yeah i remember when when all you had to do to make a good sig was a layer of black brushs and a layer of white, add ur render and then just do a color balance...its really has come down too these days of whats mainstream and what people think is the best at the moment which is pointless becaues mainstream is constantly changing so if all you do is dwell on effects that are popular and currently "in" you'll never be able to truely create something unique p.s. sorry if i rambled there lol I tend to do that
i judge sigs based on 5 principles: concept color composition use of effects use of space a sig doesn't need to be flashy to be good, even without effects at all...with my ratings it can get a 4/5 or 8/10
I think you need a happy medium for a sig I mean you have to have some effects and you have to keep it simple. Otherwise it gets messy. Effects go with sigs. They need each other to work.
^ Explains it all. This thread shouldnt be existing. You should know what is defined as "effect" first before questioning that.
once agian please read i never said we shouldn't have effects -.- please read before you comment i know theres a lot of text but read it if your going to comment =] + who says this thread shouldn't exist we are all intilted to our opinions and if you did read my posts you would have seen that i outlined what i think effects out so before acting smart please read all the facts =] don't take this to seriously and start flaming me.
effects can come in different ways. a simple effect can make something look good, an intricate effect may make something look bad. it's all about how one adds everything together. even if one has a message or an idea behind it, one should make the medium for that idea/message catchy. if it is not catchy, almost all people would ignore it. some people may try to look at it and try to see the message behind it but it's not usually the case. so effects make sigs look good and vice versa, they come hand in hand imo. but it is how one uses it tbh...
Why so sensitive? -_- You think Im dumb not to read? -_- I was explaining what the definition of effects are. Get it? Need more clarification? You got to be clear in your topic title what your definition of "effect" is. Even so, dont call them effects. They're imo styles.
O rly? lols =P Well sensitive is such a exaggeration imo i was merely responding to your comment see it would be rude not too, i also see no explanation on an effect in your post o.0 well i admit i was clear is my original post but i expanded in my post below which i think you still havn't read, true if i was that much text i would skip it -.- and no effects and styles are diff imo =] If your gonna reply to this please don't go on about other thing i rather not spam. =D
This also depends alot on the program. it can be alot harder to do some of the effects that photoshop can do in GIMP.
i think my battle with spectra spawned this topic... anyway, when we come down to it, sig-making is a form of art. and all art is subjective. however, in most forms of art, certain elements like composition, flow, color, and texture are the basis for any great work. leonardo da vinci's great drawings and art were calculated to look pleasing. in sig-making, the fundamentals are not smudging or c4d usage, but composition, lighting, flow, color, and texture. it doesn't matter if you use a render or not, whether you use a particular technique or not. as long as you are able to convey a unified feel to the sig or tag, the effects don't matter.
well basically all a sig is effects if there were no effects it would just be a picutre in a square so i guess its best to judge basing off effects but its not like thats all we judge off of
