I can help you guys artistically if you need it

[senate7377]

not only do I need more time to actually make a worthwhile post ( i was going to post a lot of tips to make your stuff better as a whole, cause there are a lot of technical problems, that if solved, would make things MUCH nicer looking (in regards to sigs and avatars), as I lost 30 min of post becuase it logs you out after a certain amount of time so to keep it short:

bear in mind I've only used Photoshop for 4 months, but have taken time to LEARN how to use more than the filters and lasso tool....like I said, Id like to actually post a general "thinks to consider" post, but it keeps logging me out before I finsih it.

actaul site in progress Im working on:
http://www.djellam.com





new album cover and site design

[dancingmaniac3]

NICE designs up there....really nice. you gotta teach me some stuff :P

[senate7377]

Thanks - I have no issue with helpin anyone out, just let me knowwhat it is you have an idea to do, and I'll do my best to help you get that result. Just PM me

[tnyhwk900]

The inside of the eye is badly darkened. It looks way too fake using pure black.

First two are hot, though. Nice job.

[senate7377]

The effect needed was that of a void, something removed purposefully.

using an opacity less than 80% makes the eye look more fake, I'd have to cut and blur, since that technique is not a standard nor is it considered rofessional I had to airbrush the eye completely out. THough its a vaild point.

[aperson]

You have lots of potential, some stuff is sloppy though. There are better ways to get a 'void' in an eye. Try leaving the highlighted shadows there so all you see are the white reflections in the eye.

Also, you need to be more careful with your cutouts. The blue person in the site design especially comes to mind, there is a bunch of pixeljunk scattered around it.



The EJRonin white and yellow text is pretty cool, but overall your typography is bland and needs work.

[senate7377]

The white artifacts on the image of myself is intentional. Its an effect created by using a GIF with transparency and a low tolerance lasso tool. Cheap easy and creates a rough look. the color was done with posturization then desaturated the image, then adjusting the hue / saturation and finally contrast. then you re size the image so the artifacts are more visible. I wanted and scratchy and rough edge because it attracts attention. On the actual page, it looks a little better than here and given the complimentary colors OF the site the white was a way to throw a false void and paper cutout look to smooth site. Besides, imagine it WITHOUT the white artifacts...its pretty boring

The eyes, is to look completely empty, hollow if you will. The first image I did I left the white reflections on the eye, then I brushed them out and recreated them, on the second. I didn't like the black eye look, so I went with a removed eyes look. A fake void was the intent anyway. The typography on a professional based site is to be somewhat bland, you are reading information, not creating a text based image (generally considered bad). I used to do site design with decorative fonts but that was the thing back in 1999, being 2005 - it doesn't fly or sell professionally. Now its pastel, CMYK and semitone gradients, reflections, and its now heading towards earth tones and multi weighted lines Lucida Sans s a favorite font of designers, as is Arial 10px and Trebuchet.

I've found that when decorative fonts are used, the composition of the piece relies almost entirely on the font, or "text-based design". Look at a lot of T-shirts from PacSun or Hollister or "goth in a box" (Hot Topic). The image is held together by the text. Remove the text, the image falls apart and has next to no meaning, if you remove the image the text is ugly and almost isn't funny because your image is gone. They should be independent of each other but complimentary at the same time. Its kind of hard to explain in depth from a design POV, but all of those images there...have gone through industry professional critique and come out ranked well. The typography is fine as its kerned right, but font face may need changing. I'm not a typographer as that's a WHOLE different kind of elitist can of worms that I dare not touch. Also just keep in mind that not only have I only used Photoshop for 4 months, but that its for web design, and not print design, also two different worlds.

Back to the eye...the only thing that was told to me about it was really that I should use a near black charcoal to black off set circular gradient to give it false depth and then use a 240 degree inner shadow colored burnt ochre, and screen it over, at opacity 10% to tinge it slightly yellow and give the appearance of ambient light from the rust textured skin. The hardest part on that image was curving my texture over a flat surface. 3D modelling knowledge makes that easier but not much. I intend on modelling that image from scratch and then UV mapping it to get lighting perfect and my perspective perfect, then using the same texture to map it with, so that too will be perfect. Its mainly a "Sketch" at this point.

In whole you did bring up good points, and they are things good things to look at. However, I think you had misunderstood the intent of the image itself. That's not a thing bad towards you, its just means I need to better convey the intent graphically. Art speaks for itself, with no verbal or written explanation (unless its being critiqued =, then when issues or questions arise - you explain them).

Thanks for the input

[aperson]

God I can already tell we have a case of holier than thou on our hands.

