| WE GET IT THERE IS DIFFERENT STYLES!!!! yall all need to shut up and get off ur periods. I know im still new and dont know whats all been going on but yall are being stupid by arguing for so long! |
| When the voice of reason comes from a guy who pronounces you all, with y'all... you know you've hit a new low. |
| ^ Ouch. @Angel Mm okay, seems like somehow I managed to screw up again and misunderstand everything. Since I don't know anything about you, so I'll stop making baseless assumptions. And I was practically unaware of any division that was formed, my bad. So, sorry if anything I wrote offended you personally. Let's draw the line here and just be aware of what to do and what not to do in the future. |
| After reading the discussion I wanted to throw in my thought: Why does someone think that a rule using brushes and C4d's is something restrictive? In my eyes such a rule has to be taken as a guide on how to improve. So why not start reading tutorials and learn how to use them? The result may be some great effects just like in the pictures Moony posted above. Your personal style while making them would definetly still stand out. Didn't Moony already said that she just wants to raise the quality of the entries? Doesn't this simply means to improve the skill of the participants? Maybe if you see it like this way, there is no need for a dispute... |
SixFlagsOct 20, 2009 4:07 AM
 |
SixFlags said: lol at people still not understanding what it really was about...Why does someone think that a rule using brushes and C4d's is something restrictive? |
 |
| @SixFlags: I guess that's difficult to understand! People are making a fuzz over that border line and some people still didn't realize that I'm criticizing my own self xD Yes I suck at gfx signatures and I admit it! I'm trying to get better and try to change my style *it's too simple, clean and direct* Still, When I say that "good and real gfx sigs are showing up" it's because I was and am really proud of the elements ans tech winners, they deserved it! I think I said it in the elements challenge and I even participated that one! So yes, what I've been saying all along applies to me too! I didn't felt offended, felt that I needed to practice to have better results~ And, yes! This month some people acted as spoiled brats, I didn't like it because it was like that they were making fun of my work and of this challenge, but still I posted their signatures as entries for the nominations round. If you want to hear: "I'm so sorry for being rude when I had intentions to make you feel that you can do better" There you go! Or a simple "I'm sorry" if you want. I don't have problems in saying it! PS: @SixFlags: That signature is Awesome *o*d |
     |
| Oh God... I really had a major facepalm. Okay, let me state it clear what we were angry about, and why we acted the way we did. It all started when you people, who like c4d (not that is anything wrong with liking it) started calling c4d gfx REAL GFX. We pointed it out a couple of times that since GFX is short for GRAPHIC EFFECTS in general, everything made with some kind of graphic effect is considered gfx. Even people who study this stuff said so. Yet you guys kept on calling only those the "real gfx", and considering our works not gfx and so not serious entries at all. And that's why we were pissed. Not really about you guys not liking our entries or anything, we were pissed about you using words not in a correct way even after telling you that you shouldn't use it. That's why we decided to do a bit of a protest and made joke entries. Was it so offending that we have to be called spoiled brats? Then ok, we were spoiled brats. But what makes it use guys who don't even want to use a word correctly, after being told what it really means? |
|
| Then how should I call them? "The good ones"? "The Expert ones"? Ok, they are all GFX Sigs in terms of graphic effects but there is a notable difference between them! That's why I called "real gfx sigs" to the ones that showed more work and more effects it wasn't to offend anyone! It was just to make that border line between that less work ones and the more work. And I don't remember you guys giving the right word to differentiate them D: You could have said "Ok, I I feel offended when you say "real ones" please call them another thing" but that didn't happened... Tell me how should I call them. |
|
Moony said: It was just to make that border line between that less work ones and the more work. That should be apparent in the voting... not that more work necessarily makes a better effect either. You can't prevent people from submitting shitty images and think up looser rules just to give more power to disqualify them. Bad results will be weeded out in the voting, and if you're scared of 'popularity contests' or whatever then just try to attract more members to reduce their influence. /me has died |
 I am a banana. |
