HomeSOTW #69 - Winners announced
+6
Aezure
PredatorGFX
DoYouPlay_RS
todgott
Magic
Josh Designs
10 posters
Index :: Social :: Graphics :: Graphics Archive
Page 1 of 1
Which is the best entry?
SOTW #69 - Winners announced
by Josh Designs 17/2/2013, 12:42 am
SOTW #69
Rules:
Your entry must be your own work; no stealing other people's work or entering in pre-made graphics
In the signature, please put SOTW or what the theme is for the text
No animated entries, explicit images, text, or contents
Please include the render/stock used or a screen shot of the image in the program you used. You do not have to put up both.
Sizes are not super strict, please just try not to exceed 500x350 (or if vertical 350x500).
When in voting, you may not persuade others to vote for your entry, or vote for your own.
Prizes:
1st place: 5M
2nd place: 3M
3rd place: 1M
Public favorite: 1M
Judging System
It's seen a slight update and should provide better and fairer critique.
There will be three professional judges every week, one of those outside gdt
Regular guest judges get halfop in #Sm_graphics
This is what the judges will be looking at so make sure you know! Each Section will be for a total of 10 points 40 total.
- Spoiler:
*Idea
--Concept
--Composition
*Technical
--Flow
--Depth
--Lighting
*Typography
--Quality
--Integration
*Execution
--Balance
--Overall quality
Theme: Abstract
Entry Deadline: Saturday 23rd
Be Inspired
owner of this piece link
Entries:
First place & public favourite: Magic
Proof: [x]
Total: 95/120
- Broeder’s critique – 30.5:
- Idea: 8/10
Abstract is a hard theme to judge, simply because it can be used in a very broad way. But the way that you filled the canvas is very well balanced and has a good composition. As such i have given you a 8/10 rating for this stage.
Technical: 7.5/10
The piece is made up of a fine combination of c4d's, and a great collection of color adjustment layers. I have given you a .5 decrease because i feel you didnt do enough with the strong lightsource you created.
Typography: 7/10
The text in this piece doesnt add positively or negatively to this piece. The first being a shame but the latter being pretty commendable.
Execution: 8/10
In the end, it is the combination of depth, well-balanced color composition and good concept that really makes this sig. While there is always plenty of room for improvement (contrast being a field you could have paid more attention to), i see no elements of this sig that dont fit. As such it is a very successful piece
- Inhaps’ critique – 32:
- Idea: 8/10
Good composition, although the elements closest to the light source look somewhat odd; like the very protruding shape to the right of it.
Technical: 8.5/10
The lighting is gorgeously mellow, while the superimposition of the 3D elements creates a marvellous spiral-like flow from the light source to the text. The weak blur around the edges helps a great deal with conveying the depth, though it makes some of the leftmost specks of light rather unappealing.
Typography: 7.5/10
It fits in neatly but it doesn't add a lot to the piece as a whole. It has slight kerning issues; the S is very much mashed in between the two letters.
Execution: 8/10
The colours feel somewhat washed out but all in all it's a good job but not without imperfections.
- Tuff Tiga’s critique – 32:
- Idea: 8.5/10 As Broeder has stated, Abstract is really hard to critique. The way you used your C4Ds and the way you put them together alone gets you this score. You piece gives the viewer a good representation of what 'Abstract' is.
Technical: 7.5/10 I have to agree with Broeder on this one. You haven't used your light source to its fullest. The C4Ds work and flow well together.
Typography: 8.5/10 I don't have much complains about your Typography. Seems to work well with the piece. The reason you got 8.5 rather than a 9 (which I was initially going to give) is that you could have decreased the opacity a bit.
Execution: 8/10 Your piece overall gives me a good understanding that you know what 'Abstract' is. Everything, C4Ds and colours flow well together. Good job Magic!
Second place: Josh Designs
Proof: [x]
Total: 93.5/120
- Broeder’s critique – 30:
- Idea: 7.5/10
Certainly the most unique approach to this theme of all the contestants, just too bad theres so much detail in the background that the abstract part somewhat loses strength.
Technical: 7.5/10
It all fits, and the abstract creature-like element has a good shape. I only wish you had paid a bit more attention to the right side of that element because if focussing on that part you see that it has lose the cool colors the left side has.
Typography: 7/10
I like the concept and the line, its just too bad the text is just off. Could have been sharper and clearer.
