New Signature Set

[SilentHopes]

Avatar:

Signature:

Thoughts? I finally got some better c4d's.

 

[Bacon Boy]

It looks way too red. UNless you were aiming for that, you might want to add or reduce some filters.

 

[SilentHopes]

Yeah, I was looking for it to be red-ish, but now that I look at it, I probably should have saved it as a xcf. :|

Oh, grats on getting 10,000 posts.

 

[Jas0n]

Same old, same old. Render, background, outer glow on render.

 

[SilentHopes]

Same old, same old. Render, background, outer glow on render.

Most of what I see from you is a render, background with similar colors, and a few effects.

So...

And for your information, this signature was 16 layers. It has much more on it than you can see.

 

[Josh]

Needs blending and better lighting. But other than that it's pretty good, Keep up the good work.

 

[Jas0n]

Same old, same old. Render, background, outer glow on render.

Most of what I see from you is a render, background with similar colors, and a few effects.

So...

And for your information, this signature was 16 layers. It has much more on it than you can see.

I don't care what I've done, I'm not comparing it to my work, nor are we talking about my work here. I know my work isn't fascinating, but that doesn't mean I don't know what's good and what isn't.

I also don't care how many layers it has, I care about the final product and what it looks like. Technically, it's not appealing or good at all, just the same as everything else you've done and continue to do without any improvement.

 

[SilentHopes]

You're completely missing my point, although it's insignificant to try to explain it to you.

 

[Liv]

I think it looks purty..... :3 If anyone cares...

 

[Jas0n]

You're completely missing my point, although it's insignificant to try to explain it to you.

It's also insignificant to try and explain what a good signature is to you, because you clearly don't know

 

[SilentHopes]

You're completely missing my point, although it's insignificant to try to explain it to you.

It's also insignificant to try and explain what a good signature is to you, because you clearly don't know

No. It's because you have to be so stingy about what appeals to you or not. I wouldn't even be talking about my signatures not changing much, as you have done the same.

Your signatures all follow a pattern. A render, some equally colored c4d's, and a similar colored background, occasionally though, a few messy brushes are applied.

I've also noticed that nearly every signature you've made has your name on it.

<div class='spoiler_toggle'>Examples</div><div class="spoiler" style="display:none;">

</div>

But, whatever you're too busy being a babbling buffoon to inconvenience yourself to give beneficial criticism.

 

[Jas0n]

You're completely missing my point, although it's insignificant to try to explain it to you.

It's also insignificant to try and explain what a good signature is to you, because you clearly don't know

No. It's because you have to be so stingy about what appeals to you or not. I wouldn't even be talking about my signatures not changing much, as you have done the same.

Your signatures all follow a pattern. A render, some equally colored c4d's, and a similar colored background, occasionally though, a few messy brushes are applied.

I've also noticed that nearly every signature you've made has your name on it.

<div class='spoiler_toggle'>Examples</div><div class="spoiler" style="display:none;">

</div>

But, whatever you're too busy being a babbling buffoon to inconvenience yourself to give beneficial criticism.

As I've already said, I know my signatures aren't amazing, but that does not mean I don't know what is good and what is not, and yours clearly aren't.

If you really want to compare them to mine, then let's go ahead. It'll be funny considering you got the majority of your "pattern" that I do completely wrong.

Let's take a look at my latest one for comparison's sake:

And your latest one here:

Now if you notice, I used a stock for my signature. I smudged and blurred the background and rendered the character, I then continued to apply lots of smudging and brushes to the render so that it fit into the background, adjusted lighting and such to also make it seem like a part of the background.

Now if you look at yours, yours is, what looks like to me, a very simple space stock, available through a simple google search. Maybe you applied some colour changes, brushes and I think I see a single C4D, but for the most part it's just a space stock. After that you have placed the render on top and proceeded to give it that "rainbow" outer glow, therefore separating it from the background and it not fitting in at all. The lighting is also way off. Not only that but it looks dull, there is nothing to attract the eye.

Now if you're talking about all the sigs looking the same, let's look at yours:
<div class='spoiler_toggle'>Spoiler: click to toggle</div><div class="spoiler" style="display:none;">

</div>
There's just a few. What's a similar pattern here? All the lighting is off, they all share the similar placed on a background with outer glow effect and there is nothing on all of them to attract the eye.

Now let's look at mine:
<div class='spoiler_toggle'>Spoiler: click to toggle</div><div class="spoiler" style="display:none;">

</div>
Yes, a lot of mine are similar and have one base colour, but they are also diverse in a lot of ways, and similar in good ways. Those being that all of mine blend, all of mine have proper lighting and all of mine have a good, attractive focal point. Now I'm not trying to make myself look big headed, as I know my sigs are FARRR from anything amazing, and I can admit that because, unlike you, I actually know about graphic design.

And honestly, you saying that almost all of mine have my name on is you just picking at straws. I put my name on them to avoid people stealing them, and so I can use them as my own signatures on forums. That has nothing to do with the design of the signature unless the text is actually used as part of the focal point on the signature, which in I believe all of mine, it's not. My text is generally terrible and distracts from the focal point a lot, but that's not the point of this "debate".

Anyway, sorry for the wall of text to anyone that doesn't care.

 

[Bacon Boy]

I read it and it makes perfect sense to me. Him calling your signatures similar is hypocritical. Like you said, most of his look the same in the way they're made. The first LBP one just looks like a render with another render of font with a premade background slapped together and set the render to glow.

 

[SilentHopes]

Hey Jas0n, why is it so hard just to drop the subject? Or is it easier to be a total *censored.4.0* about it?

You have your likes, I have mine. Now quit arguing about it.

 

[Jas0n]

Hey Jas0n, why is it so hard just to drop the subject? Or is it easier to be a total *censored.4.0* about it?

You have your likes, I have mine. Now quit arguing about it.

I like that you replied to none of my points, instead you just call me a total *censored.4.0*. You asked me to give constructive criticism, I did, and now you're telling me to shut up? How classy.

Go back to being your immature 13 year old self. I'm done with the likes of you. You're the reason digital art, for the most part, isn't taken seriously.

 

[muffun]

Somewhere in the world, the inventor of the idea of outer glow is weeping.

Experiment a little. Please.

Quoted for truth.

And honestly I agree with everything Jason said. He's right.

 

[Numner]

We all know you gotta be a chef to be a food critic.

 

[Caius]

There's way too much rage in this thread.

 

[Cottonball]

I love the star background. :]

 

[crazyredd45]

I think the other siggy looked better