rate the sig.

hiheyhello · Post by **hiheyhello** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:10 am

http://img395.imageshack.us/img395/4881/v1greenlz4.png

anyways this is like 1 of many of sigs i have made i know i am not the best but i tried hard on this

rate comments crits?

Aumaan Anubis · Post by **Aumaan Anubis** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 2:02 pm

I think it looks pretty good. Personally, the render looks a little blurred, and I dislike that part.
But overall, it's not bad.

hiheyhello · Post by **hiheyhello** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 2:21 pm

yeah i agree with the render part i tried to fix it like 10 gazillion times and i couldn't get it right

Tural · Post by **Tural** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 3:30 pm

I'm not too fond of the noise around the warglaives, but it's decent otherwise. Also, it's over the file size limit, so you'll want to fix that if you use it.

hiheyhello · Post by **hiheyhello** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 3:37 pm

yeah i know its over the file limit

, im surprised that people actually somewhat like it

ty for the comments so far

WaeV · Post by **WaeV** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 6:44 pm

+awesome for using .png instead of .jpg

JK-47 · Post by **JK-47** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:12 pm

What does that matter?
jpg has the whole artifacting issue, though, it really depends on what program you use/what quality setting it's at. I use jpg all the time and I never get artifacting.

Tural · Post by **Tural** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:28 pm

A maximum quality JPG compressed has variations below the threshold that the human eye can detect, making your choice of format insignificant. The comment by WaeV has no importance to the signature's quality, and therefore little relevance to the topic.

DRL333 · Post by **DRL333** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 12:45 am

I'm not a fan of the border.