Execution: 8/10
In the end, it is a well done piece with several good elements that work together. I only wish you would have taken more of a risk and focused less on the background and more on the focus point and abstract theme.
- Inhaps’ critique – 28.5:
- Idea: 7.5/10
Quite an interesting idea combining photography with that.
Technical: 7/10
The photography could have used some manipulation to make the lights less protruding and maybe a more apparent vignette effect to bring more attention to the floating object.
Typography: 6.5/10
The lines are too fine, so it isn't very legible, plus the line underneath it is rather ill fitting being less opaque than than the slanted part of it.
Execution: 7.5/10
It looks nice but lacks focus.
- Tuff Tiga’s critique – 35:
- Idea: 8/10 A very different approach than the others. Are we supposed to look at the background or? ;P
Technical: 8/10 A don't see much to say here. Depth is obviously visibly present.
Typography: 10/10 A very interesting approach again, I can't find any flaws here. I think it works well.
Execution: 9/10 Nothing more to say about this piece.
Third place : DoYouPlay_RS
Proof: [x]
Total: 79/120
- Broeder’s critique – 25.5:
- Idea: 6/10
Interesting mixture of mechanical and organical shapes. It certainly is abstract but a very safe choice.
Technical: 6.5/10
No big errors were made but also no real dedication from the creator comes across.
Typography: 7/10
What could be seen as the best element of this piece, the splatter+text combination is pretty good. Its just too bad that it has bad placement and doesnt integrate with the rest that well.
Execution: 6/10
Because of the way the sig was made, theres not a lot of room for error. With that being said, there isnt really anything special in this piece. In the end the tag has no strong focal and no interesting new techniques used.
- Inhaps’ critique – 25:
- Idea: 6.5/10
It has too many elements. Should have taken a more minimalistic approach to better accentuate the different parts of it.
Technical: 6/10
Flow and all is great from centre downward but the rest just looks messy.
Typography: 6.5/10
It's not bad but it doesn't embrace the flow at all. It could have been greatly improved by being wavy or stretched vertically. Could have some had a similar gradated colouring like its background to stand out better. And the white text can't really boast about its good readability.
Execution: 6/10
Lacks colour variety. Some warmer accents could have benefited it enormously.
- Tuff Tiga’s critique – 28.5:
- Idea: 7/10 You can see the abstract in here. C4Ds go interestingly well with the other parts.
Technical: 7/10 You could have worked a bit more with lighting here. Looks a bit too artificial.
Typography: 7.5/10 I like the type you did on this piece. Works well with the piece.
Execution: 7/10 Play around with colour more!
todgott
Proof: [x]
Total: 72/120
- Broeder’s critique – 24.5:
- Idea: 7/10
This sig is very abstract. But because this is art you still need to have elements be clear to the user. I do not feel you have made the chaos clear enough. I have given you a 7/10 mostly for the concept of what seems to be some kind of explosion/implosion process.
Technical: 6/10
The c4d's do not work well together and the lighting source does not make sense. Maybe it would have been better if almost all of the right side was filled by an element that doesnt fit with the rest of the round shapes.
Typography: 5.5/10
Unreadable and would have been a lower grade if it wasnt for the fact that you hardly notice it being there.
Execution: 6/10
In the end, this is a very weak piece. The only good parts are parts of c4d's that you had nothing to do with. Sorry.
- Inhaps’ critique – 23:
- Idea: 6/10
Interesting but the composition lacks something to tie it all together.
Technical: 6/10
The whiteness in the top right adds no more good than it takes away; it could have benefited the piece if it were softer, sort of melded with the colours underneath. Much of it smudged parts appear to be of rather low quality, which may have been avoided by working on a bigger canvas then resizing it to save some of the finer detail. It may have been deliberate blurring but regardless of that the transition from the crispiness on the right to the blurry smudges to the right is not seamless enough. Also, the lighting is quite hazy.
Typography: 5/10
It's an obvious afterthought. It isn't very legible and doesn't really go with the flow; could be moved to just above the bright spot next to it.
Execution: 6/10
It gives a good first impression but upon closer inspection shows its glaring lack of organisation in the chaos.
- Tuff Tiga’s critique – 24:
- Idea: 7.5/10 Very abstract, chaotic, not sure what's going on.
Technical: 6/10 Too chaotic for my liking. The flow of each C4D is competing with each other. You seemed a bit confused with the light source here.
