Quote from: NoS on July 08, 2011, 05:17:14 PM
Read what you've just said and you'll see why I say so.

I have a history. That's exactly it. History. How often do you see me churning something out now.

Then give some fairer/more appropriate analysis, and you won't find myself "correcting" you.

You have no one to blame but yourself for my "pretentious nature".

I'd probably find myself bearing the weight of your decision, defending your choice, while the community simultaneously finds somehow to blame me for what has occurred, letting you off scotch free .

Quote from: NoS on July 08, 2011, 05:08:20 PM
You know what I feel is the problem. You seem too pretentious.

Opinions vary, I suppose. If someone asks for a CnC, I'll try to analyze it without jumping to the conclusion that its ugly, i.e., looking for benchmark tools to gauge flow/depth. Also, if the focal has been preserved; other techniques to improve the sig (smudging for instance [maybe give some smudge settings for GIMP]), etc. Apologies for my expectations being higher for yourself, given your extensive history in the GFX community. If you find my corrective statements, pretentious, I can only say you've made an assumption of character and that this is not my intention.

Quote from: NoS on July 08, 2011, 04:43:26 PM
Not surprised you'd try to pull that one out.

For someone who talks so much about pulling depth and flow, your implementations of them haven't been good.

So you agree opinions vary, with regard to aesthetic sense then?

Flow and depth are somewhat objective and remain external of "aesthetic perception"; i.e., your current signature lacks both flow with regard to render flow lines and depth [self-explanatory]. In addition to this, I deem it aesthetically sub-par >.>.

Both depth/flow can be objectively analyzed if one is educated in what to look for. The second, aesthetics, is always personal preference >.>. For example, you could have amazing depth/flow, but I may still consider the signature ugly ;p.

Quote from: zomniethe4 on July 08, 2011, 12:13:12 AM
eww meta

EW >.>.

Quote from: zomniethe4 on July 08, 2011, 03:55:40 PM
you made one sig in the past

lol...no.

Aesthetic sense, is ultimately, per individual, sir. Your Miku sigs are ugly (struggling depth and flow). My tastes simply differ. I'm sure you'd disagree .

Hopefully that brings the point home .

Quote from: zomniethe4 on July 07, 2011, 09:02:32 PM
all newcoming gfx'ers do this shit
another reason y i stopped

But I'm not new >.>.

Quote from: iwasbobo on July 07, 2011, 11:52:57 PM

Quote from: Optimism on July 07, 2011, 11:39:47 PM
Colored borders look rediculous IMO. Also, I almost always stick with either black or white. Moreover, the north south enlargement in comparison to the left/right is done to give that action like feeling you see in movies, or trailers for vid games/movies.

Can I get something other than border suggestion; again this is simply a matter of preference.

Thanks meta for the heads up on that (explained on MSN already). Stupid Fractal >.>.

I thought you don't take GFX advice from Meta?

Would you mind trying to do something else besides start childish confrontations? Its getting real old. Meta's a big boy -- I'm sure he can stick up for himself.

Colored borders look rediculous IMO. Also, I almost always stick with either black or white. Moreover, the north south enlargement in comparison to the left/right is done to give that action like feeling you see in movies, or trailers for vid games/movies.

Can I get something other than border suggestion; again this is simply a matter of preference.

Thanks meta for the heads up on that (explained on MSN already). Stupid Fractal >.>.

Which is it -- a wand or a sword?

Quote from: Bounty on July 07, 2011, 10:43:42 PM
I like the effects and the bg. It's kind of blurry around the mask to me. Did you use pen tool on this?

Yes. I hate that thing. Couldn't get shit to go my way for literally, 45 mins >.>.

Quote from: asmit10 on July 07, 2011, 10:27:59 PM
I like how you didn't say "feel free to give CnC"

Check again .

CnC...

Just be detailed please. I don't want two word criticisms.

Quote from: iwasbobo on July 07, 2011, 08:37:38 PM
^ I understood your statement just fine. Even though he's "rusty" at making sigs, he can still give knowledgeable comments and criticism.

Take a rusty PvPer for example. That PvPer still understands the concepts of the game, it's just he has difficulty carrying them out (in most cases, anyways).

IMO, his CnC isn't worth looking at given the simplistic basics I've had to explain to him in the past. No. If you want to take advice from him that is fine -- but I don't. He must get better for this to occur (keep practicing/learning new things).

Quote from: iwasbobo on July 07, 2011, 07:28:25 PM

Quote from: Optimism on July 07, 2011, 07:14:42 PM

Quote from: Meta on July 07, 2011, 07:12:37 PM
leaving me n zom out ey? fien fku

true tho

If you start actively making sigs again, then I'll include you. I thought you retired?

People don't have to be making sigs in order to give a good opinion about them. >_>

Again, you mistakenly take away the wrong message from my statements...

Meta is rusty. His prime is pwnsauce >.>. Starting to make sigs again = unrust.