I think the primary mental block I'm having with this piece is the proportion of the geist in comparison with the chapel sanctuary. They seem both disconnected, and very hard to believe, as that would be a tiny chapel, or a ridiculously huge geist.
The lines should either be more prominent as actual lines, or scrapped in favor of realistic looking light rays (I know some free brushes exist for those). Since you have the lines there, and only there; it looks like a mistake, as if you were trying to create actual rays of light and failed.
I love the typeface you chose (stone sans?), but the application and word choice seem like an afterthought. Remember you're not obligated to put text on every piece and this one would be stronger without the text you placed. If you don't feel inspired to lay down type then just skip it, no harm comes to the aesthetic.
I'm excited to.see you branching out from your comfort zone and look forward to your future pieces. I suggest picking out a tutorial online that really interests you and completing it, then using the technique you learned on a new piece. That's the best way I've found to add and remember new tricks to your arsenal.
I think the primary mental block I'm having with this piece is the proportion of the geist in comparison with the chapel sanctuary. They seem both disconnected, and very hard to believe, as that would be a tiny chapel, or a ridiculously huge geist.
The lines should either be more prominent as actual lines, or scrapped in favor of realistic looking light rays (I know some free brushes exist for those). Since you have the lines there, and only there; it looks like a mistake, as if you were trying to create actual rays of light and failed.
I love the typeface you chose (stone sans?), but the application and word choice seem like an afterthought. Remember you're not obligated to put text on every piece and this one would be stronger without the text you placed. If you don't feel inspired to lay down type then just skip it, no harm comes to the aesthetic.
I'm excited to.see you branching out from your comfort zone and look forward to your future pieces. I suggest picking out a tutorial online that really interests you and completing it, then using the technique you learned on a new piece. That's the best way I've found to add and remember new tricks to your arsenal.
I see your point about the lines, and will look for a set of light brushes.
I guess I was picturing the Geist in the foreground more than directly related to the size of the background. I'll play around with that to see if it looks better more closely zoomed in.
I've been looking at tutorials and they've so far been pretty helpful. Although I still can't figure out how to use that STUPID @#&$% PEN TOOL. Its function and operation has so far eluded me. Hopefully the photoshop book I bought will explain.
The pen tool is the single most important tool in Photoshop...actually, in design period. The pen tool is used in just about every design/graphics program existing to date.
Now that Im at my computer and not on my phone I can see what you were trying to do with the geist in the foreground, chapel in the background.
I can tell you that one of the hardest photomanipulation/composition techniques is doing just that (taking one image different from another and placing them at different focal lengths within the same image). The human eye can detect perspective issues nearly instantly, as our survival and day to day operation depends so heavily on hand eye coordination and physical calculations of the environment around us. What you tried to do there is very hard to pull off. The only way I've ever been able to combine two 2d images into one, at different focal distances (and have it realistic) - is using a 3d program. I would create solid objects the size of my 2d subjects and render them with a camera at the angle I desired, to see how I needed to size the 2d images against one another to make it realistic...then fiddle around with blurring the background in a semi-radial fashion to simulate visual depth.
Would it also be possible to create depth through atmospheric effects like the ones scene in Da-Vinci's work? He creates stunning landscapes and gradually fades them into a blueish haze. By using less atmosphere in the foreground, I hoped to make the Geist appear closer than the slightly hazy chapel background. On second thought, I might need to play up the atmosphere just a bit more...
Yeah, the Rizla pretty laid it all down nicely. The concept you are trying to tackle in this scene is extremely difficult to accomplish essentially.
It doesn't help that the Geist of St.Traft itself is not a very signature friendly image, or cut friendly for that matter, due to the amount of effects going on/opacity differences along with color along his image. Placing him elsewhere is nigh to impossible due to this if you are wanting him to be in another scene and stand out or work with other elements.