Typography: 5/10 I don't think your type works well here. Hard to read, especially with the low opacity script font. You could have moved the type up and towards the right a bit.
Execution: 6/10 Todgott you could do better! Pick C4Ds that work well together.
Aezure
Proof: [x]
Total: 72.5/120
- Broeder’s critique – 25:
- Idea: 6.5/10
I have to be honest with you, majority of this grade came from the somewhat original idea of leaving part of the canvas transparent yet leaving the border lines go for a bit longer than the rest.
Technical: 6/10
Its not hard to make this signature, i believe you could have challenged yourself more. Details in the circles are ok, but not able to take and keep your attention.
Typography: 6/10
Matching font and ok but predictable color-scheme.
Execution: 6.5/10
Theres nothing bad in this sig, mostly because there is not a lot in this sig at all. Safe and predictable seems to be a good summary of this tag.
- Inhaps’ critique – 24.5:
- Idea: 7.5/10
Quite an interesting and unorthodox take on the theme. The circles and the partial transparency of the background are both a good concept.
Technical: 5.5/10
The elliptical flow is unusual but the means by which it was achieved aren't too good, namely the circle-based caterpillar, which while good in concept is rather disappointing with its dead orange outline. The circles have a 3D look about them; could have elaborated on that.
Typography: 6/10
It fits with the flow and its outline not being of a single colour integrates it into the background quite well but it is not spectacular in any way.
Execution: 5.5/10
The colours aren't balanced very well; the lower left corner is vibrant and draws attention while the rest is rather bleak.
- Tuff Tiga’s critique – 23:
- [color=white]Idea: 7/10 I love the idea you did with your canvas. But too simple overall!
Technical: 5/10 Not really any flow here, slight depth, no lighting.
Typography: 5/10 I don't really like the type here. I can't say much to improve it because of the rest of the piece.
Execution: 6/10 I'm sure you can do better. Make something better. [color]
KuanEscapede
Proof: [x]
Total: 51.5/120
- Broeder’s critique – 20.5:
- Idea: 3/10
While one could argue that this sig has abstract elements, the fact is that the main focus of this sig is a render of a person and as such is not abstract. The reason i didnt give lower was because of the ambiguity of the theme.
Technical: 5.5/10
The c4d-like elements make for a good background but the render, that you did hardly anything with, fills most of the canvas.
Typography: 6/10
Does the job and as such gets a 6/10. But nobody would be sad if the text wouldnt be there in a new version. Remember that also text is as big an aspect of sigmaking as any other, at least in our niche.
Execution: 6/10
The white border wasnt a bad decision, the colors match but in the end the sig isnt abstract and too much of what the sig accomplishes is because of the render.
- Inhaps’ critique – 20:
- Idea: 4/10
It doesn't have much of an abstract feel about it. The girl shouldn't have been the focus of it.
Technical: 5.5/10
None of the elements really feel interconnected. Like, the three circles with their inner glow next to the text lack any basic organisation. It's good for things to look random with such a theme but it has to have some underlying structure to it.
Typography: 5.5/10
The placement of white text right next to the white render doesn't do it much good. The effects applied to it might work but not in this piece; a glow and shadow applied to the same element generally results in nothing good. Also, the font choice is rather odd; pick some more interesting fonts and work on the kerning (space between the characters).
Execution: 5/10
It lacks a unified colour scheme. The background, girl render, text all have a different tinge to them.
- Tuff Tiga’s critique – 11:
- Idea: 2/10 I fail to see (most of) the abstract elements in here.
Technical: 3/10 You need to improve on the flow as well as lighting here. Too artificial. Very slight depth here.
Typography: 3/10 Make the type smaller and less visible. Takes too much away from the focal.
Execution: 3/10 Next time try a smaller canvas size. Only go big if you know what you are doing otherwise you will be adding pointless things to it. Get rid of the right and left border.
Last edited by Josh Designs on 19/2/2013, 9:20 pm; edited 2 times in total
Josh Designs- Forum Addict (750 posts)
Re: SOTW #69 - Winners announced
by Josh Designs 17/2/2013, 12:46 am
We decided to re-make this thread which will help us make things go more smooth. If you entered this sotw under a different thread that is fine go ahead and just re-enter your piece.
