Signatures and Small Art

new sig

For smaller graphics.

Re: new sig

Postby virtualTune » Mon Apr 02, 2012 8:49 am

here he comes again to mess up this beautiful argument >.<

@Baum he did exactly what hs graphc show. Personally, I think the far bg is a it too blurry but that is personal preference. So if the wall was a Concave mirror the girl would be standing between the Focus and the mirror.

In the case below, imagine the girl being the "Object" and the "Focus" being where the camera sits. The mirror, of course being the wall, non-reflective.

Image
Members don't see the above ad. Register now - it's free!
virtualTune
Retired Staff
 
Posts: 4421
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:50 pm
Location: Neverland

Re: new sig

Postby Arzoroc » Mon Apr 02, 2012 11:13 am

Well YES! :D
I think we're talking about the same thing but we both don't understand each other.
Simple drawing of the depths/focus:

(Bird view:)

blur.jpg



So the things that are closest to your camera have to be blurred, the things that are furthest have to be blurred, and the things on the same level as the girl have to be in focus and thus sharp.

If this is NOT the case, something's wrong with my brain.



Edit: Look at this photo:
Image
The grass in the front is blurred, the grass at fox level is sharp, the grass in the far back is blurred again.
That's what I wanted to tell you, nothing more ;)
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Inactive.
Spoiler: show
Willy wrote:arzorac

Maffe811 wrote:Arcoroc

David Wood wrote:Arzorac

sagtek wrote:Arzonic

Legionenigmatics wrote:azornac

Cyrilshark wrote:Argzornack, I still have to congratulate you on having the most epic signature ever. haha

*bow*
User avatar
Arzoroc
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2199
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 1:34 pm

Re: new sig

Postby 25000st » Mon Apr 02, 2012 12:52 pm

Well yes you guys are correct with your science. However, in this tag, the girl/focal appears slightly blurred and she looks "far away" giving the tag depth. Therefore, the stuff up close should be sharper, but the issue actually is not that simple here. The contrast of the focal and the foreground look nigh the same, except maybe at the face, while the stuff behind her is not as contrasted so it kinda creates a contradiction of she is further back but at the same time she is kind of up close.

The depth worked best the way it was at first but to improve it, IMO blurring what's to the immediate right of the focal would be most effective without too much work. Trying to clean up the lighting can be... kinda rough if you know what I mean :P
25000st
Hero Member
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 7:49 pm

Re: new sig

Postby Maffe811 » Mon Apr 02, 2012 5:01 pm

Arzoroc wrote:Well YES! :D
I think we're talking about the same thing but we both don't understand each other.
Simple drawing of the depths/focus:

(Bird view:)

blur.jpg



So the things that are closest to your camera have to be blurred, the things that are furthest have to be blurred, and the things on the same level as the girl have to be in focus and thus sharp.

If this is NOT the case, something's wrong with my brain.



Edit: Look at this photo:
Image
The grass in the front is blurred, the grass at fox level is sharp, the grass in the far back is blurred again.
That's what I wanted to tell you, nothing more ;)


Yeah, and since the BG, imho, seems to be one long curve the point where the curve is equal length away from the eye/camera as the focal is, it has to be sharpened.
Got möp?
Image
SOTW #1 ^
"Photoshop!? You don't need no stinkin' Photoshop" - We'll show you the power of the Gimp!!!
---
Honest CnC always beats crap CnC
Baum wrote:I think it doesnt has to be mentioned that self-voters have a small p....hotograph :D
User avatar
Maffe811
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 6810
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 1:00 pm
Location: Norway/Norge/Norwegen

Re: new sig

Postby virtualTune » Mon Apr 02, 2012 5:02 pm

ok so Baum and I and Maffe agree now. I partly agree with 25kst. I see that some parts of the girl are a bit blurred so there is some depth on her as well, meaning essentially the far bg and fg should be almost completly blurred 8O
virtualTune
Retired Staff
 
Posts: 4421
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:50 pm
Location: Neverland

Re: new sig

Postby Arzoroc » Mon Apr 02, 2012 7:06 pm

Okay I already feel sorry for this but..

edit: nvm.. doesn't work..
Inactive.
Spoiler: show
Willy wrote:arzorac

Maffe811 wrote:Arcoroc

David Wood wrote:Arzorac

sagtek wrote:Arzonic

Legionenigmatics wrote:azornac

Cyrilshark wrote:Argzornack, I still have to congratulate you on having the most epic signature ever. haha

*bow*
User avatar
Arzoroc
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2199
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 1:34 pm

Re: new sig

Postby virtualTune » Mon Apr 02, 2012 8:00 pm

but...?
virtualTune
Retired Staff
 
Posts: 4421
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:50 pm
Location: Neverland

Re: new sig

Postby 25000st » Mon Apr 02, 2012 11:44 pm

See, the problem is the foreground and the focal look at almost the same distance due to the contrast.

That's why I'm saying the blurring was best left the way it was.
25000st
Hero Member
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 7:49 pm

Previous

Return to Signatures and Small Art

cron

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests