Welcome! -- If you would like artwork critiqued, leave it here. Also, if you have pancakes, leave them here to. Greetz,
Imagery: - Very nice cut-out. (smooth edges... good-resolution) Just don't see a need for the transparency on the hair. - The dove is a nice touch - Coloring and lighting are very well executed and match up nicely with the composition. - Highlights are a little blown out. Pure white in a "photographic" image like this makes it look over-exposed. I guess here it was used for effect. Typography: -Font choice is good. - I'm not too sure about the placement here...not a HUGE fan of cut off taglines. With headers (like your screen name) it's not so bad since it's obvious what it says. - I do like the overlay treatment All in all, I give it a 7/10
Very nice piece here. Great brushing, wonderful color... However, your composition needs work. Centered images (as a design standard) and a HUGE no no (unless it's part of the concept) Also, one thing to keep in mind is purpose. This graphic is intended to be a signature, yet there's no copy (text) on it. Just looking at the image, I wouldn't know who it belongs to. All over...Good graphic work, but the design choices could be better. If all of you are wondering what the difference is... Graphic quality is the aesthetics of the final product. Design quality is the effectiveness of the graphic to display the information it's supposed to get across. I'd give this 6/10
Off the bat...the coloring here is wonderful...lighting, contrast, highlights, shadows...all very well executed. Composition is very interesting. My design rule for "signatures" is graphic elements on the left, copy (text) on the right.You combined them both here, points for that. As for the copy itself...legibility is a big factor in typography. I can't read what you have here very clearly. 4 for aesthetics, and 3 for design 7/10
Where did you go wrong? Key things to avoid... - Centered graphics - Black drop shadows - Serif Fonts - Watermark graphics - Type over main graphic I'd say back to the drawing board on this one. Move the cut-out over to the left. That'll give you room for your name. Make your typography the focal point and your graphic a secondary element. And lose the watermark images. 3/10
Thanks very much for the tips! I don't suppose you'd be willing to write a quick guide or compendium of your design rules? Also, hope you don't mind repeat guests. Thanks again for taking the time to do this. Edit: also, not to be ungrateful, but I must kindly disagree with you on the text issue. I personally find that a sig doesn't need text. All a signature is, to me, is a piece of photo manipulation or digital art in a certain dimension range. Text can be applied as a watermark or a "signature", but it's unnecessary. The sig can describe you visually or just be a doodle. It doesn't NEED text nor does it NEED to be a "signature" instead of a tag.
eh wth, i'm pretty sure ima fail this one but here goes. i know the render is kind of huge taking up most of the sig, and the text inside the lighting i'm told is a nono. and this one
Glad to hear your opinion. I of course don't make the "rules" when it comes to signatures...to each his own. As for this piece... Wonderful composition. Color has some minor issues, but nothing worth poking at. Again, would like to see typography to complete it, but the piece speaks for itself. I will say...I have seen enough of the C4D abstracts used in signatures...hard to find one without one these days. But it is what it is... On a scale, I'd say 6/10
thanks for the feed most people are kinda afraid to hurt feelings and the like. love the honesty, iv got ideas for it now. can work on it properly (tbh 3/10 is more than i expected for a 15min job)
Great composition. I do like the concept you have here, it looks thought out and it's very well executed. The coloring is wonderful and the lighting is spot on. Good job. Missing type so point of for that. 9/10