Josh Designs- Forum Addict (750 posts)
Re: SOTW #69 - Winners announced
by Magic 17/2/2013, 1:07 am
Magic wrote:
Proof:
- Spoiler:
Sorry About the size and extra bad quality, not sure why it has done that...
Magic- Tier 1 (Registered)
Re: SOTW #69 - Winners announced
by todgott 17/2/2013, 1:53 pm
proof
Last edited by todgott on 22/2/2013, 8:24 pm; edited 1 time in total
todgott- Tier 4 (500 posts)
DoYouPlay_RS- Grandmaster (2000 posts)
-
Re: SOTW #69 - Winners announced
by PredatorGFX 18/2/2013, 12:48 am
todgott wrote:
Why am I seeing an abstract Naruto in his Bijuu mode? I really need to give the anime a rest.
PredatorGFX- Tier 2 (100 posts)
Re: SOTW #69 - Winners announced
by Josh Designs 18/2/2013, 8:50 am
Loving the entries so far guys awesome!
Magic- dont know if i would change anything other then the kerning on the type it got pretty close around the T.
Todgott- Digging your entry aswell but the white soft brush for light seems off maybe try using a light color from the sig it would blend better, and wheres the type at??? haha other then that loving it!!
DoYouPlay_RS- This is getting into your two color again and you know i dislike that. But all and all its not bad. It shows amazing depth to me. And i appreciate you trying new things with your typography.
P.S cant wait to see more entries!
Magic- dont know if i would change anything other then the kerning on the type it got pretty close around the T.
Todgott- Digging your entry aswell but the white soft brush for light seems off maybe try using a light color from the sig it would blend better, and wheres the type at??? haha other then that loving it!!
DoYouPlay_RS- This is getting into your two color again and you know i dislike that. But all and all its not bad. It shows amazing depth to me. And i appreciate you trying new things with your typography.
P.S cant wait to see more entries!
Josh Designs- Forum Addict (750 posts)
Re: SOTW #69 - Winners announced
by Josh Designs 19/2/2013, 9:03 pm
Well heres my attempt idk about it
Proof:
Proof:
- Spoiler:
Josh Designs- Forum Addict (750 posts)
Re: SOTW #69 - Winners announced
by Broeder 19/2/2013, 9:39 pm
Updated opening post with information on our guest judge for this week, be sure to read the opening post and look up on his 'credentials'.
We will be looking to get guest judges on a regular basis!
We will be looking to get guest judges on a regular basis!
Broeder- Grandmaster (2000 posts)
Re: SOTW #69 - Winners announced
by Aezure 20/2/2013, 6:02 pm
Screw conventions and screw premade c4ds. Ima just keep doing mah thing 'til I hit something people like...
In other news, the last time I used my little circles in a tag was in the first ever sotw in these forums which I proceeded to win...
In other news, the last time I used my little circles in a tag was in the first ever sotw in these forums which I proceeded to win...
- Spoiler:
Aezure- Forum Fanatic (1000 posts)
-
Re: SOTW #69 - Winners announced
by Broeder 21/2/2013, 5:32 pm
Closing in 2 days guys, just a reminder that an admin of a Design based forum will be giving his views on all your pieces so if you want cnc from a specialist outside of sm then now is the time to enter!
Broeder- Grandmaster (2000 posts)
KuanEscapede- Tier 1 (Registered)
Re: SOTW #69 - Winners announced
by Inhaps 23/2/2013, 4:13 pm
Will be put up for voting in roughly 3 hours.
Inhaps- Grandmaster (2000 posts)
Re: SOTW #69 - Winners announced
by DoYouPlay_RS 24/2/2013, 3:17 am
I voted Josh Designs. So simple, but very effective and extremely creative. All the other ones just feel plain. I dislike Todgott's color scheme, and something about Magic's sig just doesn't feel right, but I just cant pinpoint what urks me about it. Al of the other ones, simply put, can use ALOT of work.
DoYouPlay_RS- Grandmaster (2000 posts)
-
Warrior- Tier 3 (300 posts)
Re: SOTW #69 - Winners announced
by Josh Designs 26/2/2013, 6:33 pm
Really sorry about the delay guys. Our guest judge still has not got back to me.
Josh Designs- Forum Addict (750 posts)
Re: SOTW #69 - Winners announced
by Inhaps 3/3/2013, 6:37 am
Our guest judge of this week didn't come through as we had hoped. We hope to remedy this next week.
