Final Impact
Started by
, Sep 04 2006 03:36 PM
37 replies to this topic
#1
Posted 04 September 2006 - 03:36 PM
#2
Xiphos
-
-
- 3365 posts
Posted 04 September 2006 - 03:57 PM
its pimp but the way right side messes it up 9/10
#3
Shadowcode
-
-
- 238 posts
Posted 04 September 2006 - 04:06 PM
I yearn to make things like that.
Its rox, 10/10.
-Shadowcode
Its rox, 10/10.
-Shadowcode
#5
Posted 04 September 2006 - 05:05 PM
Not to be mad because your criticizing me, but look at your sigs... They need it more than this one.
#6
Charmender
-
-
- 4104 posts
Awesome
Posted 04 September 2006 - 05:47 PM
Looks good, maybe a little busy though
#7
Wicked
-
-
- 2057 posts
Posted 04 September 2006 - 05:54 PM
don't quit teach me please. I stand in awe of its awesomeness.
#8
Grizzly
-
-
- 3964 posts
<img src ='http://i29.tinypic.com/9iwl5w.jpg'>
Posted 04 September 2006 - 06:20 PM
That's hot.
Don't leave us
Don't leave us
#9
Sean
-
-
- 6188 posts
Posted 04 September 2006 - 06:38 PM
QUOTE(Joker @ Sep 4 2006, 05:24 PM) 
lacks depth and needs more lightning
1. It has a lot of depth
2. Your signatures are more flat than him
I love it.
#10
Freddy
-
-
- 5500 posts
Posted 04 September 2006 - 06:42 PM
Vegeto for ADVANCED!!!
Stay with it buddy. I lurve your C4Ds!
Stay with it buddy. I lurve your C4Ds!
#11
Posted 04 September 2006 - 07:14 PM
Because I can, even if I think it came out worse, it was jsut to prove a point. 
#14
Rawrr
-
-
- 167 posts
Posted 06 September 2006 - 05:03 AM
QUOTE(Vegeto @ Sep 4 2006, 08:14 PM)
Because I can, even if I think it came out worse, it was jsut to prove a point.
OH SNAP!
oh no you didn't
lol now why did i say that?
8.5/10
#15
imbetteratants
-
-
- 17 posts
Posted 06 September 2006 - 05:31 AM
Just because his sigs aren't "as good" as yours, doesn't mean you can turn his criticism down.
Don't post if you don't want critcism.
The sig has no "depth." I hate how people need to add renders in order to create in illusion of depth.
And your lighting could use help. Look at the source of lighting... oh wait you don't have one. Pick a starting point and draw lighting from there, don't just set a few layers to screen.
Don't post if you don't want critcism.
The sig has no "depth." I hate how people need to add renders in order to create in illusion of depth.
And your lighting could use help. Look at the source of lighting... oh wait you don't have one. Pick a starting point and draw lighting from there, don't just set a few layers to screen.
#16
Posted 06 September 2006 - 02:20 PM
QUOTE(Vegeto @ Sep 4 2006, 06:05 PM)
Not to be mad because your criticizing me, but look at your sigs... They need it more than this one.
Point adressed. Actually read what happened after that post.
I can, I'm not supposed to though.
All it is, is C4D Renders, made by me, so that's an idea of depth, it may not be it, but it has some.
It has a source of lighting, 3 Lighting effects layers, and a couple brightness/contrast/ white layers in lassoed areas.
I only have one layer on screen, and that's the messed up top left corner.
#17
Charmender
-
-
- 4104 posts
Awesome
Posted 06 September 2006 - 02:22 PM
Im better at ants got told 
this is growing on me now, i can see all the swirly stuff
this is growing on me now, i can see all the swirly stuff
#18
Sweeney
-
-
- 1230 posts
Posted 06 September 2006 - 03:30 PM
To be fair, "depth" has become a right old buzzword.
Everyone keeps saying it, and apparently, nobody really knows what the hell in means.
Everyone keeps saying it, and apparently, nobody really knows what the hell in means.
#19
Bora
-
-
- 955 posts
Posted 06 September 2006 - 03:33 PM
Yes, it is a bit busy. I like the effects but it has no focal point.
#20
imbetteratants
-
-
- 17 posts
Posted 06 September 2006 - 07:33 PM
QUOTE(Vegeto @ Sep 6 2006, 03:20 PM)
Point adressed. Actually read what happened after that post.
