Rise Against

http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/3...sttagg2hu9.png

It's suppose to portray what the quiet people who get punk'd everyday think about when people fuck with them.

Not so good, but It's something new I made. I think the problem is overblend, It needs a bit more focus toward the focal point.

yeah. the stock doesn't really fit with the style, which is why the focus isn't so great. the stock looks too flat to be put in a sig with good depth.

name influenced by the band?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsoosiah

yeah. the stock doesn't really fit with the style, which is why the focus isn't so great. the stock looks too flat to be put in a sig with good depth.

name influenced by the band?

---

When I made it, I was thinking of a name and it happened to fit perfectly.

And it's not a stock. I've never used stocks in my life.

Edit: Btw, there's a small radial blur shadow behind the focal to give it depth for a lunging feel.

so you made the dude from scratch then? either way, I still think he doesn't fit well with the effects you have there. better to have something with more depth to go with the sig. what do you think?

A stock is something like premade with a background and everything, so it's a render.

The darken may have done too much to the focal, but I think a widened reversed radial will fix it up a bit.

there's no official definition for stocks/renders, they can be the same thing even. i figure a stock image to be some pic you use. simple as that. and the term 'render' is wrong for cutouts (renders = c4d ect.), but it seems to have been accepted so it's a moot point pretty much. anyway, that's a stupid thing to argue about, so i'll leave it at that.

but yeah, mess with that lighting, that's the only problem really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsoosiah

there's no official definition for stocks/renders, they can be the same thing even. i figure a stock image to be some pic you use. simple as that. and the term 'render' is wrong for cutouts (renders = c4d ect.), but it seems to have been accepted so it's a moot point pretty much. anyway, that's a stupid thing to argue about, so i'll leave it at that.

but yeah, mess with that lighting, that's the only problem really.

---

yeah the term render is misapplied to images used for signatures. that is a stock image as far as i'm concerned. a render is an object rendered (no shit huh?). whatever anyway.

this is a signature, goes in the sigs section. and i agree with jsoosiah, everything hes said.

I dont have so much to say cuz jsoosiah have said it all.