December 1, 200619 yr tried to do something rly simple but rly... good lookin yah? other version the text is just white block, rather than the outer glow effect on this one. Comments, not much C.C to give on this 1 My photobucket
December 1, 200619 yr It's a fairly good sig. I would change the text to white though, it's a bit hard to read at the moment. :)
December 1, 200619 yr take the current one and make it darker, from white to grey. more suttle and looks better than harsh white. rather plain however, and i dont like the text but i guess its not too bad with the rest of it. PJB21 100% my own work, i make my own brushes: set 1 set 2
December 2, 200619 yr To be honest it's too simple. I mean that as in it really doesn't have any flow in it, too much unused and empty space.
December 2, 200619 yr Author its not meant to be a masterpeice nad, just something thats got my name on it kinda thing. something people can look at and go 'PMG tht ses weeboab' ;o My photobucket
December 2, 200619 yr well if thats the intelect level of those who will enjoy it... and i agree with nad about the flow, it has none. theres some things you can do will wit simplistic art and others you cant. yours falls under the second catagory. 100% my own work, i make my own brushes: set 1 set 2
December 3, 200619 yr its not meant to be a masterpeice nad, just something thats got my name on it kinda thing. something people can look at and go 'PMG tht ses weeboab' ;o You post, you want crits, i'll give crits. Considering you do most likely consider yourself an "artist" I would (at least as you) try to make sure that my signature isn't "just sumt wit my name on it". It doesn't have any flow. I know it's suposed to be simple, and I generaly love simplistic sigs. This one, however, just doesn't do it for me. Nothing behind it (which I find is almost always the key to minimalistic pieces, you really need some kind of.. message behind it. Mostly because it isn't easy to just get away with eye-candy).
December 3, 200619 yr mostly sucks because its two incredably contrasting colors, with no lighting, depth, or flow. to me, this looks like you oppened up photoshop, used 1 splater brush, clicked once, downloaded a random font of dafont, and used the other defualt color and wrote your name in big, blockey, unatractive letters. is that cc enough for you? wop wop
December 3, 200619 yr Author mostly sucks because its two incredably contrasting colors, with no lighting, depth, or flow. to me, this looks like you oppened up photoshop, used 1 splater brush, clicked once, downloaded a random font of dafont, and used the other defualt color and wrote your name in big, blockey, unatractive letters. is that cc enough for you? thts basically exactly what i done(but i clicked twice and erased parts of the text). and nad, i dont consider myself an artist, im 13, and most of the sigs i do r pitiful. and lets compare to me doing the 'with my name on it thing' and 1 of my latest (just to show u how... simple it was meant to be. (pitiful like i said, but its one of my betters IMO) and my sig. My photobucket
December 3, 200619 yr I know your other stuff WeeBoab, no need to post it again. There really is no reason to get offended. I gave you some C/C. Thats what you wanted, right?
December 3, 200619 yr Paint splatters are random but somehow you manage to have it end in a straight line. Its ok but I'm rusty and I could come up with a better simple sig then that.
December 3, 200619 yr Author I know your other stuff WeeBoab, no need to post it again. There really is no reason to get offended. I gave you some C/C. Thats what you wanted, right? i didnt get offended, im just annoyed everyone is taking this as a chance to try and get me offended because of my topic about C.C, especially eckered. good show old chaps =D> i was just showing how much 'simplicity' was meant to be in it. My photobucket
December 3, 200619 yr well it looks like you achieved exactly what you wanted, no need to over complicate anything about this, it's just a simple signature.. Anyone who's been bitterly disappointed should step back and realise, he wanted just that.. Being a quality digital artist doesn't mean everything you do has to be big, complicated and full of variation, sometimes just doing something simple is what companies want (If you were to take on any Live projects that is)... You could have been a bit more creative with the layout of this, I personally would have made several versions testing different type-faces, sizes, different borders etc.. But yeah it looks good, :D
December 4, 200619 yr Author well it looks like you achieved exactly what you wanted, no need to over complicate anything about this, it's just a simple signature.. Anyone who's been bitterly disappointed should step back and realise, he wanted just that.. Being a quality digital artist doesn't mean everything you do has to be big, complicated and full of variation, sometimes just doing something simple is what companies want (If you were to take on any Live projects that is)... You could have been a bit more creative with the layout of this, I personally would have made several versions testing different type-faces, sizes, different borders etc.. But yeah it looks good, :D terley r pwn? btw is tht ur nick coz of lyk, turley in lyk, the longest yard? coz ur lyk a midgit next to him :-k :anxious: yah? PMG tht ses weeboab ;O >.> ill talk to u on msn -.- My photobucket
December 4, 200619 yr terley r pwn? btw is tht ur nick coz of lyk, turley in lyk, the longest yard? coz ur lyk a midgit next to him :-k :anxious: yah? Wha? :-s "We'll bring the sexy back to judging >_>." --Nadril Bleh, once I get off my lazy bum and go to Imageshack, there will be a picture here.
Create an account or sign in to comment