text should be your focal. so pretty much dont blur the text. and prolly Slightly blur the rest. or smudge around it. and its cake
concept C&C Disagreed. It's a form of art, the text doesn't have to be a focal point. You can let your signature speak for it self and let other take what they want from it, or use a title to explain your own expression. Also you can use text to display the author (A.K.A. you). There are is multiple uses for text in a signature, focal point is also once of those uses! BUT it is not it's main usage, nor should it always be. For instance epik, you have a focal conflict. Renders are always a main focus point because of their shape, color, and position. Especially in your signature, you have a red/orange contrast, yet your render is a large distraction and eye tearing experience because of the brown color and dark surrounding background. Then to it's right you have a beautiful text and lighting. I could go much more indepth with your signature but I'm here to post on michigans If you would like I could C&C you later though if you end up reading this comment anyways. Text is a distraction if you don't use correct placement. Which is the issue with your text here michigan, same with epik A Little More Indepth Bad. You still have a problem with your lighting. You need to start looking at your highlights/shadows on the render/cut-out/stock and adjusting it to the background, or learn to change the lighting on the render/cut-out/stock using photo-manipulation. Lighting. Lighting is a very huge part of signatures. You need to make sure it makes sense otherwise your just adding light and dark spacing for no reason, for instance the incredibly white bright lighting in the middle of this signature that makes no sense considering swimmers don't carry the sun on there backs Fixing your lighiting on this is easy. The bottom right needs to be brighter about the same as the top blue in the background. The bottom left needs to get lighted by a shading of about 5-10% Gid rid of the white dot in the center of your signature. Add a SLIGHT hint of lighting too the right of the tag Example. I also took the pleasure of removing your text, and showing you better placement. I didn't completely get rid of the brightness in the back, I merely took a few seconds on this to show you how to fix it. When you fix it dim the back more. Boarders. Get rid of your boarders michigan >.< there more of an annoyance than anything because they distract you from whats inside them. Example posted above. Good. You have very good effects coming from behind him, they're a compliment to this stock/render. You also have nice coloring, very complimentary as well. On a side note. Start working on your lighting, you have issues with it still. Don't be so forceful with it. Just like the rest of your art it should just flow with the signature, not peirce through the tag. I will have to say this is my favorite signature that you've made. It looks like my C&C has been helping Hope I helped.
Well said, and I agree...although, lighting refers to photographs, and "renders" refer to CGIs. I think what you're getting at here is highlights/shadows. As you've seen me post over and over...pure white and black are big no-nos..they're too harsh for coloring...they should be saved for shine highlights and black for completely blacked out parts of an image to give EXTREME depth. But depth kind of disappears when ur darkest point isn't the DARKEST point (if that makes sense) anywho...very nice work. u get a rare 10/10
Renders (a cut-out) to me is still correct in sense considering you render it out of an image.. thus the term render is brought up Lighting, which is created due to highlights and shadows, is still lighting nonetheless. Whether speaking about a Photograph or an Digitally made photo. It's still lighting in the end. This also varies due to the type of signature your speaking about. This one has lighting, because he used a stock, which is a photograph. Also you could use the term lighting within my signatures because I have implented it into my tag's. Now your tags don't have "lighting" they have "highlights/shadows" and white backgrounds. Different forms of depth, and different forms of signatures. Both require different critique and different terms. Though I would say I misused the term render and lighting when I said. Your render's lighting, because obviously he didn't use a render, it was a stock image. Usually a render is a cut-out of a person or C4D. A.K.A the main focal points of many signatures. I corrected my improper and what could have been confusing to those that don't use the same terms
sorry about the delayed reply. Thanks for the C&C guys. Concept, I agree with your comments about the lighting. The light in the middle is indeed un-natural, and I rarely do things like that. However I have seen people put lighting in weird places like that, and somehow it looked good, so I decided I would try it. :/ As for your re-do I really like it, especially the text, but I do like a little darker sig overall...so maybe just a curves layer and it would be perfect.