He is causing some harsh lighting and color differences on the right side of the signature that just making everything unbalanced and overly saturated. Not to mention the straight white lines you are using(which is generally a graphic design element used in design work that uses vectors of colorful shapes and other line work to support text, numbers, existing images, etc to create an art piece) are actually making the image look flat. Actually, in digital art that isn't based on straight up graphic design straight lines make everything look flat. It is one of the rules in drawing and painting. You never make a completely overt straight line that is dominant in the art piece. It leads the eye, true, but it makes everything around it flat especially if it is a bright attention color like white.
Signature creation as I see it is a sort of a blend of graphic design and conceptual art principles. You are making something from scratch with other images that are already finished. You do not want to make life harder on yourself by violating artistic rules for one or the other or both unless it is called for and you have control of the outcome as the artist making conscious decisions.
I would advise, like Rizla said, to look for some light brush packs on the internet especially ones that create realistic shine rays. I am using one in my sig right now behind the Gitaxian probe. It looks pretty good for what I planned and it isn't even the best light brush in the pack.
As for the other elements in this signature. The statue behind the Geist is trying to draw the eye but so is the background. There isn't a separation of distances here. The best you can do is try to sharpen and blur things to create a suggestion of depth which is really all you can do with this, as Rizla said, 3D programs like 3D Studio Max or Maya would be the fastest route for creating depth while maintaining clarity in an image with multiple elements. Though, in this situation I doubt even that would help here given the issues with the Geist and the white lines in the middle section. However, I don't know if you have those programs or know how to use them. Though, I could see using Adobe After Effects to create a sort of similar effect with it's tool sets(its like Photoshop but it has a timeline so you can animate graphics.).
The text itself isn't a bad idea but it is sort of haphazardly placed and it is sitting with those signature flattening lines which doesn't help matters. The eye is being drawn to them but at the cost of the entire signature.
Anyways, this signature isn't a bad idea but its execution could need some more work or some re-thinking.
Proportion wise, I could care less since it's a sig and it's not supposed to have much sense of proportion.
Uh. Just because the art is in specific dimensions means it isn't supposed to have a sense of proportion? Especially in this case where he specifically stated he was trying to achieve a semi realistic depth, which is totally reliant on accurately presenting proportion...? Don't get me wrong, I don't think every piece needs to have proportion, but limiting yourself just because they're forum signatures is totally silly. If you're doing graphics and not developing your abilities as well you are wasting your time, imo.
Uh. Just because the art is in specific dimensions means it isn't supposed to have a sense of proportion? Especially in this case where he specifically stated he was trying to achieve a semi realistic depth, which is totally reliant on accurately presenting proportion...? Don't get me wrong, I don't think every piece needs to have proportion, but limiting yourself just because they're forum signatures is totally silly. If you're doing graphics and not developing your abilities as well you are wasting your time, imo.
Semi realistic does not mean realism. Plus it defeats the purpose of putting the geist as the focal of the thing in the first place. It's about choices TBH. If you do X, what will be the effect if I put in effect Y etc. etc. It's a choice between supposed realism but it dwarfs the render or keep the render as is but forget realism. Design work is about choices and the consequences after. The skills, I see it, but what would work would be different.
Instead of re-quoting you and basically repeating myself I'll reiterate in a different fashion: Proportion is important, even in signatures.
But are you willing to sacrifice what's supposed to stand out in favor of proportions then?
because if you want proper proportions then shrink the Geist, you lose emphasis of the Geist and show more of the chapel and make it more about the chapel instead of him.
If I wanted so called proportion, I'll stick to the rules of thirds when making these things thank you very much.
I'd rather break rules to get something to work than stay "safe."
Nope, I would sac the background. I never said it was a good plan, I pointed out that lack of proportion was the reason I felt a disconnect between the two images, and then explained that it probably wasn't a good idea to attempt realism in that scene, because of the difficulty involved with compositing two separate images on top of eachother and having them appear to be the same scene.
You simply generalized that a sense of proportion isn't important in forum signatures. I disagree with you. Whether it be proportion between objects, or scaling effects proportionately, etc. - it is vital to producing an image that the human eye will accept and find appealing.