I ask of the winners to contact me please. Send me a private message or in the best case please join our IRC channel to arrange a place and time to receive your winnings.
First place & public favourite: Magic
Proof: [x]
Total: 95/120
Second place: Josh Designs
Proof: [x]
Total: 93.5/120
Third place : DoYouPlay_RS
Proof: [x]
Total: 79/120
todgott
Proof: [x]
Total: 72/120
Aezure
Proof: [x]
Total: 72.5/120
KuanEscapede
Proof: [x]
Total: 51.5/120
I ask of the winners to contact me please. Send me a private message or in the best case please join our IRC channel to arrange a place and time to receive your winnings.
First place & public favourite: Magic
Proof: [x]
Total: 95/120
- Broeder’s critique – 30.5:
- Idea: 8/10
Abstract is a hard theme to judge, simply because it can be used in a very broad way. But the way that you filled the canvas is very well balanced and has a good composition. As such i have given you a 8/10 rating for this stage.
Technical: 7.5/10
The piece is made up of a fine combination of c4d's, and a great collection of color adjustment layers. I have given you a .5 decrease because i feel you didnt do enough with the strong lightsource you created.
Typography: 7/10
The text in this piece doesnt add positively or negatively to this piece. The first being a shame but the latter being pretty commendable.
Execution: 8/10
In the end, it is the combination of depth, well-balanced color composition and good concept that really makes this sig. While there is always plenty of room for improvement (contrast being a field you could have paid more attention to), i see no elements of this sig that dont fit. As such it is a very successful piece
- Inhaps’ critique – 32:
- Idea: 8/10
Good composition, although the elements closest to the light source look somewhat odd; like the very protruding shape to the right of it.
Technical: 8.5/10
The lighting is gorgeously mellow, while the superimposition of the 3D elements creates a marvellous spiral-like flow from the light source to the text. The weak blur around the edges helps a great deal with conveying the depth, though it makes some of the leftmost specks of light rather unappealing.
Typography: 7.5/10
It fits in neatly but it doesn't add a lot to the piece as a whole. It has slight kerning issues; the S is very much mashed in between the two letters.
Execution: 8/10
The colours feel somewhat washed out but all in all it's a good job but not without imperfections.
- Tuff Tiga’s critique – 32:
- Idea: 8.5/10 As Broeder has stated, Abstract is really hard to critique. The way you used your C4Ds and the way you put them together alone gets you this score. You piece gives the viewer a good representation of what 'Abstract' is.
Technical: 7.5/10 I have to agree with Broeder on this one. You haven't used your light source to its fullest. The C4Ds work and flow well together.
Typography: 8.5/10 I don't have much complains about your Typography. Seems to work well with the piece. The reason you got 8.5 rather than a 9 (which I was initially going to give) is that you could have decreased the opacity a bit.
Execution: 8/10 Your piece overall gives me a good understanding that you know what 'Abstract' is. Everything, C4Ds and colours flow well together. Good job Magic!
Second place: Josh Designs
Proof: [x]
Total: 93.5/120
- Broeder’s critique – 30:
- Idea: 7.5/10
Certainly the most unique approach to this theme of all the contestants, just too bad theres so much detail in the background that the abstract part somewhat loses strength.
Technical: 7.5/10
It all fits, and the abstract creature-like element has a good shape. I only wish you had paid a bit more attention to the right side of that element because if focussing on that part you see that it has lose the cool colors the left side has.
Typography: 7/10
I like the concept and the line, its just too bad the text is just off. Could have been sharper and clearer.
Execution: 8/10
In the end, it is a well done piece with several good elements that work together. I only wish you would have taken more of a risk and focused less on the background and more on the focus point and abstract theme.
- Inhaps’ critique – 28.5:
- Idea: 7.5/10
Quite an interesting idea combining photography with that.
Technical: 7/10
The photography could have used some manipulation to make the lights less protruding and maybe a more apparent vignette effect to bring more attention to the floating object.
Typography: 6.5/10
The lines are too fine, so it isn't very legible, plus the line underneath it is rather ill fitting being less opaque than than the slanted part of it.
Execution: 7.5/10
It looks nice but lacks focus.
- Tuff Tiga’s critique – 35:
- Idea: 8/10 A very different approach than the others. Are we supposed to look at the background or? ;P
Technical: 8/10 A don't see much to say here. Depth is obviously visibly present.
