Full Signature Tutorial ~Senthrax - All is Brawl forums

Visit All is Brawl today!

Visit All is Planet today!

Visit All is Crossing today!

Visit All is Fighter today!

Visit All is COD today!

Home

Index
Help · Search

Full Signature Tutorial ~Senthrax - www.delta-visions.com (permission granted)

» All is Brawl forums » Social » Art District » GFX Section

Subscribe to this topic.

Topic

Page: 1 2 3

#21 9:48 PM Oct 14 2008 2008
Stacey Walking Advertisement Joined: Jun 2008	Quote (originally posted by Black Waltz): what i really dont understand is why you don't want to see things from a different perspective. could you explain it to me? i really dont want to make enemies on an online forum, it's just pointless. if you're willing to listen, i'm willing to explain. I do see things from a different perspective, just this is one of those thigns that doesn't make any sense at all. I'm willing listen, you have to be able to convince though.

#22 10:28 PM Oct 14 2008 2008
Kern Unstoppable Joined: Jun 2008	Sigs that adhere to the basics outlined in this tutorial are generally better received by people than sigs that use random/noobish photoshopping. It's just simple common sense. EDIT: Oh yeah, this tutorial is highly recommended. For people looking to take their sig making skills up a notch, pay attention to what this tut has to say. Last edited by Kern, 10:35 PM on Oct 14, 2008

#23 11:44 PM Oct 14 2008 2008
Stacey Walking Advertisement Joined: Jun 2008	Kern, noobish photoshopping is an oximoron (sp) And its recieved better ONLY by other brainwashed people, I've seen sigs that look like trash or worse but get rated high because it has "lighting" that only makes it look worse, "flow" that serves no purpose because the "lighting" has ruined everything in the sig, and then "depth" that makes it look like a watercolor painting gone wrong. If anybody wanted to see that they could walk to a preschool with a flashlight. But none of you brainwashed people can tell, or the few who notice don't say anything because theres already so many people going along with it. Also people who try to convince me have nothing worth reading to say, I just get linked to an explanation of these "rules." Everyone who has attempted to convince me are just like people who try to convert others to their religion, they simply explain it to you but give no reasons why its better/true other than the fact some person wrote it down so it must be true. How credible was the person that wrote it? The sigs on this tutorial (and that follow it) aren't very "wow!" so I'd assume whoever decided this looked good did it so people would respect/like their work. Honestly if you're walking down a road and you see two restaurants, a white one with stripes and an arrow pointing at the door then one with a bunch of objects painted on it in all different colors and arrows pointing everywhere, something tells me you would pick restaurant #2 because it looks more interesting. But suppose you're taking your superior (parents, in-laws, boss, etc.) You would pick restaurant #1 because that is what they have decided is better. That's a big enough message for one post with a wii. Sorry if I offended hardcore religious people and boring restaurant owners. I'm gonna go get something to eat now cause the restaurant talk made me hungry.

#24 11:49 PM Oct 14 2008 2008
Stacey Walking Advertisement Joined: Jun 2008	Oh oops I forgot an important part in the restaurant paragraph, I was supposed to mention #1 has worse food and #2 has better food. My bad, can't edit post on wii x.x

#25 11:56 PM Oct 14 2008 2008
NightTide Secret 'Stache of Gold Joined: Mar 2008	People who think that focal points and flow as generally some of the only factors that make a good signature are the truly brainwashed ones. This tutorial touches all aspects in a manner that doesn't focus so much on another aspect, like lighting, the majority of the time. It only outlines one of many possible paths to take on a signature, it's intended to make people try out new things and see what others think of their "method". Stacey, find me a signature that "wows" you and is not your own. I'm just curious what you'll show us.

#26 12:09 AM Oct 15 2008 2008
Stacey Walking Advertisement Joined: Jun 2008	I've only made two sigs that seem "wow" to me, I've seen a few that "wow" me, that Sora one that conker (i think) made was "wow" to me

#27 12:12 AM Oct 15 2008 2008
ArkiveZero People Know Me Joined: Apr 2008	Quote (originally posted by xXZCXx): lulz this is epic... ne way everyone should read this... trust me it wont gaurantee a good sig (you saw my attempt) but it WILL help you with basics in any style sig you make. this learn the basics before learning the more advanced stuff