The way people evaluate physical beauty is a stone cold example of this. Look at history and see if you can find any racial bias that was pinned to a disproportionate facial or bodily feature. Look at your high school yearbook and separate the popular kids from the outcasts...tell me if you notice a greater array of disproportionate features in group A.
To be honest, the background works for me. It's an interesting background. Art need not be realistic for it to work to be honest and for me, it's something different than generic spam C4D or the same three-five artworks in one pic people usually request here.
And to be honest, the so called popular kid in our class was the ugly one since he was the guy throwing the parties. Not to mention I've seen EXTREMELY UGLY people (by the so called societal standards I've noticed in my side of the country) who have more luck than some of the best looking guys in the same age group in getting women. As for so called racial bias, racial bias exists EVERYWHERE. If a Caucasian would meet an African and if it's first contact, the Caucasian would remark how big his nose is or how short and curly his hair is or how tall that person is while the African would remark how light skinned he is and how pointy his nose is and why is his hair yellow. Ugly? It depends. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If some guy finds a load of tattoos on the body beautiful, so be it. If someone thinks otherwise, so be it. I think this one's unique and definitely worth doing other than the generic C4D and Effects spam I see in some sigs.
I'm still bringing it back here, as this was the catalyst for responding to your critique, and my primary topic. Everything else I've said was supporting this, and you seem to continue ignoring it.:
"You simply generalized that a sense of proportion isn't important in forum signatures. I disagree with you."
On your other statements - your experience may or may not be the norm. I can tell you however, that science - not just some random guy on these forums - has PROVEN that people evaluate proportion and symmetry in other humans, especially during first impressions, to make some pretty obscene assumptions/determinations. (note:not first contact with a race, as I'm sure beyond the first years of life most people dont experience this often.)
Additionally, I haven't seen many abstract Cinema 4D renders (C4D as you call them) polluting valuable canvas space on these forums....maybe I'm missing them. *shrug* Either way I'd rather notice a Cinema 4D render in a signature than a ripped image from somebodies DA account. I guess I just value creative commons copyright more than some people...*wink*
I could care less to be honest about said things about my sig. I'd find another pretty art to use anyway.
Besides, for me, proportion only works when applied. I can break proportion for certain things like sigs and other forms of art when needed. I need not stay in the so called "rules" if it's not going to stand out or not going to be seen. I'd rather have something interesting to look at and developed, screwing certain rules aside. In Art, rules are simply guidelines meant to be broken in certain contexts. This is art, not a science project. If I was going to make a certain project, it would depend where and when I would apply the rules and how. I still adhere to the rule of thirds for balance but that doesn't mean I'm forced to adhere to proportions if the artwork would look bad. Besides, I've already proven that it's more of a matter of taste and when applied it works. I've seen extremely repugnant looking guys with lopsided noses have wives as hot as Jessica Alba (or insert whoever you like)
Next time find another "pretty art" that somebody else didn't make and protect? I'm surprised you and its creator didn't receive action when I reported it.
I've also already said that proportion isn't necessary in every piece.
You're like a broken record, you're not even taking the time to understand what I've put out there and if you did you would realize that your rebuttals have been for the most part irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I'm done with you, and I regret trying in the first place. Just try and keep your generalizations at bay eh?
Next time find another "pretty art" that somebody else didn't make and protect? I'm surprised you and its creator didn't receive action when I reported it.
I've also already said that proportion isn't necessary in every piece.
You're like a broken record, you're not even taking the time to understand what I've put out there and if you did you would realize that your rebuttals have been for the most part irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I'm done with you, and I regret trying in the first place. Just try and keep your generalizations at bay eh?
Oh I know. I know proportion is important in some pieces. But is it really important in EVERY piece? Then I guess youl wouldn't like some of the modern art I've seen then. Then I would suggest we take it to PM's then.
