New Member
💻 Oldtimer
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2003
- Messages
- 1,561
- Best answers
- 0
saying because its ugly is not constructive critisism....
example...
"well in my opinion that edge could be less pixelish, becaus of that it makes it look less flasy, and the colour does not really fit.. because..."
this looks more like C&C, but ofcourse, this was an example... maybe true C&C is different.
example...
"well in my opinion that edge could be less pixelish, becaus of that it makes it look less flasy, and the colour does not really fit.. because..."
this looks more like C&C, but ofcourse, this was an example... maybe true C&C is different.
Whether it's a filter or a custom brush... that's beside the point. The purpose of this thread and this forum isn't to argue what you believe someone has used in their sig. If the person is determined in saying that he didn't use something you claim he did, then dragging it into an argument is not only off-topic, but a pointless endeavor that neither of you could find a way to prove a point in anyways. There is a thin line between constructive criticsm and negative criticism. The obvious difference is whether you believe someone has accompanied what you have personally deemed knowledgable reasons. Dask said the sig was ugly, because he thought you used a filter, that he personally believes is ugly. Dask may be wrong, or may be right about the technique you've used, but he still believes the texture you've chosen to use on your sig isn't appealing. Gazeebo, you have to respect Dask's opinion, he is entitled to his opinions, just as much as you are entitled to yours. This is a philosophy I have tried to instill in this forum, and will continue to instill as long as I can.
I will be watching this thread, and anymore needless bickering will be dealt with no mercy.
I will be watching this thread, and anymore needless bickering will be dealt with no mercy.
i know its his opinion but im asking him why the sig is ugly.
he thinks the layout is ugly so im asking him why it is ugly.
ugly is a really big word so im only asking him to be a bit more specific on what he thinks is ugly and what not. its as simple as that ^_^
he thinks the layout is ugly so im asking him why it is ugly.
ugly is a really big word so im only asking him to be a bit more specific on what he thinks is ugly and what not. its as simple as that ^_^
Like I said Gazeebo, Dask doesn't find the texture appealing, and if he doesn't feel like explaining why, he doesn't have to.
His opinion shouldn't mean that much to you. I mean, what part of...
His opinion shouldn't mean that much to you. I mean, what part of...
...do you not understand?Dask said:
well.. i was planning on using this layout.. and if he means i should loose the layout what he calls "gfx on the side,open space inthe middle" then the whole sig will be ruined lol.
cuz then it's just techbrushes on the left and right and nothing in the middle lol
cuz then it's just techbrushes on the left and right and nothing in the middle lol
Exactly, Dask his own personal views on how you could improve the sig, while you have your own.
-
Moving on, I guess I'll give my opinion on the sig, the one where you have the car and the tech brushes.
I don't really like the gray box in the middle, it either needs to have it's opacity lowered, or be removed completely. I can understand how you don't want the sig to feel empty, but this makes the sig too complex, and is an actual eye sore to the decent sig that is almost hiding behind it at this point. I like the font, and using the Audi logo to represent the rings, is a humerous thing. Another way you could incorporate some "substance" into the supposed "emptiness" as you call it, is to maybe take the pen tool and draw some flowing shapes all over the Audi, then smudging them all in one direction, so it gives the Audio a motion-like effect.
4/10
-
Moving on, I guess I'll give my opinion on the sig, the one where you have the car and the tech brushes.
I don't really like the gray box in the middle, it either needs to have it's opacity lowered, or be removed completely. I can understand how you don't want the sig to feel empty, but this makes the sig too complex, and is an actual eye sore to the decent sig that is almost hiding behind it at this point. I like the font, and using the Audi logo to represent the rings, is a humerous thing. Another way you could incorporate some "substance" into the supposed "emptiness" as you call it, is to maybe take the pen tool and draw some flowing shapes all over the Audi, then smudging them all in one direction, so it gives the Audio a motion-like effect.
4/10
Hmm, just duplicate the layer the car is on, motion blur it to the left, then either overlay or soft light it, maybe even see if lowering the opacity would work in giving the Audi that motion-like effect. As for the pen tool, I consider it more of a texture tracing tool, basically how it's incorporated in my current sig. All the purple you see was taking what I traced with the pen tool, and smudging it.
Here's an idea for your sig. Why dont you put TIME and EFFORT in your sig? Then it would look just smashin' 
Right now its a logo, font and a tut. Big woohoo to you for doing something a blind 3 year old can. If you dont know how to work with some tools, try harder. Rome wasent build in a day and neither are your skills. So stop your everlasting *****ing and get to working. Now.
Right now its a logo, font and a tut. Big woohoo to you for doing something a blind 3 year old can. If you dont know how to work with some tools, try harder. Rome wasent build in a day and neither are your skills. So stop your everlasting *****ing and get to working. Now.i dun feel like getting flamed here, ok ?Gonadz said:Here's an idea for your sig. Why dont you put TIME and EFFORT in your sig? Then it would look just smashin'
just because you are good in anything doesnt mean you can talk **** to other people that arent good in that same thing.