bury the year Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 First real graphical piece. Not expected overwhelming praise or anything, so just tell me where I screwed up. (I'm a total noob at Photoshop, BTW.) [align=center] Second edit. [/align] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuro no Keiyakushu Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 No depth.No flow.No composition.No lighting.Monotone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cypress Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 No depth.No flow.No composition.No lighting.Monotone. and because of that, i love it ^^9.876/10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuro no Keiyakushu Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 No depth.No flow.No composition.No lighting.Monotone. and because of that' date=' i love it ^^9.876/10[/quote'] No rating. Nub. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sesiki Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 Dont rate GFX.I like the conceptbut it is Monotone and bad lighting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bury the year Posted November 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 Dont rate GFX.I like the conceptbut it is Monotone and bad lighting Meh. I'm a writer first, artist second. Thanks, though. :3 I'll try putting up an improved version tomorrow. EDIT: Improved version's posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JG. Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 I'll give you, for your first, this is pretty good. I like the 2nd version quite a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exyst Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 Version 1 > Version 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seta Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 Not half bad, I say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ihop Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 A bit dull, but not bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snitch Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 No depth.No flow.No composition.No lighting.Monotone. Stupid CnC.Stupid Kyle.Stupid Kyle is stupid.Stupid Kyle doesn't see that this is typography.Stupidity. /thread It's awesome Rinne, like I said over MSN; it's nicely presented imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JG. Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 No depth.No flow.No composition.No lighting.Monotone. Stupid CnC.Stupid Kyle.Stupid Kyle is stupid.Stupid Kyle doesn't see that this is typography.Stupidity. /thread It's awesome Rinne' date=' like I said over MSN; it's nicely presented imo.[/quote'] Tyopgraphy still needs those basics. Know what you're talking about next time please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuro no Keiyakushu Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 No depth.No flow.No composition.No lighting.Monotone. Stupid CnC.Stupid Kyle.Stupid Kyle is stupid.Stupid Kyle doesn't see that this is typography.Stupidity. /thread It's awesome Rinne' date=' like I said over MSN; it's nicely presented imo.[/quote'] So I guess words on a blank document would fit your standards, amirite Joshy-boy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snitch Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 No depth.No flow.No composition.No lighting.Monotone. Stupid CnC.Stupid Kyle.Stupid Kyle is stupid.Stupid Kyle doesn't see that this is typography.Stupidity. /thread It's awesome Rinne' date=' like I said over MSN; it's nicely presented imo.[/quote'] Tyopgraphy still needs those basics. Know what you're talking about next time please. The only thing on that list I can possibly see typography needing is depth. Flow is unnecessary, you're normally not trying to get the focus to anywhere and just get people to view the text. Composition is completely optional, why the hell would you need to light some words, and black and white typography is common. Give a better argument next time please. No depth.No flow.No composition.No lighting.Monotone. Stupid CnC.Stupid Kyle.Stupid Kyle is stupid.Stupid Kyle doesn't see that this is typography.Stupidity. /thread It's awesome Rinne' date=' like I said over MSN; it's nicely presented imo.[/quote'] So I guess words on a blank document would fit your standards, amirite Joshy-boy? Where did you get that from? This isn't words on a blank document, you're just CnCing this as though it's a signature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuro no Keiyakushu Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 No depth.No flow.No composition.No lighting.Monotone. Stupid CnC.Stupid Kyle.Stupid Kyle is stupid.Stupid Kyle doesn't see that this is typography.Stupidity. /thread It's awesome Rinne' date=' like I said over MSN; it's nicely presented imo.[/quote'] Tyopgraphy still needs those basics. Know what you're talking about next time please. The only thing on that list I can possibly see typography needing is depth. Flow is unnecessary, you're normally not trying to get the focus to anywhere and just get people to view the text. Composition is completely optional, why the hell would you need to light some words, and black and white typography is common. Give a better argument next time please. No depth.No flow.No composition.No lighting.Monotone. Stupid CnC.Stupid Kyle.Stupid Kyle is stupid.Stupid Kyle doesn't see that this is typography.Stupidity. /thread It's awesome Rinne' date=' like I said over MSN; it's nicely presented imo.[/quote'] So I guess words on a blank document would fit your standards, amirite Joshy-boy? Where did you get that from? This isn't words on a blank document, you're just CnCing this as though it's a signature. But you said it as though typography doesn't need the basics and words on a blank document shows no basics in the use. Why can't there be lighting? I've seen lighting in tons of typography pieces that made them look more visually appealing and even better than before. Dude, composition. OH COMPOSITION. If yuo don't have that, then, well, screw yourself. SO I herd u don't need flow? U iz 2 stuped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shallow Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 This is your FIRST graphic piece? Wow pretty awesome for your firs graphic, i like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JG. Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 No depth.No flow.No composition.No lighting.Monotone. Stupid CnC.Stupid Kyle.Stupid Kyle is stupid.Stupid Kyle doesn't see that this is typography.Stupidity. /thread It's awesome Rinne' date=' like I said over MSN; it's nicely presented imo.[/quote'] Tyopgraphy still needs those basics. Know what you're talking about next time please. The only thing on that list I can possibly see typography needing is depth. Flow is unnecessary, you're normally not trying to get the focus to anywhere and just get people to view the text. Composition is completely optional, why the hell would you need to light some words, and black and white typography is common. Give a better argument next time please. I advise you stop now before you make more of a fool of yourself than you already have. But yes, typo pieces need as much basics as a regular tag, so it's perfectly right to CnC it as a regular tag. But yes, B&W is common, yet they still have lighting. Srsly, know what you're actually talking about before you start making rubbish comments. Oh, and about the optional compo... I hit my head so hard on my keyboard... GTFO until you learn to GFX. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuro no Keiyakushu Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 No depth.No flow.No composition.No lighting.Monotone. Stupid CnC.Stupid Kyle.Stupid Kyle is stupid.Stupid Kyle doesn't see that this is typography.Stupidity. /thread It's awesome Rinne' date=' like I said over MSN; it's nicely presented imo.[/quote'] Tyopgraphy still needs those basics. Know what you're talking about next time please. The only thing on that list I can possibly see typography needing is depth. Flow is unnecessary, you're normally not trying to get the focus to anywhere and just get people to view the text. Composition is completely optional, why the hell would you need to light some words, and black and white typography is common. Give a better argument next time please. I advise you stop now before you make more of a fool of yourself than you already have. But yes, typo pieces need as much basics as a regular tag, so it's perfectly right to CnC it as a regular tag. But yes, B&W is common, yet they still have lighting. Srsly, know what you're actually talking about before you start making rubbish comments. -shows two thumbs up- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sesiki Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 Version 1 < Version 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.