Originally Posted by senate7377

The white artifacts on the image of myself is intentional. Its an effect created by using a GIF with transparency and a low tolerance lasso tool. Cheap easy and creates a rough look. the color was done with posturization then desaturated the image, then adjusting the hue / saturation and finally contrast. then you re size the image so the artifacts are more visible. I wanted and scratchy and rough edge because it attracts attention. On the actual page, it looks a little better than here and given the complimentary colors OF the site the white was a way to throw a false void and paper cutout look to smooth site. Besides, imagine it WITHOUT the white artifacts...its pretty boring

It's boring without the artifacts, and it looks like crap with them. I don't care if it's intentional, it's esthetically ugly. and yes, everyone knows how to ctrl+shift+u an image and match the colors up

The eyes, is to look completely empty, hollow if you will. The first image I did I left the white reflections on the eye, then I brushed them out and recreated them, on the second. I didn't like the black eye look, so I went with a removed eyes look. A fake void was the intent anyway.

I know, and I'm saying that the fake void is done poorly. You need to add some semblance of an eye in there while still maintaining the feeling of emptiness. Just adding the reflective contours that hit the cornea would be enough.

The typography on a professional based site is to be somewhat bland, you are reading information, not creating a text based image (generally considered bad). I used to do site design with decorative fonts but that was the thing back in 1999, being 2005 - it doesn't fly or sell professionally. Now its pastel, CMYK and semitone gradients, reflections, and its now heading towards earth tones and multi weighted lines Lucida Sans s a favorite font of designers, as is Arial 10px and Trebuchet.

I know what design trends are. Just go to cubadust, chapter3, theroot42, carbonfour, one of those places and you have the instant trend... I'm not stupid bro. Unfortunately, you don't understand that typography extends beyond font selection. In your web templates the main navigation text links have bad kerning and are far too spaced out for the heavily collapsed and rectangular gestalt motion you're trying to create. Furthermore, you don't take into account spacing between images and have bad tonal balance (particularly on the boxes with aim and all that jazz) which create clashing gestalts and give the eyes an uncomfortable time dragging around with uneven aspect ratios from the implied boxes your eyes draw.

I've found that when decorative fonts are used, the composition of the piece relies almost entirely on the font, or "text-based design". Look at a lot of T-shirts from PacSun or Hollister or "goth in a box" (Hot Topic). The image is held together by the text. Remove the text, the image falls apart and has next to no meaning, if you remove the image the text is ugly and almost isn't funny because your image is gone. They should be independent of each other but complimentary at the same time. Its kind of hard to explain in depth from a design POV, but all of those images there...have gone through industry professional critique and come out ranked well. The typography is fine as its kerned right, but font face may need changing. I'm not a typographer as that's a WHOLE different kind of elitist can of worms that I dare not touch. Also just keep in mind that not only have I only used Photoshop for 4 months, but that its for web design, and not print design, also two different worlds.

I know it's for web design, not print design. And I know throughout typing this whole thing up you're sitting here thinking you're better than me, but bro, I've been designing for 6 years now. I know how this shit works. And you're right, typographers are another group of elitists, but you damn well better learn at least a good foundation of typographical theory or you're going to have a bad, bad time in the webdesign world.

[senate7377]

nice cut and paste job on the text there. So tell me then why your pieces suffer far greater problems concerning color balance, weight, color, composition, and alignment. and what design forums are you actualyy an ACITVE member in if I may so bold? So you can sit there and say this that and the other, but until you match me toe to toe..4 months of PS work far exceeds most who've done it for a couple of years AND had schooling in it.

The microbars arent there for balance, its a header bar and the alignment makes it work. The NAV bar in the CONCEPT..thats ARIAL...if it was bad kerning then it wouldnt be an industry standard, their spacing is, each table is 375px across split into 5 75px cells, center to center they are perfect. For the arrangement and placement (gestalt) I have placing this image up changed the "mixology" setup.

I see you've instilled a challenge... well let go at it

[aperson]

Originally Posted by senate7377

nice cut and paste job on the text there. So tell me then why your pieces suffer far greater problems concerning color balance, weight, color, composition, and alignment. and what design forums are you actualyy an ACITVE member in if I may so bold? So you can sit there and say this that and the other, but until you match me toe to toe..4 months of PS work far exceeds most who've done it for a couple of years AND had schooling in it.

The microbars arent there for balance, its a header bar and the alignment makes it work. The NAV bar in the CONCEPT..thats ARIAL...if it was bad kerning then it wouldnt be an industry standard, their spacing is, each table is 375px across split into 5 75px cells, center to center they are perfect. For the arrangement and placement (gestalt) I have placing this image up changed the "mixology" setup.

I see you've instilled a challenge... well let go at it

I'm a member of theroot42.org

Kerning and leading are case by case depndent. Even if it's an industry standard it will most likely need to be readjusted to compensate for the shape of the area you are trying to work with it in.

[senate7377]

ok....well like I said typography aint my bag...and I too am a Root42 member...as well as a couple of other places....but thats neither here nor there. This has no place arguement has no place in either the Root or antyhing else, as it would be looked upon as childish