Final Impact
Started by
, Sep 04 2006 03:36 PM
37 replies to this topic
#26
Justin
-
-
- 3595 posts
<img src ='http://i32.tinypic.com/302oyrp.jpg'>
Posted 06 September 2006 - 08:08 PM
Meh.. I dont really like it. Its too random and just dosent blend well imo. Its kind of messy as well. Though I'm one to talk with my messy sigs
#27
Posted 06 September 2006 - 08:09 PM
QUOTE(Balmung @ Sep 6 2006, 10:08 PM) 
Meh.. I dont really like it. Its too random and just dosent blend well imo. Its kind of messy as well. Though I'm one to talk with my messy sigs
True-Say.. (Simon
) Speaking of which, can you make me a sig like yours, with my chief?
#28
Justin
-
-
- 3595 posts
<img src ='http://i32.tinypic.com/302oyrp.jpg'>
Posted 06 September 2006 - 08:12 PM
Lmfao yes I can, PM me 
Also I think you should take more time on the sig, I really like how it was going, and looks like it has some nice techniques in it. I just think theres too many.
Also I think you should take more time on the sig, I really like how it was going, and looks like it has some nice techniques in it. I just think theres too many.
#29
Bora
-
-
- 955 posts
Posted 06 September 2006 - 08:15 PM
QUOTE(Balmung @ Sep 6 2006, 09:12 PM)
Lmfao yes I can, PM me
Also I think you should take more time on the sig, I really like how it was going, and looks like it has some nice techniques in it. I just think theres too many.
Add more time? Wouldn't it take less time if he didn't add so much to the sig?
#30
imbetteratants
-
-
- 17 posts
Posted 06 September 2006 - 08:16 PM
Well, I think we've argued our points.
If I made any assholeish remarks, I apologize, Calum's comment just sort of raised the blood temperature.
You can create a 3-dimensional object, but rendering makes it two dimensional.
Oh well, let's just all live together and love one another.
If I made any assholeish remarks, I apologize, Calum's comment just sort of raised the blood temperature.
You can create a 3-dimensional object, but rendering makes it two dimensional.
Oh well, let's just all live together and love one another.
#31
Posted 06 September 2006 - 08:17 PM
QUOTE(imbetteratants @ Sep 6 2006, 10:16 PM)
Well, I think we've argued our points.
If I made any assholeish remarks, I apologize, Calum's comment just sort of raised the blood temperature.
You can create a 3-dimensional object, but rendering makes it two dimensional.
Oh well, let's just all live together and love one another.
Thank you.
#32
Justin
-
-
- 3595 posts
<img src ='http://i32.tinypic.com/302oyrp.jpg'>
Posted 06 September 2006 - 08:21 PM
QUOTE(Nythius @ Sep 7 2006, 12:15 AM)
Add more time? Wouldn't it take less time if he didn't add so much to the sig?
Part of the finishing process is cleaning stuff up and deleting uneeded things.
#33
Hater_Boxden
-
-
- 1156 posts
Posted 06 September 2006 - 08:28 PM
Since we are talking about depth here.
There are a few things that go into the range of what could be called depth.
Contrast
Light
and the sharpness( for the lack of a better word)
For me and my knowledge that is what it contains. This sig has much contrast, perhaps too much in some tastes but it is there.
The sig has light. Whoever said there has to be a light source especially in this type of style where the render isn't always apparant is gravely mistaken. There cannot be a light source here because the central figure of the sig is not obvious. Where there is light there is also shadow, shadow that brings me back to contrast between the light and darker parts of the sig. which then brings it to the next subject.
sharpness. The sig doesnt contain anything especially blurry, dull, bland, boring, tedious, "bleh", "meh" , or whatever you want to call it.
In short all these 3 things work together in a circle. They create what people call depth. This sig has depth......not the most because it looks overshadowed by a few extranious layers or so but it is there and apparant.
The problem is it doesnt look like a sig. It looks like a background. Thats the only way i can describe it. It looks like a background xiphos would make and then add a render to it.
It is pleasing to the eye and it looks good and whoever started some stupid discussion about depth for who knows what apparant reason. I do not know what you are thinking. Thats my 2 cents but over all good job vegeto.
- Green Meanies(yes i decided to sign this one because this post made me feel alittle smart xD)
There are a few things that go into the range of what could be called depth.
Contrast
Light
and the sharpness( for the lack of a better word)
For me and my knowledge that is what it contains. This sig has much contrast, perhaps too much in some tastes but it is there.
The sig has light. Whoever said there has to be a light source especially in this type of style where the render isn't always apparant is gravely mistaken. There cannot be a light source here because the central figure of the sig is not obvious. Where there is light there is also shadow, shadow that brings me back to contrast between the light and darker parts of the sig. which then brings it to the next subject.
sharpness. The sig doesnt contain anything especially blurry, dull, bland, boring, tedious, "bleh", "meh" , or whatever you want to call it.
