NEW Digital Dragon Painting by NickLD

[Brendano Harns]

Oh my god. Wtf is wrong with this forum!? Digital painting is not graphic design?! wtf?! Never-mind you guys don't deserve help.

 

>=P

 

Sometimes and emoticon says it all.

 

 

 

 

Anyways, you did extremely well with the textures on the dragon, but the "effects" coming from its eyes are...well, they don't look like fire or steam. Sire. Or Feam. Either way, it just doesn't look right to me.

 

And I agree with Eoc about the bg. It doesn't look that great, tbh. The dragon was done well enough to more or less cover it up, but adding more detail into the bg could really make it look better. ;)

[ObsoleteAcc]

Oh my god. Wtf is wrong with this forum!? Digital painting is not graphic design?! wtf?! Never-mind you guys don't deserve help.

 

>=P

 

Sometimes and emoticon says it all.

 

 

 

 

Anyways' date=' you did extremely well with the textures on the dragon, but the "effects" coming from its eyes are...well, they don't look like fire or steam. Sire. Or Feam. Either way, it just doesn't look right to me.

 

And I agree with Eoc about the bg. It doesn't look that great, tbh. The dragon was done well enough to more or less cover it up, but adding more detail into the bg could really make it look better. ;)

[/quote']

 

yea, the eye effect is a little to vivid and clear, if its smoke, it needs to be more vague....

and yea, i know bout the BG xD

once i start another drawing (really hope its sometime soon) im gonna focus on all of it.

 

thx fuzzball

[-DG-]

When you know enough about graphic design then come back.

 

kthxbai.

 

When you know what your talking about then come back.

 

This is not graphic design. It's not a signiture' date=' it's not a banner, nor anything else that would traditionally be associated with graphic design. This is a digital painting. The methodology that is used for making a signiture and making a digital painting are completely different; don't pretend that they're interchangable.

 

Yes, I am aware that you draw. If anything, that should make you more aware of the fact that detailing is stylistic. The fact that you can draw yet still won't acknowledge this confounds me. If you think high levels of detail are imperative for every style, then you really need to take another look at the world around you.

 

Please note that, whatever response you decide to post, I will not reply to it again. This is Nick's thread, and out of respect for him I am done playing games with you.

[/quote']

 

In Chaster's defense:

a. This IS Graphics Designs.

b. Digital paintings ALWAYS ARE DETAILED. If you look at ones that don't seem so detailed very large, they look SO much more detailed smaller.

c. Do YOU know what you're talking about?

d. In the world of Graphics, More detail is better.

e. Detail can go SO MUCH MORE beyond simply adding to it. More depth is an example.

 

 

All in all, your post is meaningless and made you sound a bit like an idiot.

[ObsoleteAcc]

When you know enough about graphic design then come back.

 

kthxbai.

 

When you know what your talking about then come back.

 

This is not graphic design. It's not a signiture' date=' it's not a banner, nor anything else that would traditionally be associated with graphic design. This is a digital painting. The methodology that is used for making a signiture and making a digital painting are completely different; don't pretend that they're interchangable.

 

Yes, I am aware that you draw. If anything, that should make you more aware of the fact that detailing is stylistic. The fact that you can draw yet still won't acknowledge this confounds me. If you think high levels of detail are imperative for every style, then you really need to take another look at the world around you.

 

Please note that, whatever response you decide to post, I will not reply to it again. This is Nick's thread, and out of respect for him I am done playing games with you.

[/quote']

 

In Chaster's defense:

a. This IS Graphics Designs.

b. Digital paintings ALWAYS ARE DETAILED. If you look at ones that don't seem so detailed very large, they look SO much more detailed smaller.

c. Do YOU know what you're talking about?

d. In the world of Graphics, More detail is better.

e. Detail can go SO MUCH MORE beyond simply adding to it. More depth is an example.

 

 

All in all, your post is meaningless and made you sound a bit like an idiot.

 

wow, i cant believe ur defending him.

haha, u dont deserve a response.

dont reply, it'll be spam :/

[Brendano Harns]

When you know enough about graphic design then come back.

 

kthxbai.

 

When you know what your talking about then come back.

 

This is not graphic design. It's not a signiture' date=' it's not a banner, nor anything else that would traditionally be associated with graphic design. This is a digital painting. The methodology that is used for making a signiture and making a digital painting are completely different; don't pretend that they're interchangable.

 

Yes, I am aware that you draw. If anything, that should make you more aware of the fact that detailing is stylistic. The fact that you can draw yet still won't acknowledge this confounds me. If you think high levels of detail are imperative for every style, then you really need to take another look at the world around you.

 

Please note that, whatever response you decide to post, I will not reply to it again. This is Nick's thread, and out of respect for him I am done playing games with you.

[/quote']

 

In Chaster's defense:

a. This IS Graphics Designs.

b. Digital paintings ALWAYS ARE DETAILED. If you look at ones that don't seem so detailed very large, they look SO much more detailed smaller.

c. Do YOU know what you're talking about?

d. In the world of Graphics, More detail is better.

e. Detail can go SO MUCH MORE beyond simply adding to it. More depth is an example.

 

 

All in all, your post is meaningless and made you sound a bit like an idiot.

