Simulation Hockey League

Quote:Grace C - Another step down with things kind of balancing out. It lacks effort but still shows it wasn't just tossed together. Effects show that you know what you're doing but nothing is too advanced, some work is needed.

I don't think so. The description for a B sounds more like those sigs.

Quote:Grade B (150,000) - The graphic is a step down from perfect and needs some improvement. It is still impressive when it comes to the detail and shows a little lack of effort, though it could be improved there is enough evidence of a good graphic.

After looking at other sigs that got C's it looks like I wasted a lot of time working on these. Apparently to get a C you just need to use Topaz on an image, add some swirly glowy things and add the player name.

/endrant

They really aren't that good, sorry if you think they deserve better. I think they were graded correctly.

on the first one, it could pass as a B, the second one not even close. The text is terrible on the second one and doesn't fit at all. It's too clustered, your render is yellow (dafuk?) and nothing really fits together, it looks like a rainbow threw up all over it.

/endgettingowned.

I agree tbh. I got 2 C's, and mine are not as good as Vermi's

But I must say the text on the first one was kinda annoying.

I think the first one is pretty nice. For sure a B. The second I'd say is borderline though, it could be a B though.

I think they're solid from a gfx design standpoint (where you work) but when they're evaluated as hockey sigs I think that's where they could be grouped.

Take it PMs If u want to ask about your grade

I'm on my phone so I can't explain ATM

I like em

both b's imo

Quote:Originally posted by JmanPens19@Jan 22 2013, 10:15 PM
I think they're solid from a gfx design standpoint (where you work) but when they're evaluated as hockey sigs I think that's where they could be grouped.

you do realize that if graphic design is your job, you won't be skilled in every single area? I personally am not impressed by these, and if this is about as good as his graphics work is, he wont make it long. I doubt that signatures is anything close to what he does.

Quote:Originally posted by Mr.O4L@Jan 22 2013, 09:01 PM
both b's imo

I thought the second was was really good. Wouldnt mind having one like that. Ill pay you if youre willing to make one

Quote:Originally posted by 701@Jan 23 2013, 12:04 AM


you do realize that if graphic design is your job, you won't be skilled in every single area? I personally am not impressed by these, and if this is about as good as his graphics work is, he wont make it long. I doubt that signatures is anything close to what he does.

I guess I wasn't clear

I'm saying that where he works, these are solid for the tasks he needs to perform because these are the types of designs used. HOWEVER there are different techniques used when making hockey sigs than regular gfx so that's why you got a C when you think you should have gotten a B, it's different criteria.

Edit:

Don't get me wrong, I like these Mike and so do others :wub: just hopefully trying to explain my thoughts behind the reasoning :D

Quote:Originally posted by JmanPens19@Jan 22 2013, 11:26 PM


I guess I wasn't clear

I'm saying that where he works, these are solid for the tasks he needs to perform because these are the types of designs used.  HOWEVER there are different techniques used when making hockey sigs than regular gfx so that's why you got a C when you think you should have gotten a B, it's different criteria.

Edit:

Don't get me wrong, I like these Mike and so do others :wub: just hopefully trying to explain my thoughts behind the reasoning :D

People would pay for something like those signatures is what you are saying now? :unsure:

Funny thing is, all the people saying this should be B's are people with less or little no sigs experience. Then people who are saying C are people who are experienced in Sigs.

First one you could make a small case for, but its really a matter of opinion.

2nd one imo C at best