My work.

[DC_Cypher]

Some of my stuff i've done recently










Edit: removed some older sigs.

Requests:

[DC_Cypher]

Re: My work.

Sry for double post but wanted to bump. I'm willing to make a couple of sigs to the first repliers if anyone is interested.

[sp1nzoK]

Re: My work.

Well I'll give you thumbs up here too, nice sig work, lot better than my photoshop abilities are as of now. I won't be needing a signature though, but someone will get a nice one if they ask you I'm sure.

[Hollus]

Re: My work.

I like the last one with the soldier and the one above General Grevious. 9/10.

[fido123]

Re: My work.

A banner would be good. Really nice work, what software to you use?

[Verruckter]

Re: My work.

Pretty generic, but nice work nonetheless.

[DC_Cypher]

Re: My work.

A banner would be good. Really nice work, what software to you use?

Photoshop CS3. And i can't see how some of them are generic honestly.

EDIT: still no takers for a sig?

[aperson]

Re: My work.

I think he means they're generic because they're all just brushes + layer modes + blurs + text. You can pretty much write a computer program to make sigs like that these days.

[DC_Cypher]

Re: My work.

hardly, i made c4d's for some of the sigs. Just because they're blended well doesn't mean there not there. Look at my two current sigs for example.

[aperson]

Re: My work.

Anyone can pop together some random abstract stuff in c4d, it's how every Budding Teenage Abstract Photoshop Artist learns. You can only do so much with a 400x150 box too though, but you can be as sloppy as you want and still make anything look good since your image dimensions are so small.

[DC_Cypher]

Re: My work.

Put your money where your mouth is. If it's obviously so easy to make well balanced sigs where renders actually blend well, texts suit, colours work, focal points are defined and there's enough depth then please be my guest and show me how it's done. Just because a sig uses generic tools like brushes and c4d's doesn't mean that the sig itself is generic, the whole point is that the artist's input changes the sig entirely.

And "every budding teenage abstract photoshop artist", i honestly hope that wasn't in any way a reference to me because i consider myself an experienced ps user. Post some of your work on a reputable graphics design forum and send me the link, i'll be interested at the feedback.

[aperson]

Re: My work.

Put your money where your mouth is. If it's obviously so easy to make well balanced sigs where renders actually blend well, texts suit, colours work, focal points are defined and there's enough depth then please be my guest and show me how it's done. Just because a sig uses generic tools like brushes and c4d's doesn't mean that the sig itself is generic, the whole point is that the artist's input changes the sig entirely.

And "every budding teenage abstract photoshop artist", i honestly hope that wasn't in any way a reference to me because i consider myself an experienced ps user. Post some of your work on a reputable graphics design forum and send me the link, i'll be interested at the feedback.

You're so functionally fixed on how to create art that you don't recognize what the issue is. A signature doesn't entail a render, or even text necessarily. Instead, though, you've pigeonholed yourself into creating art that's nothing but abstract 3d backgrounds with blending layers and text. You've got some of the technique, but the hard part isn't technique, it's making an original, evocative, coherent picture. Technique alone isn't going to make a good picture.

Ok, here's a sig I just made from a photograph I took today:


I'd argue that this is at least a somewhat different signature. I've seen thousands like the ones you made and they wouldn't stand out at all to me; however, I think this one is at least somewhat different, and the awkward perspective is very eye-catching.

My whole point is that you are right, the artist's input changes the picture entirely. However, you have very little input, change that. There's no need to get aggressive and attack me; I started out making sigs myself. But you have to realize that the whole motivation behind art and graphics is to not allow yourself to become fixed in technique. When you become functionally fixed and your ideas are defined by the tools you have available to you, your art becomes stagnant. You start making the same thing over and over without even realizing what you are doing. Always keep changing things up.

[DC_Cypher]

Re: My work.

My point exactly. I can only be artistic with the tools i have. You shouldn't accuse someone of being generic simply because they have a limited number of tools to work with.

As for your sig i can guarantee that if that were to be posted on a graphics design forum that wouldn't receive much praise. It's different maybe, but you don't merit much because the amount of effort put into that is tiny. Now if you were to manipulate the picture then it would be a different story.

[aperson]

Re: My work.

As for your sig i can guarantee that if that were to be posted on a graphics design forum that wouldn't receive much praise. It's different maybe, but you don't merit much because the amount of effort put into that is tiny. Now if you were to manipulate the picture then it would be a different story.

Yeah, actually I did put some effort into it, I spent about 40 minutes taking shots of the building so I could get that one good shot that I like. You basically just said that every shot taken by a photographer doesn't deserve much praise because it doesn't take as much effort as doing photomanipulations. Are you even taking yourself seriously here? I'm going to find a lot more photographs than I'm going to find 3d abstract renders or photoshop brushing at an art gallery... Surely the whole art community isn't a bunch of effort-confused idiots.


If I were to post it on a design forum I'd get laughed out for trying to get critique on a sig. When you get concerned with more than this showing your image on an internet forum, you learn that every other kind of media requires much larger images. Printing is generally done at 300 dpi instead of 72 ppi as in internet display, so your 400x150 sig would have to be 1667x625 to be the same size when printing. When you work at larger scale you learn that you actually have to be conscious of a larger flow and order in your images or else nothing catches the eye on something that big. When you work on a sig you can easily create something that's kind of pretty by lassoing out a video game character and blending orderless abstract renders over it. That doesn't fly in bigger dimensions. At the very least, you have to be more careful with your lassoing and more structured with your ~3d explosion~.

Saying that your work is limited because the tools you have are limited is the biggest cop-out possible. You have the most powerful image editing toolbox in the world and you have a 3d program capable of doing movie quality renders: C4D has good lighting control, DOF and focal blurs, and you can make some damn realistic stuff in it if you want to. My toolkit right now is a camera, a freeware fractal generator, and photoshop. I don't see how this setup is too terribly different from yours, but here I am making quite different stuff.

[DC_Cypher]

Re: My work.

i gave up reading after your first paragraph. Regardless of how many pictures you took, and size of the image, for a sig that's nothing graphically special. Honestly i could take a random shot of my lamp and put it in my sig, at least people would see what it was.