#28 1:27 AM Oct 15 2008 2008
roguehart Joined: Oct 2008	i guess (judging by reading) i would be middle ground in this argument. I've been on delta-visions for most of 08. and i have seen sigs that were just incredible. the work and effort put into them was amazing and the outcome was beautiful. ive seen sigs like that ranked beginner and low mod. ive also seen sigs that when i looked at them i thought "... wtf is that????" that were rated high mod and inter. sure they had a lot of work and advanced techniques in them but they sucked in the end. the way i see it a good sig is a sig that actually looks good. a sig that someone who has never once touched photoshop (or the gimp or any other deep image editor) can look at and say "thats just awesome". i feel that a sig is not measured by what techniques are in it or how high quality the render is. but more in how it looks. people get so caught up in the technical aspect of sigging that everyone forgets its an ART which means that the look and meaning of a piece is more important than what brush and smudge settings you used or how much pentool work you put into it. senthrax has some gorgeous sigs. then again some of his work is pure crap. thats true of everyone that uses photoshop. this tutorial is a quality tutorial that can help people. but like all tutorials it is never a good idea to follow it to the letter. you have to have your own ideas and styles. while i think everyone should read this tutorial i dont think everyone should stick with everything in it. dont base your sigs on the principals in this. just because a sig is a lil monotone or doesnt have a strong flow doesnt mean its not a great sig. like stacey's its monotone. there is no real flow. and the txt is animated which draws all the attention. but its a great sig. it looks amazing and is incredibly well done even though it doesnt follow the standards. ive always felt the sigging community was a tad corrupt which is why its a good idea to go to other places besides sig centered forums to do your work like aib. not everyone here who makes their own sigs are members of places like dv and therefore have fairly untainted tastes. its a good way to get a common opinion and find out just how well a sig is really done. My Tier's

#29 2:19 AM Oct 15 2008 2008
I_Magus Joined: Sep 2008	I think its an awesome tut for beginers. I think the sigs look ok <_< but im not an artsy kinda guy(I've got a terribly low attention span). In fact I'm gonna go post in the sillies and then come back here. Anyway. Thanks! I think it really helped.

#30 8:57 AM Oct 15 2008 2008
Black Waltz Featured Sig Maker Joined: Jun 2008	Quote (originally posted by roguehart): i guess (judging by reading) i would be middle ground in this argument. I've been on delta-visions for most of 08. and i have seen sigs that were just incredible. the work and effort put into them was amazing and the outcome was beautiful. ive seen sigs like that ranked beginner and low mod. ive also seen sigs that when i looked at them i thought "... wtf is that????" that were rated high mod and inter. sure they had a lot of work and advanced techniques in them but they sucked in the end. the way i see it a good sig is a sig that actually looks good. a sig that someone who has never once touched photoshop (or the gimp or any other deep image editor) can look at and say "thats just awesome". i feel that a sig is not measured by what techniques are in it or how high quality the render is. but more in how it looks. people get so caught up in the technical aspect of sigging that everyone forgets its an ART which means that the look and meaning of a piece is more important than what brush and smudge settings you used or how much pentool work you put into it. senthrax has some gorgeous sigs. then again some of his work is pure crap. thats true of everyone that uses photoshop. this tutorial is a quality tutorial that can help people. but like all tutorials it is never a good idea to follow it to the letter. you have to have your own ideas and styles. while i think everyone should read this tutorial i dont think everyone should stick with everything in it. dont base your sigs on the principals in this. just because a sig is a lil monotone or doesnt have a strong flow doesnt mean its not a great sig. like stacey's its monotone. there is no real flow. and the txt is animated which draws all the attention. but its a great sig. it looks amazing and is incredibly well done even though it doesnt follow the standards. ive always felt the sigging community was a tad corrupt which is why its a good idea to go to other places besides sig centered forums to do your work like aib. not everyone here who makes their own sigs are members of places like dv and therefore have fairly untainted tastes. its a good way to get a common opinion and find out just how well a sig is really done. Art is a strange thing, man. I don't understand it either. My friend went to France and saw a pile of dirt in a museum labled "Earth". Why that's there, I have no ****ing clue, but it's considered a piece of art that's worth probably thousands. "i feel that a sig is not measured by what techniques are in it or how high quality the render is. but more in how it looks. people get so caught up in the technical aspect of sigging that everyone forgets its an ART which means that the look and meaning of a piece is more important than what brush and smudge settings you used or how much pentool work you put into it. " so true. Too bad signatures have too small of a canvas to really convey a meaning.

#31 10:26 AM Oct 15 2008 2008
Clan Featured Sig Maker Joined: Sep 2008	My only qualm is this: Do we really need half of a tutorial teaching us about color theory? I prefer to do the colors intellectuality and then go back and change them if need be. This is kind of force feeding it to you. Plus, it doesn't really do anything related to the sig itself.

