[QUOTE="Kritical_Strike"][QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="Kritical_Strike"]Can someone rate my siggy please? -kaz3-
It seems to lack depth. The render is too sharp, and kind of grainy, and the background looks flat. The red electricity looks good though. 5/10Whoa, I usually take any critisism without complaining, but I'm gonna have to make an exception here. Now, depth is when there is a clear foreground and background, and distance between the two. See how the background is out of focus (blurry)? And how the focal is in focus (sharp)? That's creating the illusion that there is clear distance between the foreground and background. Also I don't see how an army of helgast spreading into the distance (more depth) is "flat".
You're probably right on the sharpness though. It might be a difference in moniters, because it looks just right to me...
Sorry about being a bit defensive, but I can't just sit here quietly when I hear BS, now is today's lesson on depth sufficient? CLASS DISMISSED.
Depth is not limited to something so simple. If that were the case, then all artworks without a clear distinction is flat? Hardly. I feel depth is more of the feeling of the unknown, like theres a lot more to the image than meets the eye. When i look at your sig...i see...lightning, that's it. (BTW, i suggest you use blending modes to erase the background of those lighning, increase the contrast of the original image, and use blending modes such as lighten, it works like a charm). Anyhoo, the background does look flat seeing as it's just the blurred background. Oh and what solidsnake said is true...its too abrupt, try using variable amounts of blurring based on an estimation of distance, Despite all of that, it's better than..i'd say....8 out of 10 sigs i see in this thread. Edit: BS? Hardly, it's mostly true what he said, and I'd say most experienced artists would agree depth isn't as shallow as you described it to be. (Sorry if i sound like a prick im not trying to be one :|) I used a purely technical definition of depth, so don't try to pull that abstract thing on me.
I was correcting his claim that my sig "lacked depth", even he admitted that he worded it wrong, I didn't disagree with anything else he said. So, in essence, his claim of my piece lacking depth really is BS, so I responded (as for the varying amounts of blurr in the background, that's exactly what I did, the buildings in the background are far more blurred than the helgast soldiers, perhaps I should make it more obvious). As for the lightning background, I intentionally left it in, and it's not all I added in. I spent a lot of time perfecting the lighting on my focal, something your current sig isn't doing (ok that was uncalled for, couldn't help it).
BUT, I like your other advice, I'll take it into account and make some adjustments. As for there "only being lightning", I'm probably not going to add anything...I spent quite a while trying to figure out what else I could add, to no avail. So, thanks for the advice again.
http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd164/jaydoughe/fmazk1.jpg It might be a little stretched, but.... 
Nothing really worthy of not, other than it's for a competition in liquid designs. Rate pls. .(i think) 4 c4ds. 
Log in to comment