Sorry, really, last thing. I had to laugh at the irony of this seeing as you quoted me saying that it isn't, followed by me stating that you aren't reading my posts before replying. Priceless screenshot imo.
Read a few tutorials and used them to construct this:
This one I like better since the colors really pop you were able to pull off embers and flamey effects quite nicely.
The one thing that bothers me is that the render and/or effects looks a bit choppy near the bottom of her left wing, making it a bit odd looking. That and the fact that the contrast of the sig seems a bit drastic. Going from really dark to really bright with little gradiant in between.
The sharper image and deeper contrast definitely help.
@Rivenor,
I tried to create a gradient by using the mirrored Serra Avenger to slowly ease from fiery orange to black. The wing was a bit choppy in the render, here's the one I used. (Didn't make it myself, found in the partially transparent art thread.)
Starting to use more tutorial concepts: Made this.
I'm trying to improve my work, all critiques or suggestions much appreciated.
Also, if any of you can think of something cooler for the text on this sig, please share.
And the lines as well.
Though it's not much to be honest.
Sasky for the Sig.
I am in your [PACK]. Watching you... do... something.
When you say the text is out of place do you mean its meaning or position? I positioned it so the lines would guide the eye there.
The lines are meant to slightly resemble a ray of light from the window/hole in the roof. Where would you suggest putting them?
The lines should either be more prominent as actual lines, or scrapped in favor of realistic looking light rays (I know some free brushes exist for those). Since you have the lines there, and only there; it looks like a mistake, as if you were trying to create actual rays of light and failed.
I love the typeface you chose (stone sans?), but the application and word choice seem like an afterthought. Remember you're not obligated to put text on every piece and this one would be stronger without the text you placed. If you don't feel inspired to lay down type then just skip it, no harm comes to the aesthetic.
I'm excited to.see you branching out from your comfort zone and look forward to your future pieces. I suggest picking out a tutorial online that really interests you and completing it, then using the technique you learned on a new piece. That's the best way I've found to add and remember new tricks to your arsenal.
I see your point about the lines, and will look for a set of light brushes.
I guess I was picturing the Geist in the foreground more than directly related to the size of the background. I'll play around with that to see if it looks better more closely zoomed in.
I've been looking at tutorials and they've so far been pretty helpful. Although I still can't figure out how to use that STUPID @#&$% PEN TOOL. Its function and operation has so far eluded me. Hopefully the photoshop book I bought will explain.
Now that Im at my computer and not on my phone I can see what you were trying to do with the geist in the foreground, chapel in the background.
I can tell you that one of the hardest photomanipulation/composition techniques is doing just that (taking one image different from another and placing them at different focal lengths within the same image). The human eye can detect perspective issues nearly instantly, as our survival and day to day operation depends so heavily on hand eye coordination and physical calculations of the environment around us. What you tried to do there is very hard to pull off. The only way I've ever been able to combine two 2d images into one, at different focal distances (and have it realistic) - is using a 3d program. I would create solid objects the size of my 2d subjects and render them with a camera at the angle I desired, to see how I needed to size the 2d images against one another to make it realistic...then fiddle around with blurring the background in a semi-radial fashion to simulate visual depth.
The text, is just so out of place. It sticks out too much where the Geist is supposed to be your focus with the chapel as a complementary piece.
Proportion wise, I could care less since it's a sig and it's not supposed to have much sense of proportion.
I would suggest touching it up with a few more lighting effects to create some sense of depth and bring out geist.
Sasky for the Sig.
I am in your [PACK]. Watching you... do... something.
It doesn't help that the Geist of St.Traft itself is not a very signature friendly image, or cut friendly for that matter, due to the amount of effects going on/opacity differences along with color along his image. Placing him elsewhere is nigh to impossible due to this if you are wanting him to be in another scene and stand out or work with other elements.
