inherit
16322
0
Dec 27, 2012 22:40:43 GMT -8
captain awesome
4,541
November 2003
equad
|
Post by captain awesome on Feb 20, 2007 13:29:09 GMT -8
![]() yes? |
|
inherit
BANNED
35962
0
Aug 30, 2008 12:37:56 GMT -8
ircrazyd
4,372
January 2005
ircrazyd
|
Post by ircrazyd on Feb 20, 2007 13:33:25 GMT -8
Text is to big. Lighting seems off as well. b/w ftw.
|
|
inherit
Rwy'n hoffi coffi
49511
0
Mar 4, 2021 21:41:56 GMT -8
Anselm
boom
12,182
July 2005
transfermktforum
|
Post by Anselm on Feb 20, 2007 13:33:52 GMT -8
Yeah, I'm liking this. The lighting has been done well, and there's a definite flow here. The stock has been well blended in and the C4D has also been well used. The text is large, that's granted, but I like the lighting on it. It gives a different abstract approach. Liking it there. Good job  |
|
inherit
16322
0
Dec 27, 2012 22:40:43 GMT -8
captain awesome
4,541
November 2003
equad
|
Post by captain awesome on Feb 20, 2007 13:37:23 GMT -8
here it is without text- ![]() and thanks both |
|
inherit
Rwy'n hoffi coffi
49511
0
Mar 4, 2021 21:41:56 GMT -8
Anselm
boom
12,182
July 2005
transfermktforum
|
Post by Anselm on Feb 20, 2007 13:41:01 GMT -8
You're welcome. With, without text, I think I don't mind either way. |
|
inherit
72282
0
Feb 22, 2019 7:29:04 GMT -8
Smangii
what's this?
4,772
February 2006
smangii
|
Post by Smangii on Feb 20, 2007 13:58:49 GMT -8
w/o Text is a lot better  Lighting could still be a bit stronger, and the flow from the stock to the sig just looks feathered =/ Unless it's supposed to. B/W does look nice in this, and the c4ds used are funky =D |
|
inherit
16322
0
Dec 27, 2012 22:40:43 GMT -8
captain awesome
4,541
November 2003
equad
|
Post by captain awesome on Feb 20, 2007 14:04:18 GMT -8
pff i did no feathering.
and thankss :]
i'll tr yand play around with the lighting.
|
|
inherit
72282
0
Feb 22, 2019 7:29:04 GMT -8
Smangii
what's this?
4,772
February 2006
smangii
|
Post by Smangii on Feb 20, 2007 14:07:03 GMT -8
pff i did no feathering. and thankss :] i'll tr yand play around with the lighting. Ok, maybe not FEATHERING but it looks a bit TOO faded You get me XD You're welcome. |
|
inherit
16322
0
Dec 27, 2012 22:40:43 GMT -8
captain awesome
4,541
November 2003
equad
|
Post by captain awesome on Feb 20, 2007 14:19:20 GMT -8
played with it abit. ![]() ![]() :3 |
|
inherit
64525
0
Oct 14, 2016 20:09:47 GMT -8
`?v?`
4,076
November 2005
svskiller
|
Post by `?v?` on Feb 20, 2007 15:22:39 GMT -8
I like it but the text shouldn't be over the guy. The background looks great. And I like the font but it needs to be off to the side  |
|
jongos
inherit
-561020
0
May 10, 2024 6:16:07 GMT -8
jongos
0
January 1970
GUEST
|
Post by jongos on Feb 20, 2007 17:35:00 GMT -8
Vey sexy.
The first is by far the best. For once I like the b/w
|
|
inherit
75153
0
May 16, 2007 6:39:17 GMT -8
jeffrey
149
March 2006
rupert
|
Post by jeffrey on Feb 20, 2007 18:10:47 GMT -8
Nice..
I think the lighting is good...
I'm not sure I know what the text says, though....
Very nice.
|
|
inherit
fishgomoo
85493
0
Nov 19, 2012 13:59:58 GMT -8
dude
cows go glug
2,539
July 2006
dudelicious
|
Post by dude on Feb 21, 2007 8:06:45 GMT -8
The c4d on the right hand side kills it a bit for me cos the edges are too sharp. Flows pretty decent but the lighting is in the wrong place (I mean the lighting at the bottom) and the stock looks a bit too blurred out to me - thing the lighting is what has done it. Looks much better without the text and overall it's a pretty good sig.
|
|
Lighting could still be a bit stronger, and the flow from the stock to the sig just looks feathered =/ Unless it's supposed to. B/W does look nice in this, and the c4ds used are funky =D 