| Why do you have to call them "the good ones" "expert ones" and such? It brings up the basic question that why "being good" has to match up to your taste? Why not just saying "the ones I like the best" instead? Cos that's how it is. And I doubt that every one of those sigs require much more work then the others do. I mean, I did a gfx for the tech round which doesn't match the style of the contest, yet I worked on it for 4 hours seriously, used several effects and brushes. Yet with you kept saying that these kind of sig are not expert and not serious. That is rude in every aspect. Moony said: You could have said "Ok, I I feel offended when you say "real ones" please call them another thing" but that didn't happened... Sorry, I thought that after pointing out what gfx means at least twice, it's kinda obvious that calling only one style "real" is offending people with other stlyes. Call them c4d gfx, cos that's what they are. |
|
| lol, so in your eyes using c4d and the likes is "expert level", "good" and results in "real gfx" as well as that it requires more skill/work. Well believe that if you want, but honestly that's just a recent trend in gfx and it's just another method which takes some time to learn using, like round about any other graphic effect or method. |
 |
| @Saka: But I don't think you'r getting my point... I'm not saying that the ones that have mre work are better what I'm trying to say is that they are different in every scale! I'll try to use different examples: "Less work" as in - Y "More work" as in - X X and Y are different! What I want, and it seems to be the problem here, is a name of Y and a name for X! Names that don't offend anyone! I'm not saying that X are better than Y and Y are better than X. Ok then. The challenge will go as usual. One more thing please keep the entries anonymous from now on, as in: Don't write your name in them Don't post them in your blog/profile Don't tell others what entry is yours This is not difficult to do, so please don't make me do an inspection to your blogs, profiles... -_- it's a pain in the ass. I've already added this rule in this month competition. SunyiNyufi said: Call them c4d gfx, cos that's what they are. Ok I shall call them that, thank you. |
MoonyOct 20, 2009 8:26 AM
|
SunyiNyufi said: SixFlags said: lol at people still not understanding what it really was about...Why does someone think that a rule using brushes and C4d's is something restrictive? well at least now I know what this is all about... and I 100% agree with what meri wrote |
|
| According to all the feedback posted here, the issue isn't that people aren't willing nor able to compete using the genre, it's that they feel like the choice of words is insulting and poor. And I agree with them on that point. Anyway, what this boils down to is nothing more than semantics and it's ridiculous to have 4 pages of arguments over it. Just say, "Sorry, it was a poor choice of words and we did not mean to insult anybody by saying 'real gfx'." - End of argument for most people. Even if the official definition of gfx signature is the c4d type sigs, you have to realize that it is how people will interpret your speech that is important in communication. Instead of saying, these are the "real gfx sigs", you could have said, the gfx sigs I'm talking about are in this style here: http://www.insert_link.html. By communicating this concept poorly, people are liable to get upset, and indeed I also reacted to this comment in a bad way. I understood afterwards and apologized for my misbehaviour, but I also understand why other's are getting upset. C4ds are also not a passing trend either. The first time I saw these types of signatures has been about 8 years ago now, I just didn't know they were called "gfx signatures". It's nothing new and innovative, believe me. I think if most people actually rendered the c4ds themselves instead of just taking random c4d images off the net, it would be a more appreciated art form. At least that's what my perspective on it is, I do find the urban/tech/grunge look appealing though. To say it takes comparatively more or less skill I think is entirely subjective and irrelevant to an open contest. We all have our preferences. Whether you want an exclusive contest featuring only C4d signatures though is up to you and I don't think anybody has an issue with that. Edit: And as for more effects = more skill, that's a fallacy as well. Before I understood what moony meant by gfx, I made a signature that had over 100+ layers, very little brushwork and no c4d. It was made with beyond an average photoshop person's skill, so that argument is completely B.S. |
perspectiveOct 20, 2009 11:25 AM
| @ mal_0702 I'm glad someone understood what we were trying to say :3 As for c4d being a passing trend: I know it existed way before, but it only become super-hyper popular recently. It's like grunge brushes were the trend 2-4 years ago, and every sig tutorial you could found on the net was about using render + grunge brushes. Sure it's only my opinion, c4d might become something constant. Time will prove it I guess :) |
|
| So from reading what is happening, on Moony's camp we have artists who want this competition to be about signatures that have/should contain following: - C4D - Brushes - Various other effects As they see that having those will detract those who just crop and paste (The original topic of this discussion) and also they believe that, that is what a "real" GFX signature is all about. On the Sunyi camp, we have artists who believe that a GFX signature isn't all about just using C4D and brushes, and that one can be made by other effects, without using them. As mal_0702 has pointed out, this whole argument started because of poor choice of words. Instead of explaining what was wanted from this particular competition, wrong choice of words turned this into an argument over what "a real GFX signature" is. To make it clear, there are no "expert ones" or "the good ones", it is clearly a conflict of style. Getting to the point... Moony, what I want to ask is, are you changing the rules so that only signatures made using the components listed above, are allowed to enter this competition? Since there is a conflict in style, think about it carefully as it will alter the direction this competition is headed. |
aeroOct 20, 2009 11:49 PM
 |
aero said: Getting to the point... Moony, what I want to ask is, are you changing the rules so that only signatures made using the components listed above, are allowed to enter this competition? Since there is a conflict in style, think about it carefully as it will alter the direction this competition is headed. Ok, what I want is what I've always wanted from the beginning! you even showed a thread with some of them! c4d's signatures *see, I'm calling them this :)* like the ones I gave as an example. Another example: And the one rule that I added this month, was the anonymous one *it seems that it's not been working but people will get used to it I hope*. I didn't add more rules about this problem because the signatures I want don't necessary need to have c4d's, but at least brushes and some visual effects; something! anything that can make the entry considered as a/ similar to/as a gfx signature. And "who just crop and paste" are signatures that, in my point of view (I'm not offending anybody, it's my point of view/opinion), they can't be considered gfx/c4d's signatures. As said, it's true that they end up not winning but they still participate and people still votes for them where they shouldn't be there from the beginning, I know I'm the one to blame for not disqualifying those entries but I think that most of the people still didn't understand what I wanted and what this club/challenge is about. This was the main reason why I was upset, disappointed and angry with the entries of this month, I felt that people were making fun of my work on purpose. And this could have been resolved by talking to each other and not by the way in ended... But it's ok now, I think! Now... I'm asking suggestion about a way to make it clear of what I want from this challenge without being rude. Like... a more specific definition? New Rules? |
|
| You know, if c4d gfx is what you'd like to see in the contest then you should denies entries that aren't. It's that easy. State in the contest description or where every, that you only accept c4d-stlye gfx (I used style cos I think it would cover those c4d-looks-alikes that don't really have c4d render). I doubt that anyone would angry about this, since it's your contest, so you can turn it into anything you want basically, especially since there are people here who support your ideas. |
|
| just a question: why does this club have no introduction topic? and suggestion: i think 140 px height is too restrictive in terms of sig making. :/ also, having a set height restricts contestants from making vert sigs, so you might want to rethink about that rule :D This is hao from AR btw. :D |
  |
| Introduction topic? Ahah never though of that xD Meri~ when you have free time talk to me pleasu ºwº Thank you for the suggestion o/ and welcome to the club~ |
|
| Old post but i want to add my 2 cents xD signatures are not different that paintings. do you think a real painting is just realistic paintings? abstraction? cubism? personally do think there is trend but we are at a stage were almost everything has been done so its practically just choosing your style. C4D just happen to be the most popular because the visual effect seems more elaborated this doesn't make vector or grudge signatures any worse. as designers we must learn to appreciate each style because judging a signature made out of vectors is a lot different than judging a C4D signature. |
 |
| oh also i got a suggestion but i will put it on a separate post since i guess this have been off topic. have you ever thought about gfx battles? i mean i would like to see the club more active. how about a system where X person challenges another then their signatures are placed on a pool and people vote for one of the two giving a small critic to each of them. i think this encourage people to be better and get more individual critics to improve. also i think more people would get attracted to this hobbie and the club would be more active. its different of the current contests cause those are on specific dates and well the votes are more anonymous. so basically you compete for honor but don't gain a lot of experience. |
|
More topics from this board
» :: GFX Mini Challenge :: *WINNER / OCT 09*Moony - Nov 9, 2009 |
21 |
by Boyscout31
»»
Oct 26, 2018 7:42 AM |
|
Sticky: » :: Gallery :: ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Moony - Sep 18, 2009 |
256 |
by baby
»»
Jul 18, 2015 6:41 PM |
|
» Share some of your fonts!Kyroh - Aug 28, 2014 |
1 |
by Isalina
»»
Sep 1, 2014 4:28 AM |
|
Sticky: » :: Tutorials ::Moony - Sep 18, 2009 |
11 |
by Kyroh
»»
Aug 28, 2014 3:47 AM |
|
» Discussion ?:iamlovelace - Apr 1, 2013 |
0 |
by iamlovelace
»»
Apr 1, 2013 4:32 PM |