I can, I'm not supposed to though.
All it is, is C4D Renders, made by me, so that's an idea of depth, it may not be it, but it has some.
It has a source of lighting, 3 Lighting effects layers, and a couple brightness/contrast/ white layers in lassoed areas.
I only have one layer on screen, and that's the messed up top left corner.
Oh, well excuse me, if we're going to be nitpicking little words I'll try and present myself in a more correct manner.
C4D renders don't give depth to a signature. Photoshop is a 2-dimensional photoediting program, it is logically impossible to add "depth" to a signature, when there are only 2 dimensions that the program can edit in. Of course, I'm only nitpicking here, being a complete asshole and taking something I know you didn't mean to say and twisting it around.
A source of lighting is completely different from lighting. A source, as in an ORIGIN you know, a beginning point. Take the sun that kids draw on the corner of papers with rays coming off of it. The ORB is the source, and the rays are the direction of lighting. You have no source, just lightened bits in "lassoed areas."
So I'm off on the blending modes, whoopdie-do. You know exactly what I meant, they style that's been recently used, of setting layers on Lighten or Screen in order to lighten certain parts of the signature.
You don't have to be a complete asshole and overanalyze criticism. Seriously, if you want to argue every bit you get that isn't praise, you're not going to progress really far in the graphics work. I've seen your OLD work, you know, the Radial Blur technique and such, and I liked that, this isn't as good. If you post a sig, you're asking for criticism, that's why you post it. Whether the criticism is positive or negative, you're asking for it. You can't choose between the two.
I post criticism to HELP people. The fact that you try and be a smartass and defend against it is childish.
Speaking of being childish, Calum, you know that comment was uncalled for.
#21
Sean
-
-
- 6188 posts
Posted 06 September 2006 - 07:47 PM
QUOTE(imbetteratants @ Sep 6 2006, 07:33 PM)
Oh, well excuse me, if we're going to be nitpicking little words I'll try and present myself in a more correct manner.
C4D renders don't give depth to a signature. Photoshop is a 2-dimensional photoediting program, it is logically impossible to add "depth" to a signature, when there are only 2 dimensions that the program can edit in. Of course, I'm only nitpicking here, being a complete asshole and taking something I know you didn't mean to say and twisting it around.
Now if you want to be like that, it's impossible to render ANYTHING 3D on your computer, because your screen is flat and the actual picture you see has no "depth". o.o
#22
imbetteratants
-
-
- 17 posts
Posted 06 September 2006 - 07:54 PM
QUOTE(Sean @ Sep 6 2006, 07:47 PM)
Now if you want to be like that, it's impossible to render ANYTHING 3D on your computer, because your screen is flat and the actual picture you see has no "depth". o.o
Wrong, Cinema4D and other 3-Dimensional Modeling programs allow you to rotate the camera in a 360 degree angle. This allows the usage of 3 Axis'.
An X, a Y and a Z axis.
Photoshop does not.
#23
Posted 06 September 2006 - 08:04 PM
I'm just gonna respond in the quote in bold because i cba to respond under..
Oh, well excuse me, if we're going to be nitpicking little words I'll try and present myself in a more correct manner.
C4D renders don't give depth to a signature. Photoshop is a 2-dimensional photoediting program, it is logically impossible to add "depth" to a signature, when there are only 2 dimensions that the program can edit in. Of course, I'm only nitpicking here, being a complete asshole and taking something I know you didn't mean to say and twisting it around.
It's impossible to add depth to anything, including C4D. Your monitor is flat, 2-D. You can't add depth to 2D as you just said yourself.
A source of lighting is completely different from lighting. A source, as in an ORIGIN you know, a beginning point. Take the sun that kids draw on the corner of papers with rays coming off of it. The ORB is the source, and the rays are the direction of lighting. You have no source, just lightened bits in "lassoed areas."
I get that, it does have one of those in there, somewhere..
just one though.
So I'm off on the blending modes, whoopdie-do. You know exactly what I meant, they style that's been recently used, of setting layers on Lighten or Screen in order to lighten certain parts of the signature.
I only have one layer on lighten/screen, I can take it out if I still have the PSD to show it didn't change much.
You don't have to be a complete asshole and overanalyze criticism. Seriously, if you want to argue every bit you get that isn't praise, you're not going to progress really far in the graphics work. I've seen your OLD work, you know, the Radial Blur technique and such, and I liked that, this isn't as good. If you post a sig, you're asking for criticism, that's why you post it. Whether the criticism is positive or negative, you're asking for it. You can't choose between the two.
I don't argue every bit of criticism, if you've seen my old work in the original thread you would've seen that, but seriously, Joker should've had at least another glance at the sig before he said it has no lighting, blah blah blah, no depth, etc. I mean, I get where he is coming from, but he should look at his work, or try and say it in a nicer fashion. I don't care whether I get good or bad criticism, I take it, I just had to challenge that one because looking at his work, I'm assuming he just took less than 3 seconds, and posted whatever he though came to mind.
I post criticism to HELP people. The fact that you try and be a smartass and defend against it is childish.
I understand that, and yes I can see why people call me a smartass, get that in real life all the time, but I'm just defending myself aswell.. You have to see that point of view too.
Speaking of being childish, Calum, you know that comment was uncalled for.
QUOTE(imbetteratants @ Sep 6 2006, 09:33 PM)
Oh, well excuse me, if we're going to be nitpicking little words I'll try and present myself in a more correct manner.
C4D renders don't give depth to a signature. Photoshop is a 2-dimensional photoediting program, it is logically impossible to add "depth" to a signature, when there are only 2 dimensions that the program can edit in. Of course, I'm only nitpicking here, being a complete asshole and taking something I know you didn't mean to say and twisting it around.
It's impossible to add depth to anything, including C4D. Your monitor is flat, 2-D. You can't add depth to 2D as you just said yourself.
A source of lighting is completely different from lighting. A source, as in an ORIGIN you know, a beginning point. Take the sun that kids draw on the corner of papers with rays coming off of it. The ORB is the source, and the rays are the direction of lighting. You have no source, just lightened bits in "lassoed areas."
I get that, it does have one of those in there, somewhere..
just one though.So I'm off on the blending modes, whoopdie-do. You know exactly what I meant, they style that's been recently used, of setting layers on Lighten or Screen in order to lighten certain parts of the signature.
I only have one layer on lighten/screen, I can take it out if I still have the PSD to show it didn't change much.
You don't have to be a complete asshole and overanalyze criticism. Seriously, if you want to argue every bit you get that isn't praise, you're not going to progress really far in the graphics work. I've seen your OLD work, you know, the Radial Blur technique and such, and I liked that, this isn't as good. If you post a sig, you're asking for criticism, that's why you post it. Whether the criticism is positive or negative, you're asking for it. You can't choose between the two.
I don't argue every bit of criticism, if you've seen my old work in the original thread you would've seen that, but seriously, Joker should've had at least another glance at the sig before he said it has no lighting, blah blah blah, no depth, etc. I mean, I get where he is coming from, but he should look at his work, or try and say it in a nicer fashion. I don't care whether I get good or bad criticism, I take it, I just had to challenge that one because looking at his work, I'm assuming he just took less than 3 seconds, and posted whatever he though came to mind.
I post criticism to HELP people. The fact that you try and be a smartass and defend against it is childish.
I understand that, and yes I can see why people call me a smartass, get that in real life all the time, but I'm just defending myself aswell.. You have to see that point of view too.
Speaking of being childish, Calum, you know that comment was uncalled for.
#24
Alex
-
-
- 6640 posts
Posted 06 September 2006 - 08:05 PM
Photoshop might be 2d but you can certainly add depth to an image with it.
Depth does not necesarily mean 3d.
http://users.skynet....s/waterfall.jpg
Also, depth isnt always necesary. (Picasso anyone?)
I think it lacks text and a focal point like someone said, but other than that its pretty good.
Depth does not necesarily mean 3d.
http://users.skynet....s/waterfall.jpg
Also, depth isnt always necesary. (Picasso anyone?)
I think it lacks text and a focal point like someone said, but other than that its pretty good.
#25
Posted 06 September 2006 - 08:05 PM
QUOTE(imbetteratants @ Sep 6 2006, 09:54 PM)
Wrong, Cinema4D and other 3-Dimensional Modeling programs allow you to rotate the camera in a 360 degree angle. This allows the usage of 3 Axis'.
An X, a Y and a Z axis.
Photoshop does not.
Now that's you, becoming me. Challenging every single criticism, but when you render something in Cinema 4D, it comes out 2-D does it not? Even if it lets you rotate and the like, it still comes out 2-D when you render.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
