Sig combining Gimp and PS

I just made a new sig, combining different aspects of Gimp and PhotoShop (okay, I mostly used Gimp just because it suited the need here, but still :p)

What do you all think?

That's cool..I'd prefer it more if you shown his face more

-TheSigMachine- wrote:

That's cool..I'd prefer it more if you shown his face more

It wasn't that good one of Yondaime's face. I used a worse one because I can always find a better one, I just wanted practice, and not get used to using the best ones there are yet

Well the rest is good then..I liked the text reflection effect..I guess you used PS for that, yes ?

Dart, why do I recognize a sig made by you just by the looks without reading the name or looking at who has posted it? Probably change your style slightly from time to time

Yes, I did. I just duplicated the text layer, and then transformed it vertically, while lowering the opacity.

I am lucky I got PhotoShop for free (came with school-necessary laptop), otherwise I wouldn't be able to do that :p

rewritable wrote:

Dart, why do I recognize a sig made by you just by the looks without reading the name or looking at who has posted it? Probably change your style slightly from time to time

Because I don't do much to the central image

It really isn't that complicated to see the sig style with me, I guess. I don't know why

Another sig I made.

What do you all think?

I like it, the purple and orange colours are a little out of whack but it still looks good

No focal point in the sig, put his face, not his neck.

in the second one I put a face

another one I made (might sell, might not )

can rewrite the "player name" to the buyer and get rid of the watermark.

I notice all of your sigs have large text。 That creates a 2nd focal and is bad。 Stop with the mirroring text too。。。keep it simple。 You want the attention at the render。 Your BG disrupts the flow of the entire sig in the 2nd one and in the first one too。

Keep sigin。 But you need to read some tuts。

MinorDisaster wrote:

I notice all of your sigs have large text。 That creates a 2nd focal and is bad。 Stop with the mirroring text too。。。keep it simple。 You want the attention at the render。 Your BG disrupts the flow of the entire sig in the 2nd one and in the first one too。

Keep sigin。 But you need to read some tuts。

I read TicToc's tutorial, tried to follow that best I could (I don't really know what some of the things n it are).

MinorDisaster wrote:

I notice all of your sigs have large text。 That creates a 2nd focal and is bad。 Stop with the mirroring text too。。。keep it simple。 You want the attention at the render。 Your BG disrupts the flow of the entire sig in the 2nd one and in the first one too。

Keep sigin。 But you need to read some tuts。

mixed what I learned from TicToc's guides and what I saw in Spann's sig for this one.



what do you think? What all should I do to improve it? (tried making the text blend in a little more)

An awesome sig but i cant really see the writing very well.

tried not to make it a focal point with this one lol

Made another one, this time for someone else:



with only the katana:

Your missing the point. When I look at your focal point(the man with red hair), I should clearly be able to see the text as well. So I don't have to look somewhere else to see your name. Keep the text close to the render so it complements it, and read a variety of tuts...not just one. The text should be "part" of the focal.

MinorDisaster wrote:

Your missing the point. When I look at your focal point(the man with red hair), I should clearly be able to see the text as well. So I don't have to look somewhere else to see your name. Keep the text close to the render so it complements it, and read a variety of tuts...not just one. The text should be "part" of the focal.

Don't agree on this one this time. Text should be a part of the sig and that not always mean it has to be stuffed close to render. In the above sig, the eyes are drawn to the focal, then move along with the flow (which is quite clear on the left side due to the sword) to the sides, thus moving over the text as well. There are no extra effort and looking around to see the text (which, unfortunately, is unreadable and doesn't blend).

rewritable wrote:

MinorDisaster wrote:

Your missing the point. When I look at your focal point(the man with red hair), I should clearly be able to see the text as well. So I don't have to look somewhere else to see your name. Keep the text close to the render so it complements it, and read a variety of tuts...not just one. The text should be "part" of the focal.

Don't agree on this one this time. Text should be a part of the sig and that not always mean it has to be stuffed close to render. In the above sig, the eyes are drawn to the focal, then move along with the flow (which is quite clear on the left side due to the sword) to the sides, thus moving over the text as well. There are no extra effort and looking around to see the text (which, unfortunately, is unreadable and doesn't blend).

I know what your getting at...but what your describing sounds awfully like a focal point, as you still need to move your eyes to see the text and you look at it individually. Thus you are interchanging your vision between 2 focal points. It doesn't always have to be stuffed close to the render, but it does in most cases to achieve uno focal point. When you focus your eyes on a particular object, the rest blurs out. Objects close to the focused object tend to be seen whilst looking at the focus object, if close, that is. Hope that makes sense.

MinorDisaster wrote:

I know what your getting at...but what your describing sounds awfully like a focal point, as you still need to move your eyes to see the text and you look at it individually. Thus you are interchanging your vision between 2 focal points. It doesn't always have to be stuffed close to the render, but it does in most cases to achieve uno focal point. When you focus your eyes on a particular object, the rest blurs out. Objects close to the focused object tend to be seen whilst looking at the focus object, if close, that is. Hope that makes sense.

The sig doesn't end at the focal point. By a good use of flow you can move the viewers eyes wehre you want them to move (that is essentially important in TW-size sigs, where there is a lot of space outside the focal). In Dart's sig eyes are drawn into the focal (head), then move on along with flow to other things, including text.

Below is an exellent exaplt by FreakOnALeash of how amazing frlow is used to direct the eye.


Eyes are first drawn to the guys at the right (thatnks to the almost only verical lines in the sig), then move along through text and effects to the very other side of the sig.

Not going to quote all your posts, but I only did what the person requested with the text. He wanted white, old english text, and that is the closest I have to old english.

I'll try to work more on the flow, however.

Oh! I understand you now.

That just applies to long sigs then....I have no experience with those XD

In your common sig sizes, that isn't particularly useful.

BTW, in that sig of freaks you showed me, that isn't flow from what I see(the lines don't move in the same direction. They move diagonally upwards/right. The effects don't move in the direction your talking about) and there are CLEARLY 3 focals. Or at least 2. It's a bad example, but I sorta get what you mean.

Dartship wrote:

mixed what I learned from TicToc's guides and what I saw in Spann's sig for this one.



what do you think? What all should I do to improve it? (tried making the text blend in a little more)

No offense, but to me it actually drew MORE attention, as I spent a few seconds trying to make out what it said... I have a hard time with making text fit in too, dun worry

MinorDisaster wrote:

Oh! I understand you now.

That just applies to long sigs then....I have no experience with those XD

In your common sig sizes, that isn't particularly useful.

BTW, in that sig of freaks you showed me, that isn't flow from what I see(the lines don't move in the same direction. They move diagonally upwards/right. The effects don't move in the direction your talking about) and there are CLEARLY 3 focals. Or at least 2. It's a bad example, but I sorta get what you mean.

Yeh, to me it looked like 3 different siggies mashed together