Typography: 10/10 A very interesting approach again, I can't find any flaws here. I think it works well.
Execution: 9/10 Nothing more to say about this piece.
Third place : DoYouPlay_RS
Proof: [x]
Total: 79/120
- Broeder’s critique – 25.5:
- Idea: 6/10
Interesting mixture of mechanical and organical shapes. It certainly is abstract but a very safe choice.
Technical: 6.5/10
No big errors were made but also no real dedication from the creator comes across.
Typography: 7/10
What could be seen as the best element of this piece, the splatter+text combination is pretty good. Its just too bad that it has bad placement and doesnt integrate with the rest that well.
Execution: 6/10
Because of the way the sig was made, theres not a lot of room for error. With that being said, there isnt really anything special in this piece. In the end the tag has no strong focal and no interesting new techniques used.
- Inhaps’ critique – 25:
- Idea: 6.5/10
It has too many elements. Should have taken a more minimalistic approach to better accentuate the different parts of it.
Technical: 6/10
Flow and all is great from centre downward but the rest just looks messy.
Typography: 6.5/10
It's not bad but it doesn't embrace the flow at all. It could have been greatly improved by being wavy or stretched vertically. Could have some had a similar gradated colouring like its background to stand out better. And the white text can't really boast about its good readability.
Execution: 6/10
Lacks colour variety. Some warmer accents could have benefited it enormously.
- Tuff Tiga’s critique – 28.5:
- Idea: 7/10 You can see the abstract in here. C4Ds go interestingly well with the other parts.
Technical: 7/10 You could have worked a bit more with lighting here. Looks a bit too artificial.
Typography: 7.5/10 I like the type you did on this piece. Works well with the piece.
Execution: 7/10 Play around with colour more!
todgott
Proof: [x]
Total: 72/120
- Broeder’s critique – 24.5:
- Idea: 7/10
This sig is very abstract. But because this is art you still need to have elements be clear to the user. I do not feel you have made the chaos clear enough. I have given you a 7/10 mostly for the concept of what seems to be some kind of explosion/implosion process.
Technical: 6/10
The c4d's do not work well together and the lighting source does not make sense. Maybe it would have been better if almost all of the right side was filled by an element that doesnt fit with the rest of the round shapes.
Typography: 5.5/10
Unreadable and would have been a lower grade if it wasnt for the fact that you hardly notice it being there.
Execution: 6/10
In the end, this is a very weak piece. The only good parts are parts of c4d's that you had nothing to do with. Sorry.
- Inhaps’ critique – 23:
- Idea: 6/10
Interesting but the composition lacks something to tie it all together.
Technical: 6/10
The whiteness in the top right adds no more good than it takes away; it could have benefited the piece if it were softer, sort of melded with the colours underneath. Much of it smudged parts appear to be of rather low quality, which may have been avoided by working on a bigger canvas then resizing it to save some of the finer detail. It may have been deliberate blurring but regardless of that the transition from the crispiness on the right to the blurry smudges to the right is not seamless enough. Also, the lighting is quite hazy.
Typography: 5/10
It's an obvious afterthought. It isn't very legible and doesn't really go with the flow; could be moved to just above the bright spot next to it.
Execution: 6/10
It gives a good first impression but upon closer inspection shows its glaring lack of organisation in the chaos.
- Tuff Tiga’s critique – 24:
- Idea: 7.5/10 Very abstract, chaotic, not sure what's going on.
Technical: 6/10 Too chaotic for my liking. The flow of each C4D is competing with each other. You seemed a bit confused with the light source here.
Typography: 5/10 I don't think your type works well here. Hard to read, especially with the low opacity script font. You could have moved the type up and towards the right a bit.
Execution: 6/10 Todgott you could do better! Pick C4Ds that work well together.
Aezure
Proof: [x]
Total: 72.5/120
- Broeder’s critique – 25:
- Idea: 6.5/10
I have to be honest with you, majority of this grade came from the somewhat original idea of leaving part of the canvas transparent yet leaving the border lines go for a bit longer than the rest.
Technical: 6/10
Its not hard to make this signature, i believe you could have challenged yourself more. Details in the circles are ok, but not able to take and keep your attention.
Typography: 6/10
Matching font and ok but predictable color-scheme.
