? Why illustrate it without reference and make it look [developmentally delayed]ed, when you can do it the other way, save time, and have it look better? You'd be suprised how many professionals trace/borrow/etc, even from the Google Search. (which isn't stock, obviously)

Yeah. Vector gives the impression you need a .AI or .ESP or something type of file. All you really need is a 100x100 illustration.... That isn't necessarily vector; especially when you throw out a raster dimension. There wasn't a problem, I was just asking a question.

Why do these have to be vector if they have to be 100x100.... :-?

If you were going for a stretch armstrong effect on that left arm, then good job. If you wanted the shading to be off, then good job. If you wanted that ridiculous smile on your character with a disproportional head, good job. I LIKE IT!!

Well I have intentionally not responded to this topic for a while, just to see what some of you children would come up with. So far, the most accurate definition of ripping vs. tracing can be a summation of Mercifull's comments. Just because you trace a picture does not mean you are ripping. They are completely different things. Does anyone remember those Vector's I did of myself and those 3 girls? Those were traced over photographs. Do you really think I would sit here and try and accurately draw them in Illustrator, when I could just take a picture of them and go from there? It would all yield the same result. In the real world it's about being practical, and doing things as efficiently as possible. It's an extra step in referencing, something all digital artists do. That's like saying rotoscoping a walk cycle is ripping...... I don't think what Jabraulter did was ripping, but I do laugh at the production he and alot of you, made out of it. Talk about blowing things out of proportion. I have to get back to business, more on this later.

I think we should stop posting here, as it is my belief this "RepresentArt" fellow is more than he claims to be. And he has alterior motives.

Also, after saving this and not having time to go back and correct it, I will say that I think the shadow on the word Design is a bit lame, and the colors need help on the text. I would probably incorporate some black into it, most likely the Design text. Then probably have the Fenix text stay the current color. Again, this is just if I was to do it over again, not something I am suggesting you should do to be successful. :)

Here is what I meant when I said a large feather "whisping" over... Sorry I couldn't spend more time on this, I'm sure you can be much more creative with the text and other aspects. I think that's like default Tahoma or something... I spent about 5minutes roughing out the feather with my wacom, and then I vectorized my result. The 3 "slices" are just motion lines. I definitely think that if you want a professional result you might have to spend a little bit of extra effort on the feather illustration. (If you still want to go with a feather, that is.) Try to cover the other ones with your hand as you view each one. I have found that peripheral vision is a [bleep] and can cause alot of misjudgement.

Select Green and Black as your colors... Filter -> Render clouds... add text and an outer glow.... I think you could be a bit more original....

Was talking to the Moosh guy. I don't like him very moosh.

What the [bleep] are you talking about. Your village called and they want their idiot back.

...... Your logo doesn't have to be perfect? You're trying to tell me about design and marketing? Please. It seems to me with a name like "FenixDesign" he is doing some sort of designing. The only product he is selling is himself and his services. Therefore, don't you think it would be a good idea that whatever image people associate with your name, it should be as perfect as it can be? As I like to say; you aren't ahead, but stop anyway.

Maybe if you're trying to make yourself feel good it doesn't, but one thing you will learn about making logos is that colors ALWAYS mean something. They are carefully chosen and selected. You don't just pick a color because it's an added bonus. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say I know a little bit of what I'm talking about.

Drew or traced?