Results 1 to 10 of 22
Thread: Smudgy Siggy
10-30-2010, 06:56 AM #1
Is this smudge a little too strong PSPFX? lol
10-30-2010, 02:34 PM #2
Maybe just a tad too strong, but it's pretty good though.
10-30-2010, 06:39 PM #3
10-30-2010, 07:43 PM #4Tipped OuTGuest
Naw, I don't like it.
It looks like a render/stock with its background distorted to an unidentifiable blob. lol.
10-30-2010, 09:09 PM #5
- Join Date
- Sep 2010
It's not as strong to distort and blur the render.
Flow is perfect. Remember this though:
too much flow causes your sig to loose detail and depth
Too much depth can make your sig too blurry and loose detail
Too much detail can be good but can make you loose ideas for your sig and make it look over sharpened
Back to CnC
Your sig followed the flow very correct. Colors blend very well. The smudge could use some more effects though.
10-31-2010, 04:20 AM #6
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
@artemis: why in the name of god are you asking pimpinPSP anything about this?? cuz he changed his name to PSGFX (when he first "dropped" onthe scene after hacking a psp, he called himself hackedPSP, THEN when it was time to ad a custom XMB and install homebrews he changed his name to PimpinPSP, Now since he thinks he can use photoshop to make graphics its PSPGFX.) why would u ask it anything? i suggest he change the name to PostingFAIL.
these terms are completely arbitrary and ambiguous. You're telling people something u read in a fucking tut put together by some kid. this shit youre spewing is complete nonsense.
the principles of design are as follows:
all other principles of design are derivatives of these.
theres no such thing as a RENDER. thats something a computer does to create (usually 3-dimensional) the mathematical algorithms that create images. Once they hit paper, or finish the rendering process, its known as a photo, image, or "stock."
flow is fucking garbage and describes nothing related to what you noobs refer to as "GXF'n." You are trying to describe the rhythm or pattern of a created piece.
Theres zero depth in a 2 dimensional image.
You seem to be quite verbose when proselytizing about "sig" creation. Basically what i see, as a trained, professional graphic artist, is you guys try to create a selection (never the right way either. to create professional selections u need to master the bezier tool, which in photoshop is called the PEN tool.) then you proceed to ruin the image by placing swirls, blurs, and foreground brush strokes to create some sort of magic effect.
In reality this "SIG" handbook to which you refer is mostly in the subset of video-gaming forums. As these images would falter outside of this realm. and as for the work he did, it looks like any of the countless 1000s of "SIGS" that everyone seems to want to use (heaven forbin anyone be original)
So, the goal of any amateur designer is to emulate professional results. The goal of any professional designer is to envision a project, and only using your mind, to visualize how u want it to look, and then try to reproduce your minds image of your design visually in your specific medium.
Adding more "EFFECTS" is the telltale mark of an amateur. The goal of the pro is to create photo-realistic work using the tools photoshop has. The plan is to fool the eye to thinking that the created image is an actual photograph. Or to emulate a style of design that someone has already created...or if youre a real artist, your very own unique style thats been refined and developed by the artist themselves (ironically called a SIGNATURE)
Now, did the kid make some sigs? If you ask him, i bet he would say hes happy with the results, i mean hes displaying them here. So, he executed flawlessly the job he wanted to do. Theres no RIGHT or WRONG when it comes to design. Its all about the artist and what they intended to create, convey, describe, illustrate, or paint.
Did he accomplish what he started out to do? i say yes. I say it looks just like the other sigs people use, including yourself.
I see youve adopted the job of board troll, as we lost the few that we had, but i welcome your presence and trolling, as it gives me a reason to post up walls of text.
NOTE: i find it fascinating that youve became the self-proclaimed "GFXr" master/guru/god. (GFX again is a madeup term.) upon looking at the sig you are using i find it fascinating that you are telling anyone how to make any images.
about your sig: what is it? the focal point is blurred and transparent, the text is eligible, and all you did was overlay clouds on a space field. the "samus-looking" thing in the middle is obscured by all those clouds, and the viewer is left wondering "WTF is this?"
10-31-2010, 04:43 AM #7Tipped OuTGuest
Damn. Aids just dropped a knowledge bomb, and to tell you the truth, he makes good points.
10-31-2010, 04:56 AM #8
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
well its garbage when ppl who really know nothing prefess otherwise.
10-31-2010, 09:21 AM #9
Aids just blew my mind into chunks. Everything he said was like on point. Teach me Aids
10-31-2010, 09:42 AM #10
- Join Date
- Sep 2010
You don't seem to understand GFx. I can show you examples of this stuff.
This has great depth as you can see by the blurred background.
This one made by me. As you can see it doesn't have good depth or flow. Flow of the sig is like this
As you can see I drew lines to show the flow of the signature. Of course, it's a 2 dimensional image. Depth, flow, etc. are graphics vocabulary.