He is causing some harsh lighting and color differences on the right side of the signature that just making everything unbalanced and overly saturated. Not to mention the straight white lines you are using(which is generally a graphic design element used in design work that uses vectors of colorful shapes and other line work to support text, numbers, existing images, etc to create an art piece) are actually making the image look flat. Actually, in digital art that isn't based on straight up graphic design straight lines make everything look flat. It is one of the rules in drawing and painting. You never make a completely overt straight line that is dominant in the art piece. It leads the eye, true, but it makes everything around it flat especially if it is a bright attention color like white.
Signature creation as I see it is a sort of a blend of graphic design and conceptual art principles. You are making something from scratch with other images that are already finished. You do not want to make life harder on yourself by violating artistic rules for one or the other or both unless it is called for and you have control of the outcome as the artist making conscious decisions.
I would advise, like Rizla said, to look for some light brush packs on the internet especially ones that create realistic shine rays. I am using one in my sig right now behind the Gitaxian probe. It looks pretty good for what I planned and it isn't even the best light brush in the pack.
As for the other elements in this signature. The statue behind the Geist is trying to draw the eye but so is the background. There isn't a separation of distances here. The best you can do is try to sharpen and blur things to create a suggestion of depth which is really all you can do with this, as Rizla said, 3D programs like 3D Studio Max or Maya would be the fastest route for creating depth while maintaining clarity in an image with multiple elements. Though, in this situation I doubt even that would help here given the issues with the Geist and the white lines in the middle section. However, I don't know if you have those programs or know how to use them. Though, I could see using Adobe After Effects to create a sort of similar effect with it's tool sets(its like Photoshop but it has a timeline so you can animate graphics.).
The text itself isn't a bad idea but it is sort of haphazardly placed and it is sitting with those signature flattening lines which doesn't help matters. The eye is being drawn to them but at the cost of the entire signature.
Anyways, this signature isn't a bad idea but its execution could need some more work or some re-thinking.
Uh. Just because the art is in specific dimensions means it isn't supposed to have a sense of proportion? Especially in this case where he specifically stated he was trying to achieve a semi realistic depth, which is totally reliant on accurately presenting proportion...? Don't get me wrong, I don't think every piece needs to have proportion, but limiting yourself just because they're forum signatures is totally silly. If you're doing graphics and not developing your abilities as well you are wasting your time, imo.
Nice man! Try adding these two layers above it:
1.
New layer in OVERLAY mode:
Image -> Apply Image
Filter -> Other -> High Pass [set at 0.8 pixels]
2.
Brightness/Contrast layer
-27 Brightness
+74 Contrast
Only have visible where the winged angel is on the right
This is what those two layers accomplish:
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k284/rizlawow/SCRAP/ArgetlamTutorial.png
Semi realistic does not mean realism. Plus it defeats the purpose of putting the geist as the focal of the thing in the first place. It's about choices TBH. If you do X, what will be the effect if I put in effect Y etc. etc. It's a choice between supposed realism but it dwarfs the render or keep the render as is but forget realism. Design work is about choices and the consequences after. The skills, I see it, but what would work would be different.
Sasky for the Sig.
I am in your [PACK]. Watching you... do... something.
But are you willing to sacrifice what's supposed to stand out in favor of proportions then?
because if you want proper proportions then shrink the Geist, you lose emphasis of the Geist and show more of the chapel and make it more about the chapel instead of him.
If I wanted so called proportion, I'll stick to the rules of thirds when making these things thank you very much.
I'd rather break rules to get something to work than stay "safe."
Sasky for the Sig.
I am in your [PACK]. Watching you... do... something.
You simply generalized that a sense of proportion isn't important in forum signatures. I disagree with you. Whether it be proportion between objects, or scaling effects proportionately, etc. - it is vital to producing an image that the human eye will accept and find appealing.
The way people evaluate physical beauty is a stone cold example of this. Look at history and see if you can find any racial bias that was pinned to a disproportionate facial or bodily feature. Look at your high school yearbook and separate the popular kids from the outcasts...tell me if you notice a greater array of disproportionate features in group A.