#32 1:27 PM Oct 15 2008 2008
aberz Secret Agent Joined: Mar 2008	This is a tutorial and nothing more, the reasons these are posted here is so that people who want to try them out can do so and post there work HERE. If you keep your shenanigans up, I WILL CLOSE THIS THREAD. There is off topic stuff in here that shouldn't be here. I hope that I made my self clear. What do you tell someone that has lost a loved one to cancer, yet they have it themselves. What do you tell yourself when you know that your hours away from passing. Once you figure it out, tell my grandfather.

#33 3:36 PM Oct 15 2008 2008
xXZCXx Broken Ladder Joined: May 2008	lol aberz, this is kind of a good topic though. It has ALOT to do with the tutorial. Whether people follow it or not is there own choice but discussing whether the tutorial is brainwahing or not is PART of the topic. Thats part of the reason I created this topic for. Ne way we do need to slow the argueing down alittle. Both sides are right. But the thing is someones trash is anothers treasure. So even though that "brainwashed stuff" seems over-rated you cant just judge a sig on how it looks to you, its sort of baised, so you have to consider both aspects. Ne way my first outcome... which i didnt completely follow this tut..... is below----v

#34 5:04 PM Oct 15 2008 2008
Ivysmash Joined: Oct 2008	Nothing. Last edited by Ivysmash, 6:04 PM on Oct 16, 2008

#35 5:30 PM Oct 15 2008 2008
Stacey Walking Advertisement Joined: Jun 2008	I never said a sig with the brainwashed junk in it can't be good, but often ones without it are alot better looking but are rated down for not having "depth" or "flow" or a "focal", while the trashy watercolor painting with a flashlight on it gets rated high for having all the stuff that makes it look good Last edited by Stacey, 5:30 PM on Oct 15, 2008

#36 5:30 PM Oct 15 2008 2008
Clan Featured Sig Maker Joined: Sep 2008	Seriously? Which site was this? Maybe I should shut up and read the tut O.o

#37 5:33 PM Oct 15 2008 2008
Stacey Walking Advertisement Joined: Jun 2008	Edit to my previous post "...rated higher for having all the things that make it NOT look good." I hate posting on wii x.x

#38 5:52 PM Oct 15 2008 2008
Black Waltz Featured Sig Maker Joined: Jun 2008	Quote (originally posted by Stacey): I never said a sig with the brainwashed junk in it can't be good, but often ones without it are alot better looking but are rated down for not having "depth" or "flow" or a "focal", while the trashy watercolor painting with a flashlight on it gets rated high for having all the stuff that makes it look good It's true that you don't need all that "depth" and junkz to make a sig look nice. Concept and ideas also come into play. It's kinda like advanced techniques, just because you know and use them doesn't mean you're good. And even if you don't use them, you can still outplay someone who does use advanced techs if you have the right understanding of the basics. For example, I think your sig looks good, Stacey. The idea and concept behind it is awesome, but you didn't use art theory to make it like that. Though I have to say, you did follow some of those guidelines regarding render placement, focal point and lighting, so maybe you use art theory, just not consciously. And one of my old sigs: looks like crap, even though I used "blending", "flow" and all that.

#39 7:05 PM Oct 15 2008 2008
Kern Unstoppable Joined: Jun 2008	Quote: Kern, noobish photoshopping is an oximoron(sp) It's oxymoron. And that's a false claim. The two aren't contradictory terms, as photoshopping doesn't have to require skill at all. Unless you want to argue in terms of perspective, it's not an oxymoron. Quote: And its recieved better ONLY by other brainwashed people So you're saying there's a huge conspiracy going on? Rofl. It's just a shared opinion by the community that sigs with good depth, lighting etc. are generally better than those that don't. It seems kind of ridiculous for you to bring "brainwashing" into a matter of such minuscule proportion. What you're trying to say is that there is no such thing as 'good' or 'bad' art, which something I would have to disagree with. But anyway, that argument probably calls for a new topic by itself. I'll leave it at that. Last edited by Kern, 7:10 PM on Oct 15, 2008

#40 7:36 PM Oct 15 2008 2008
Peelz Signature Artist Joined: May 2008	I find it strange that you proclaim such techniques as depth, lighting, and composition as "brainwashed junk" Stacey. These elements are not only applicable to sig-making, but are fundamental artistic principles used by artists throughout the centuries. If you believe that they are not important, take it up with my good friends Michaelangelo, Donatello, Leonardo, and Raphael. (and no, I'm not talking about the ninja turtles XD ) And yet, good-looking art can be created without using all of these techniques (Van Gogh for instance) but using them as a guideline can only help, not hurt, a person's tag-making ability. Last edited by Peelz, 7:39 PM on Oct 15, 2008

Page: 1 2 3

Quick Jump

advertisement