 

No, I've watched fights verbal struggles between Nick and other members before, and, trust me, I can tell when Nick is definately on the wrong side. Sorry Nick, but you and I both know it's true. ;)

 

In Chaster's defense:

 

-In his first post, he did say, don't take it personally.

 

-He seems to read comments for what they are, as when Nick said "detailing is sort of a style," he meant the amount of detail and types of detail. Chaster took it as any detail, which, if that's what Nick meant, would be completely incorrect.

 

-He was out numbered and somewhat ganged upon, giving him the feeling of defending himself.

 

 

 

In Nick's Defense:

 

-Chaster spoke somewhat harshly, though that seems to be the style for most GFXers nowadays for whatever reason.

 

-"Stop being a n00b" is not a good argument on Chaster's part.

 

-If Chaster is going to make the claim that someone knows near to nothing about graphic design, he'd better back it up with facts, because otherwise it sounds stupid, immature, and is getting no one anywhere.

 

-I do know for a fact that both Nick and Eoc know what they are talking about.

[chairman ali]

Sorry bro but no. Nick and Eoc do not know what they're talking about.

 

Why?

Nick only wants to hear 'positive' comments on his work and hates negative ones. He also said that detailing is a style... wtf?

Eoc said that Digital painting is not graphic design... LMAO WHAT?!

 

Isn't that enough proof for you that they do not know what they're talking about? Scratch the last two.

[Brendano Harns]

Sorry bro but no. Nick and Eoc do not know what they're talking about.

 

I do not agree' date=' but I will listen to what oyu have to say.

 

 

 

Why?

Nick only wants to hear 'positive' comments on his work and hates negative ones.

 

While in the past it was hard for him to take negative comments, it seems clear to me now he takes everything from every comment to try and make himself better.

 

 

 

He also said that detailing is a style... wtf?

 

If that is exactly what he meant' date=' then I agree with you. Indeed WTF. But I think he meant that the amount of detail in different places and the types of details in different places are a style.

 

 

 

Eoc said that Digital painting is not graphic design... LMAO WHAT?!

 

Same incedent as above. If that's exactly what he meant, then Imma break out Ask.com. But what I believe he meant is that tag making/splicing is not the same as painting. I believe he thought you were reviewing it too much like a tag, and that is why he said that. However, I know you are great at digital painting, and, IMHO, you were giving advice and critiques for a digital painting, not a tag/splice.

 

 

 

Isn't that enough proof for you that they do not know what they're talking about? Scratch the last two.

 

I don't know what you intend to mean by that last part, but I think that there is just some miscommunication here. I think that they know what they are talking about, but they are just saying what they mean the wrong way, therefore it is taken differently than as what it actually is. ;)

[chairman ali]

I review everything as graphic design. I review tags same as large arts because they all need the same components. Yes they both did mean that and no I am not harsh. You guys are just TOO soft.

He doesn't seem to be taking the critique I gave him. If he did take it then he should've thank you like I do in my threads. I don't care if they're negative. I read them, I look at my design and see if they are right and just say thank you because they have given time and effort to actually write stuff and post it in my thread.

[Brendano Harns]

I review everything as graphic design. I review tags same as large arts because they all need the same components.

 

It's basically the same' date=' though there [b']are[/b] some differences.

 

 

 

Yes they both did mean that and no I am not harsh.

 

No one can ever be 100% sure of someone's intentions.

 

 

 

You guys are just TOO soft.

 

There is fault on both sides' date=' IMO.

 

 

 

He doesn't seem to be taking the critique I gave him. If he did take it then he should've thank you like I do in my threads. I don't care if they're negative. I read them, I look at my design and see if they are right and just say thank you because they have given time and effort to actually write stuff and post it in my thread.

 

For one, he directly said he was taking the critique, and he wanted to understand what you were saying better, on the first page I believe.

 

Because he could not finish understanding the critique before you became frustrated with him and stopped explaining, I believe he was at somewhat of a loss for what to say, and he just stopped replying to you to keep from a flame war.

 

I've known Nick and Eoc for a while, so I believe I can predict their intentions somewhat accurately. Though, you could be dead on right about their intentions. I'm just trying to play devil's advocate.

[chairman ali]

I'm sorry but you sir fail to argue and get my point.

[ObsoleteAcc]

woah woah, just stop!

i come back after a few hours and theres a spam war happening on my thread.

i dont want another one of mine locked!

im reporting all the comments that i consider spam, including my own.

if you wish to continue this "conversation" go to PM.

i dont like it when people think they defend me.... and i dont like people who try to make a scene by replying over and over again to a thread, knowing the consequences and not caring. not gonna name names.

 

stop spamming my threads. people think its a flame war when you reply to criticism, so im gonna stop replying to criticism, whether i agree or not.

thats the flaw in this forum, mainly showcase.

[-DG-]

There is no flaw in this forum. That I have to disagree with. And, this was technically started between you and Chaster, so you're still part to blame.

[Brendano Harns]

We were having a creative discussion. Neither of us was ever flaming the other.

[-DG-]

Exactly.

[ObsoleteAcc]

i never said flaming. i said spam.

and both those comments were as well.