NSR ~ For mmellu ^^(Finally done)

christina · Post by **christina** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:52 pm

Well took me maybe an hour or so.
I think this one looks pretty good, i tried a little diffrent thing, with smudging and what not
But i like it ^^
Tell me what you think mmellu.
C/c or rate guys

Faiien · Post by **Faiien** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 11:15 pm

blending is good but for some reason i dont really like the text nor the completely dark spot in the corner which just ruins the whole flow imo
text and lighting could use some work
sig feels kinda empty though like you just stuck a render, blured bg, added text
definite improvement over yesterdays sig
6/10

christina · Post by **christina** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 11:18 pm

Faiien wrote:blending is good but for some reason i dont really like the text nor the completely dark spot in the corner which just ruins the whole flow imo
text and lighting could use some work
sig feels kinda empty though like you just stuck a render, blured bg, added text
definite improvement over yesterdays sig
6/10

well im right now trying to find a kind of "style" i like
But havent really found one.

TwelveEleven · Post by **TwelveEleven** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 11:20 pm

Try adding a little more spice, especially to the light source, the light sources on your works always seem a little dull and too big for the light they emit. I must say the txt is superb on this on imo, though the y and w should be aligned (imho) It's on OK sig. I'd rate 7/10

Points of improvement:

text alignment

placement of the text (perhaps a little too far from the render)

the flow of your sig, there isn't any real flow in your sig

What're you trying to say with your sig? (Like mine is saying: "Look at me I'm bloody sexy") with yours I don't get any feelings at all atm
What you did do good:

Chosen a cute stock

Good choice of font/color

Render blends in(perhaps a little too much)

Hope this helps you on your way, you can always add me on msn: twelveeleven1211@gmail.com

Faiien · Post by **Faiien** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 11:22 pm

well im right now trying to find a kind of "style" i like
But havent really found one.

gl, i still havnt found mine yet

TwelveEleven · Post by **TwelveEleven** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 11:29 pm

Faiien wrote:
well im right now trying to find a kind of "style" i like
But havent really found one.

gl, i still havnt found mine yet

It's not fun to have only a certain style, because your work will get dull and boring.

Faiien · Post by **Faiien** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 11:51 pm

not true
imo a style is not a format or a layout its just a type of "flow"
i dont know how to define it but when you find your style your still free to experiment with new techniques and stuff

Luoma · Post by **Luoma** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 12:21 am

Light up the eyes, maby color them ^^ otherwise nice nice

HOLLAstir · Post by **HOLLAstir** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 12:37 am

TwelveEleven wrote:
Faiien wrote:
well im right now trying to find a kind of "style" i like
But havent really found one.

gl, i still havnt found mine yet

It's not fun to have only a certain style, because your work will get dull and boring.

Totally disagree. For example, Thomas Kinkade is a painter, and he is known as "the painter of light." In all his paintings, or the vast majority of them, he brings out the light in the painting, through windows, street lights, light houses, etc... It's his "style" and although he uses the same style for all his work, I love all his pieces. Anyways, back to the topic. I love it! it's so cute <3 could use more flow and I think the playboy bunny should be a little smaller. Other then that it's adorable!

mmellu · Post by **mmellu** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 3:06 pm

Awww. Thank you :love:

It's so cute =D I love kittys. I try get one kitty home. but my dad dont like ;<

TwelveEleven · Post by **TwelveEleven** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:35 pm

HOLLAstir wrote:Totally disagree. For example, Thomas Kinkade is a painter, and he is known as "the painter of light." In all his paintings, or the vast majority of them, he brings out the light in the painting, through windows, street lights, light houses, etc... It's his "style" and although he uses the same style for all his work, I love all his pieces.

Well that's your opinion, but to me and I think most people. A certain style gets boring after a while, when you look at the major painters there have been, they all had their certain style, which made sure it was their painting, but it didn't get boring because the paintings were totally different. What I've seen on boards with signatures too much is people making the same signature with different renders/stocks and then saying it's their 'style'. That is in my opinion a wrong interpretation of the word 'style' I think you meant the style I just defined with my major painters part. As in that I totally agree with you. As for the other part I totally disagree.

Post by **dom** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 8:05 pm

TwelveEleven wrote:
HOLLAstir wrote:Totally disagree. For example, Thomas Kinkade is a painter, and he is known as "the painter of light." In all his paintings, or the vast majority of them, he brings out the light in the painting, through windows, street lights, light houses, etc... It's his "style" and although he uses the same style for all his work, I love all his pieces.

Well that's your opinion, but to me and I think most people. A certain style gets boring after a while, when you look at the major painters there have been, they all had their certain style, which made sure it was their painting, but it didn't get boring because the paintings were totally different. What I've seen on boards with signatures too much is people making the same signature with different renders/stocks and then saying it's their 'style'. That is in my opinion a wrong interpretation of the word 'style' I think you meant the style I just defined with my major painters part. As in that I totally agree with you. As for the other part I totally disagree.

Artists rarely leave their style, just look at picasso's stuff - the difference is that the way in which they execute their art is different - although Thomas Kinkade may always paint light, the other variables make it that his work isn't redundant. But, I guess to be more clear, it would not be the style that is retained, but something else... something that I can't describe in English, or any other language I know, because I don't know of any words. My best guess would be, that it's the person's artistic niche that is retained in every one of his works? In that case, I guess you both would be right, but we all suck at communicating.

cin · Post by **cin** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 8:10 pm

dom wrote:Artists rarely leave their style

agreed on that. as for your story, indeed hard to explain.. but if i understood
you correctly, then i think what you meant could be explained by music. its
like.. each band has his own sound, his own feeling. bands rarely (or never)
leave their style, they adjust it. some people find bands amazing when they
dig that style, other people say the band is boring and all songs sound alike.

i think thats the same with artists here. some people have sig styles that get
boring for one person, while an other person is happy to see another one of
those sigs.

TwelveEleven · Post by **TwelveEleven** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 11:18 pm

dom wrote:
TwelveEleven wrote:
HOLLAstir wrote:Totally disagree. For example, Thomas Kinkade is a painter, and he is known as "the painter of light." In all his paintings, or the vast majority of them, he brings out the light in the painting, through windows, street lights, light houses, etc... It's his "style" and although he uses the same style for all his work, I love all his pieces.

Well that's your opinion, but to me and I think most people. A certain style gets boring after a while, when you look at the major painters there have been, they all had their certain style, which made sure it was their painting, but it didn't get boring because the paintings were totally different. What I've seen on boards with signatures too much is people making the same signature with different renders/stocks and then saying it's their 'style'. That is in my opinion a wrong interpretation of the word 'style' I think you meant the style I just defined with my major painters part. As in that I totally agree with you. As for the other part I totally disagree.

Artists rarely leave their style, just look at picasso's stuff - the difference is that the way in which they execute their art is different - although Thomas Kinkade may always paint light, the other variables make it that his work isn't redundant. But, I guess to be more clear, it would not be the style that is retained, but something else... something that I can't describe in English, or any other language I know, because I don't know of any words. My best guess would be, that it's the person's artistic niche that is retained in every one of his works? In that case, I guess you both would be right, but we all suck at communicating.

Well I guess you got what I meant and what holla meant. That's good. See communicating with each other isn't that hard to do :wink: