Oh, I am SO sorry I haven't rated yet. >_< I'm at my aunt's house, and she's been without the internet since Sunday. Gah! *Apologizes over and over*
Darklegendary: First of all, nice job. The colours blend well, the fonts work the graphics, and the blending in the sig is nice.
Few things that are bugging me, though: The text in the av would probably look better if moved more to the right- it's not in a bad position, but it's slightly awkward-looking. Also, the sig's a bit grainy. It would probably have been better if you'd made it a .jpg, instead of the less supported colours of .gif. Overall, good job, though.
Zero: I'm a bit puzzled why you sharpened the image when taking it out from the original. If anything, it perhaps should have been blurred slightly. oO In addition, the colours you used don't match the picture's colours- instead, they clash. The brighter yellows and reds of the background and text don't match the darker, 'smoother' reds, blues, yellows and whites of the pic. :/
However, I really must compliment you on your wonderful job of extracting and restoring the image, though. Great job.
Kitten Medli: My main problems with this have to do with the text. Both the subtext and main text are rather choppy- the main text should be anti-aliased to a nice-looking setting (I'm not sure if PS Elements has the same anti-alias settings as PS, but I'm going to assume it does.
), and the subtext isn't really a font that goes well with the set. Also, the shade of yellow you used for the text doesn't quite match the yellow of the pic- close, but not enough to match, as it's too bright. I do like the background, though. It looks like you worked hard on it, and the work paid off- it looks wonderful.
Charka: I'm not sure why you used that particular font for the subtext/av text: it doesn't blend in well with the graphic/s, therefore detracting from the overall quality. A simpler pixel font would have done well. :/ Colourizing is well done. The main text does work well with the graphic.
Knives: Excellent set. Only things I can find that are off are the subtext in the sig: the outline is black, which though alright, would have been better if you’d used the same colour as the outline for the pixel text in the av- matching colours are always better than one out of a few that doesn’t.
Also, the av looks slightly cluttered- perhaps if the text was moved over to the right a bit?
Sapphire Faerie: Nice job on the colourising! The grey-green colour of the girl’s skin doesn’t really match the rest of the graphic/s, though. The background and 3D border are nice... The 3D border of the text doesn’t match the graphic- not in colour scheme, but how 3D it is. Overall, nice work.
Meowth1982: You’ve also done a nice colourising. The bar behind the sig subtext isn’t all that great, though- if it stopped as it came to the character, coming out only between that gap between her and her arms, it would probably be more effective.
Also, the outline of the main sig text would probably look better if it were thicker.
Alex: Very nice work! I noticed, though, that the av and sig don’t match- the text in the av isn’t outlined, while the subtext in the sig is; the picture and background are a bit blurred in the sig, whereas no blur at all in the av…
Starchaser: As always, great job. There are a few too many stars in the av, though- they make it look too busy. The av text would also probably be better if moved down- that area of the av is a bit empty.
Neko: Nice job! I’m not really fond of the subtext or av text, though. The font doesn’t really work well with the graphics. :/ The bar behind the subtext isn’t faded very well, on either side (left and right). The dots on the right of the girl’s head in the sig are far too concentrated, in that area- it would be better if they were spread out.
DM was on fire!: Good job on the blending of the various images. I have two critisisms, however: the pictures you chose, and the main text in the sig. With the images, I’m not sure how many are available, but the one in the middle of the sig, inbetween the ‘on’ and ‘fire’ in ‘DM was on fire!’, doesn’t match the other four pictures, at all- it’s bolded outline and lack of small, fine details, in contrast to the finer outlines and details of the other images, doesn’t match at all, really. :/ As for the text, the outline is too thin, and as a result, a bit hard to make out.
Marissa: Wonderful graphics work. I can only see one small thing that I don’t like. In the sig, the background version of the image is a bit awkward. The bangs of the woman look a bit like cuts- not hair (is it hair? I’m not sure.).
(Anything past this is rushed, as Scott is prodding me with a whip)
Shadowfare: The pixelish background in the sig isn’t all that great. It detracts from the quality of the graphic. The subtext colours are a bit off- the effect, though nice, makes it hard to read some of the text.
Apricus: Overall, very, very good work. A few minor details: the picture’s really pixelish at the edges. Not nice. In the av, the text is a bit too bright, and the pink of the text doesn’t match the pink of the graphics (not really, anyway).
r4che1: Set is nicely done. However: the subtext’s font doesn’t match the rest of the set, and it’s a bit large. The blue-green outline of the other text is a bit too bright, in contrast with the other, lighter, colours. The scanlines of the sig are too obtrusive, and would probably look better at a lower opacity.
Kristina: Good image extracting and colourising job- image looks fine, without any pixelly spots or pink pixels left in, and the colourising is nice. The text in the sig is really blurry, though, and the text in the av would look better with an outline or subtle glow, so it doesn’t stand out sharply from the background or look too plain in comparison. The background is alright, too, though it could definitely be better, as it’s simply blurred brushes of different colours.
laq: VERY good colourising. Very. My only crits have to do with the av: the text is a bit too far too the left, it seems, as it looks off. Also, the av is a bit empty. I’m not sure what you would be able to do to make it not as empty, however.
Mazil: I really don’t think you should have used that particular picture (of the girl) for the set. It isn’t very good quality, so although the set is excellent, the picture is hard to work with, and it shows- it lowers the quality of the set.
Neopets Addict: The av is a bit too big- wide, I mean. There’s too much empty space. Also, the outline of the Ixi is far too pixelly- it’s choppy where it’s protruding out of the graphics. However, the background and fonts are quite nicely done/chosen, finishing off the graphics with a nice touch.
Dawn2: For Paint, it’s very well done. The extraction and move of the dove to another part of the picture is incredibly smooth- I can’t tell you moved it. The borders would probably look better as a different colour, instead of black, which doesn’t match the set at all. The main sig text should be anti-aliased, as the pixellish text clashes with the graphic (You should download a better graphics program, such as GIMP- it’s free, and good. :/).
Polarbearpop: …I can’t see the set. I saw it before, though, and from memory, the text in the background was distracting, and really took away from the quality of the sig- would have looked better at a really, really low opacity, or if not there at all.
My votes go to Dawn2, Medli, and Polarbearpop (from memory, I'd already decided this vote upon looking over the sets on Sunday morning.
).
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
.
- Set by Sapphire Faerie