And to be honest, the so called popular kid in our class was the ugly one since he was the guy throwing the parties. Not to mention I've seen EXTREMELY UGLY people (by the so called societal standards I've noticed in my side of the country) who have more luck than some of the best looking guys in the same age group in getting women. As for so called racial bias, racial bias exists EVERYWHERE. If a Caucasian would meet an African and if it's first contact, the Caucasian would remark how big his nose is or how short and curly his hair is or how tall that person is while the African would remark how light skinned he is and how pointy his nose is and why is his hair yellow. Ugly? It depends. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If some guy finds a load of tattoos on the body beautiful, so be it. If someone thinks otherwise, so be it. I think this one's unique and definitely worth doing other than the generic C4D and Effects spam I see in some sigs.
Sasky for the Sig.
I am in your [PACK]. Watching you... do... something.
"You simply generalized that a sense of proportion isn't important in forum signatures. I disagree with you."
On your other statements - your experience may or may not be the norm. I can tell you however, that science - not just some random guy on these forums - has PROVEN that people evaluate proportion and symmetry in other humans, especially during first impressions, to make some pretty obscene assumptions/determinations. (note:not first contact with a race, as I'm sure beyond the first years of life most people dont experience this often.)
Additionally, I haven't seen many abstract Cinema 4D renders (C4D as you call them) polluting valuable canvas space on these forums....maybe I'm missing them. *shrug* Either way I'd rather notice a Cinema 4D render in a signature than a ripped image from somebodies DA account. I guess I just value creative commons copyright more than some people...*wink*
Besides, for me, proportion only works when applied. I can break proportion for certain things like sigs and other forms of art when needed. I need not stay in the so called "rules" if it's not going to stand out or not going to be seen. I'd rather have something interesting to look at and developed, screwing certain rules aside. In Art, rules are simply guidelines meant to be broken in certain contexts. This is art, not a science project. If I was going to make a certain project, it would depend where and when I would apply the rules and how. I still adhere to the rule of thirds for balance but that doesn't mean I'm forced to adhere to proportions if the artwork would look bad. Besides, I've already proven that it's more of a matter of taste and when applied it works. I've seen extremely repugnant looking guys with lopsided noses have wives as hot as Jessica Alba (or insert whoever you like)
Sasky for the Sig.
I am in your [PACK]. Watching you... do... something.
I've also already said that proportion isn't necessary in every piece.
You're like a broken record, you're not even taking the time to understand what I've put out there and if you did you would realize that your rebuttals have been for the most part irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I'm done with you, and I regret trying in the first place. Just try and keep your generalizations at bay eh?
Oh I know. I know proportion is important in some pieces. But is it really important in EVERY piece? Then I guess youl wouldn't like some of the modern art I've seen then. Then I would suggest we take it to PM's then.
Sasky for the Sig.
I am in your [PACK]. Watching you... do... something.
Sorry, really, last thing. I had to laugh at the irony of this seeing as you quoted me saying that it isn't, followed by me stating that you aren't reading my posts before replying. Priceless screenshot imo.
Guys arguing like this is teaching very little to Argentlam. It might be a good idea to go to PMs if you really want to convince each other.
This one I like better since the colors really pop you were able to pull off embers and flamey effects quite nicely.
The one thing that bothers me is that the render and/or effects looks a bit choppy near the bottom of her left wing, making it a bit odd looking. That and the fact that the contrast of the sig seems a bit drastic. Going from really dark to really bright with little gradiant in between.
You cannot outrun the beast within.
The sharper image and deeper contrast definitely help.
@Rivenor,
I tried to create a gradient by using the mirrored Serra Avenger to slowly ease from fiery orange to black. The wing was a bit choppy in the render, here's the one I used. (Didn't make it myself, found in the partially transparent art thread.)
Starting to use more tutorial concepts: Made this.
Honestly only thing I would change is to go without text. That bubbling background looks great on its own.
You cannot outrun the beast within.