In short all these 3 things work together in a circle. They create what people call depth. This sig has depth......not the most because it looks overshadowed by a few extranious layers or so but it is there and apparant.
The problem is it doesnt look like a sig. It looks like a background. Thats the only way i can describe it. It looks like a background xiphos would make and then add a render to it.
It is pleasing to the eye and it looks good and whoever started some stupid discussion about depth for who knows what apparant reason. I do not know what you are thinking. Thats my 2 cents but over all good job vegeto.
- Green Meanies(yes i decided to sign this one because this post made me feel alittle smart xD)
#34
imbetteratants
-
-
- 17 posts
Posted 06 September 2006 - 08:39 PM
Go GM =P
Just to clarify though, everything has to have a source, light included.
There can't just be light, there has to be something that the light is coming from, even if it is off the canvas. A point of origin, where the thing originates.
Just to clarify though, everything has to have a source, light included.
There can't just be light, there has to be something that the light is coming from, even if it is off the canvas. A point of origin, where the thing originates.
#35
Tetiel
-
-
- 11533 posts
Posted 06 September 2006 - 10:47 PM
Hrm... so does this mean you're quitting GFX team?
#36
pwnz0r
-
-
- 8 posts
Posted 07 September 2006 - 10:52 AM
OMG, for some reason it just attracts me. It is a great piece.!! 9.9/10.
And IMO don't quit it's grrrrrrrrrrrrreat
And IMO don't quit it's grrrrrrrrrrrrreat
#37
XenoCyde
-
-
- 4223 posts
Posted 07 September 2006 - 11:12 AM
the impact. is final.
Since we are talking about depth here.
There are a few things that go into the range of what could be called depth.
Contrast
Light
and the sharpness( for the lack of a better word)
For me and my knowledge that is what it contains. This sig has much contrast, perhaps too much in some tastes but it is there.
The sig has light. Whoever said there has to be a light source especially in this type of style where the render isn't always apparant is gravely mistaken. There cannot be a light source here because the central figure of the sig is not obvious. Where there is light there is also shadow, shadow that brings me back to contrast between the light and darker parts of the sig. which then brings it to the next subject.
sharpness. The sig doesnt contain anything especially blurry, dull, bland, boring, tedious, "bleh", "meh" , or whatever you want to call it.
In short all these 3 things work together in a circle. They create what people call depth. This sig has depth......not the most because it looks overshadowed by a few extranious layers or so but it is there and apparant.
The problem is it doesnt look like a sig. It looks like a background. Thats the only way i can describe it. It looks like a background xiphos would make and then add a render to it.
It is pleasing to the eye and it looks good and whoever started some stupid discussion about depth for who knows what apparant reason. I do not know what you are thinking. Thats my 2 cents but over all good job vegeto.
- Green Meanies(yes i decided to sign this one because this post made me feel alittle smart xD)
my iq dropped 3 points im now -4
its a sig, not a 200hour piece, it doesnt need a lightsource
lol contrast is fine k?
so is sharpness.
i thank you.
QUOTE(Green Meanies @ Sep 6 2006, 08:28 PM)
Since we are talking about depth here.
There are a few things that go into the range of what could be called depth.
Contrast
Light
and the sharpness( for the lack of a better word)
For me and my knowledge that is what it contains. This sig has much contrast, perhaps too much in some tastes but it is there.
The sig has light. Whoever said there has to be a light source especially in this type of style where the render isn't always apparant is gravely mistaken. There cannot be a light source here because the central figure of the sig is not obvious. Where there is light there is also shadow, shadow that brings me back to contrast between the light and darker parts of the sig. which then brings it to the next subject.
sharpness. The sig doesnt contain anything especially blurry, dull, bland, boring, tedious, "bleh", "meh" , or whatever you want to call it.
In short all these 3 things work together in a circle. They create what people call depth. This sig has depth......not the most because it looks overshadowed by a few extranious layers or so but it is there and apparant.
The problem is it doesnt look like a sig. It looks like a background. Thats the only way i can describe it. It looks like a background xiphos would make and then add a render to it.
It is pleasing to the eye and it looks good and whoever started some stupid discussion about depth for who knows what apparant reason. I do not know what you are thinking. Thats my 2 cents but over all good job vegeto.
- Green Meanies(yes i decided to sign this one because this post made me feel alittle smart xD)
my iq dropped 3 points im now -4
its a sig, not a 200hour piece, it doesnt need a lightsource
lol contrast is fine k?
so is sharpness.
i thank you.
#38
Rush
-
-
- 1812 posts
Posted 09 September 2006 - 01:35 AM
Help! its major coolness it sucking me into my monitor!
I don't know if it has lighting or depth, but I'm sure that this is better than anything I can make so far.
100000/1
I don't know if it has lighting or depth, but I'm sure that this is better than anything I can make so far.
100000/1
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
