Signature of the Week #2 Voting

[quote=wRAthoFVuLK]I don't think color is off nor a blur. Check your screen o-o[/quote]

[quote=SchizoFrancis]My screen is perfectly fine. It's a really good one, actually. To me, it just doesn't look... crisp. Especially on the far right side. You can distinguish patches of color by blocks if you look closely enough. And I don't mean to say the color is off from what it should be. In my opinion, it just gives off a dull and rather gloomy vibe when it looks as if it should give off a magical, full of life vibe. Deeper and more vibrant colors would fix this. As I said before, I still like it. There are just really minor details that helped me choose number four. (EDIT) If you take both the photos into a photo manipulation program and increase the size on both the pictures you'll see what I mean for crispness. Number two just has much larger pixels.[/quote]

[quote=wRAthoFVuLK]Yea I see what you mean now. However, that could also be the site on which the image was uploaded.[/quote]

[quote=Canoas]whoever made sig #2 made the file size too small, so it really degraded the image's quality. But honestly, it still feels like the only one not done in paint = / If it's re-saved with better quality I would have no problems using it as a signature. I wouldn't use one of the other sigs though.. They just look too simple or uninteresting. #1's quality isn't very good either. I can spot artifacts all over the sig.[/quote]

[quote=SchizoFrancis][quote=Canoas] whoever made sig #2 made the file size too small, so it really degraded the image's quality. But honestly, it still feels like the only one not done in paint = / If it's re-saved with better quality I would have no problems using it as a signature. I wouldn't use one of the other sigs though.. They just look too simple or uninteresting. #1's quality isn't very good either. I can spot artifacts all over the sig. [/quote] Agreed. A few minor tweaks to the quality and I'd defiantly vouch for it.[/quote]

[quote=Nyoike][quote=Canoas] whoever made sig #2 made the file size too small, so it really degraded the image's quality. But honestly, it still feels like the only one not done in paint = / If it's re-saved with better quality I would have no problems using it as a signature. I wouldn't use one of the other sigs though.. They just look too simple or uninteresting. #1's quality isn't very good either. I can spot artifacts all over the sig. [/quote] I don't get how any of these could've been made in paint TBH, too much going on in all of them to not use layers (At least if I were to make it). (Unless you're referring to paint.net, but I don't believe you are) And I'll give some criticism: [list] [*] #1 Too abstract IMO, just seems like a semi-colorful cloud with some cool text. [*] #2 Like SchizoFrancis said, lower quality and semi-blurred, but probably file compression and site upload fault. [*] #3 Just too hard to see, takes a little searching to see what it is. [*] #4 Strange, very strange. And lighting seems a little wacked up as well, goes from black to near-white really quickly in a few spots. [/list] And I'm not gonna vote, just give feedback.[/quote]

[quote=wRAthoFVuLK][color=red][h1]NOTE: THE CREATOR OF SIG 2 JUST SENT ME A NEW ONE WITH BETTER QUALITY :)[/h1][/color][/quote]

[quote=The_Nameless_Bard]Imma vote for number one...since no one has voted for it yet, but I like all of them.[/quote]

[quote=SchizoFrancis]Oh, la la. Number two is looking VERY nice now. I take back all my complaints. Kudos to the creator. I'd switch my vote, but I think I'm going to remain loyal to my first one. I wouldn't really want to upset anybody by changing it up so fast. <:)[/quote]

[quote=Atarios]Sig 4.[/quote]