Flame wrote:
ScottNak wrote:
Or maybe when our other alex friend finally finishes her ratings
I'll have to smack her.
Two days ago I PMed her and she said she was doing them at said time of my PM. Alas, I PMed her again...still no ratings. Tsk tsk.
I'll give her a few more hours. If she hasn't posted by then, I'll just go with what ratings I have and continue to the next round.
*pokes ScottNak* Since when do you come to this thread anyway?
Eep! *Hurries and copy+pastes from Word document*
Oh. And get better soon, Flame.
Shadowfare: Sig is too empty. I can barely make out some of the text, as well... There should be text in the avatar: it looks too plain. Colourising is nicely done, however.
Sapphire Faerie: I love the avatar, by the way. The main sig text, though, is a bit too 3D for my likes- it stands out too much. The subtext probably would look better as a darker shade of red: the light colour makes it almost invisible when looking at the graphic at a glance.
Meowth1982: The sig is a bit too busy, with the 3D jubjub, the background jubjb, the large text, and the transparency. The jubjub image's quality isn't the best: it's grainy and lighter in colour than it's avatar/background counterpart. The avatar is better, but it's quite simply in comparison with the sig.
Neopets Addict: The avatar is a bit empty: the text being moved up, and a portion of the bottom of the av being removed would probably help. Overall, the sig is excellent: one thing bothers me, though. It's the bar the subtext is on. It's a bit too solid for my likes.
Starchaser: I really like this set. The only things I can really find wrong is that one, the image in the avatar is a bit blurry (can be fixed with a quick trip to the 'unsharp mask' filter); and two, the image stands out a bit too much from the background, in my opinion (though... I'm tired).
laq: The av is a bit empty- it would most likely look better if it were smaller.
Beyond that complaint, nice job.
Zero: Doesn't clash.
The small size of the text in the av causes it to not be seen, unless you're looking for it. The sig is a bit too busy, but it is well done. My only other crit is that the image is a bit too sharp- I suspect you use the sharpen tool for your graphics.
mazil: Wonderful colourising work. Even so, the avatar should have a complete border, to match the sig.
And I think the background is a bit distracting. :/
Apricus: 'Tis boxy awesomness. My only criticism is of the border. Now, it matches the set quite well. But something was bothering me, so I zoomed in to see what it was, and oh! The border isn't transparency-brown line-transparency, it's light brown line-brown line.
Smart, because of .gif (the only filetype I know of that supports transparency) but it looks a bit weird. Maybe an even lighter shade of brown?
Darklegendary: Two things: the sig has an inner border that's faded and bright orange, while the avatar does not. It's a small detail, but that difference makes it so the two don't match. Second, though this is silly and doesn't have anything to do with the actual graphics, really, the subtext doesn't match the image. Oranges that are free from the world?
DM was on fire!: First, because it was the first thing I noticed (*Is so pathetic*): the subtext is a question, but there's no question mark. Punctuation is important.
Second (and this is graphics related, haha.
), the main sig text's outline is way too thin. It detracts from the quality, and would probably look better if thicker. Last: the av is too empty/big. Would most likely appear higher-quality if smaller.
Knives: Well, first off, the borders of the av and sig don't match. The red border on the ‘plosive’ in ‘explosive’ in the sig is a bit too light, in my opinion…
Marissa: The image of Fyora in the sig is a bit blurry, but with a pic like that, I suppose it would be hard to make it any clearer. The image, in both the av and sig, has a different coloured crown, in each, I noticed.
Charka: You used far too much glow for the main text in the sig. The borders on both the sig and av are barely noticable- would have been better as a darker colour. The two fonts you used for the text don’t really flatter each other. :/
Alex: The av is a bit empty. The sig an av backgrounds don’t match, as one is a darker red, while the other is a lighter shade… Also, the Flizzardo is outlined by a thin white line of pixels- you didn’t completely get all the white out when extracting the image from the original, which was on a white background.
Neko: The only thing I can see that’s worthy of critisicm is that both the av and sig are a bit pixelly in places. :/
r4che1: The av is too simple- it’s part of the original picture, with a border. The background of the sig is really, really pixelly. The subtext isn’t very clear [to make out].
Charka and Alex.
And a random note, only because I've criticised a lot of people on this, this round: Remember, people. Avs can be 80x80 or
smaller. Small doesn't necessarily mean bad.