Execution: 6.5/10
Theres nothing bad in this sig, mostly because there is not a lot in this sig at all. Safe and predictable seems to be a good summary of this tag.
- Inhaps’ critique – 24.5:
- Idea: 7.5/10
Quite an interesting and unorthodox take on the theme. The circles and the partial transparency of the background are both a good concept.
Technical: 5.5/10
The elliptical flow is unusual but the means by which it was achieved aren't too good, namely the circle-based caterpillar, which while good in concept is rather disappointing with its dead orange outline. The circles have a 3D look about them; could have elaborated on that.
Typography: 6/10
It fits with the flow and its outline not being of a single colour integrates it into the background quite well but it is not spectacular in any way.
Execution: 5.5/10
The colours aren't balanced very well; the lower left corner is vibrant and draws attention while the rest is rather bleak.
- Tuff Tiga’s critique – 23:
- [color=white]Idea: 7/10 I love the idea you did with your canvas. But too simple overall!
Technical: 5/10 Not really any flow here, slight depth, no lighting.
Typography: 5/10 I don't really like the type here. I can't say much to improve it because of the rest of the piece.
Execution: 6/10 I'm sure you can do better. Make something better. [color]
KuanEscapede
Proof: [x]
Total: 51.5/120
- Broeder’s critique – 20.5:
- Idea: 3/10
While one could argue that this sig has abstract elements, the fact is that the main focus of this sig is a render of a person and as such is not abstract. The reason i didnt give lower was because of the ambiguity of the theme.
Technical: 5.5/10
The c4d-like elements make for a good background but the render, that you did hardly anything with, fills most of the canvas.
Typography: 6/10
Does the job and as such gets a 6/10. But nobody would be sad if the text wouldnt be there in a new version. Remember that also text is as big an aspect of sigmaking as any other, at least in our niche.
Execution: 6/10
The white border wasnt a bad decision, the colors match but in the end the sig isnt abstract and too much of what the sig accomplishes is because of the render.
- Inhaps’ critique – 20:
- Idea: 4/10
It doesn't have much of an abstract feel about it. The girl shouldn't have been the focus of it.
Technical: 5.5/10
None of the elements really feel interconnected. Like, the three circles with their inner glow next to the text lack any basic organisation. It's good for things to look random with such a theme but it has to have some underlying structure to it.
Typography: 5.5/10
The placement of white text right next to the white render doesn't do it much good. The effects applied to it might work but not in this piece; a glow and shadow applied to the same element generally results in nothing good. Also, the font choice is rather odd; pick some more interesting fonts and work on the kerning (space between the characters).
Execution: 5/10
It lacks a unified colour scheme. The background, girl render, text all have a different tinge to them.
- Tuff Tiga’s critique – 11:
- Idea: 2/10 I fail to see (most of) the abstract elements in here.
Technical: 3/10 You need to improve on the flow as well as lighting here. Too artificial. Very slight depth here.
Typography: 3/10 Make the type smaller and less visible. Takes too much away from the focal.
Execution: 3/10 Next time try a smaller canvas size. Only go big if you know what you are doing otherwise you will be adding pointless things to it. Get rid of the right and left border.
Inhaps- Grandmaster (2000 posts)
Re: SOTW #69 - Winners announced
by Josh Designs 5/3/2013, 5:22 pm
ill put up the winners banners tomorrow.
Josh Designs- Forum Addict (750 posts)
Re: SOTW #69 - Winners announced
by Josh Designs 9/3/2013, 10:16 pm
Sorry about the delay have been busy.
Josh Designs- Forum Addict (750 posts)
Similar topics» SOTW #8 - WINNERS ANNOUNCED
» ~*~ SOTW #23 ~*~ WINNERS ANNOUNCED!
» ~*~ SOTW #36 ~*~ WINNERS ANNOUNCED
» ~*~ SOTW #50 ~*~ WINNERS ANNOUNCED
» ~*~ SOTW #61 ~*~ WINNERS ANNOUNCED
» ~*~ SOTW #23 ~*~ WINNERS ANNOUNCED!
» ~*~ SOTW #36 ~*~ WINNERS ANNOUNCED
» ~*~ SOTW #50 ~*~ WINNERS ANNOUNCED
» ~*~ SOTW #61 ~*~ WINNERS ANNOUNCED
Index :: Social :: Graphics :: Graphics Archive
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum