Sig Composition

[Avalon 1]

I will probably have a few people howl me down here, but I'd like to make a comment about a lot of the sigs I see here.Most of the sigs from the regular contributors here, (you know who you are), seem to feature very elaborate backgrounds. Obviously a lot of work has gone into making these backgrounds, but in my humble opinion, most of them are too 'busy'. By this I mean they tend to overwhelm the render and/or text with their complexity. I thought a background was meant to be just that, something that sits in the background. Some of the sigs I have seen, the background seems to be the main feature of the sig. In my opinion, a sig is to tell everyone else who you are and possibly provide some insight into your interests via the render.This is just my opinion, while the sigs may be technically brilliant with the array of brushes and the like used, the backgrounds often direct the viewer away from the purpose of the sig, i.e. telling ppl who you are via the text and/or render.

[Johnny 1]

See, you have a point, but what it comes down to is that each element of the sig should be detailed and nice-looking, instead of having one thing plain and the rest nice-looking. Yes, the text/render should be the focus, but they can be the focus without having to make your background plain.

 

I think this one serves a perfect example:

As you can see, there's tons of detail in the background (I didn't do it myself though) but the render and text remain the focus.

 

And looking through my sigs I notice that a lot of them don't actually have elaborate backgrounds, but the render/text make up for it, like these:

 

(I just took the examples from my gifts section...my sigs seem to be a bit better there. O.O)

[Phyre 0]

He may be talking about my really hard grungy sigs ;;

[Frozen 0]

I'm confused as a motha.o.O

[Phyre 0]

He's saying that sigs should revolve around the render and text, and not the backgrounds, and that our backgrounds are too busy/overwhelming

[Ralphie 0]

i agree with you to a certain degree. there are times when a highly complicated background combined with a render and text where the background keeps much of the focus does look pretty nice often enough. but i do agree that some times the render and text seem to be swallowed up by the background. its all a matter of the type of sig you are creating and everyone can gather different opinions about each one.

[Cool_Freaker 0]

It really depends what kind of style you're trying to achieve. You may be a complex person, no? :)I do realise that backgrounds which serve no purpose, other than to be a background, generally should be simple. However, if a complex background can complement a render, then it's well worth doing. Overall, though, too simple tends to be better than too cluttered.

[Ambient 0]

see your point but I like the siggys, very well done you guys, keep up the great work

[Avalon 1]

Well I must say, this is refreshing. Had I said something like that on a lot of other forums I would have started a flame war. I like this place, sensible, mature conversations. Gotta love it!

 

Anyway, I think most understood what I am trying to say. In my opinion, (whatever that counts for) some of the sigs seem to focus on the background rather than the render and text. Granted there are those that don't such as the ones Johnny put up as examples, (really nice sigs btw) but some of them, well... The one below is a classic example of what I mean, (sorry to single you out).

 

 

The background completely dominates the sig, it's difficult to see the render and the text is too small in relation to the size of the sig. But that's just my opinion.

[Damann 0]

Nah, this should be in gfx discussion though. Most of my sigs and others are complicated because its supposed to depict a complicated person. Really, the sigs look nice and all when they are focused on the text and render but the ones that are mainly the background arent really sigs, they are just showing off how good they can make small images that go in the signature area, A.K.A a signature =P I guess i should take this into consideration when i make my next sig, thanks for the advice.

[Saint_Michael 3]

for me i do a 50/50 so everything works out well with it, if i half @zzed it then it won't come out as good as it use to.

[Johnny 1]

they are just showing off how good they can make small images that go in the signature area, A.K.A a signature =P

178132[/snapback]

Isn't that what it's all about?

[Sprite 0]

I dont have a problem with busy backgrounds... *Looks down at his sig* Yeah umm... The render/font should make up for it...

[Saint_Michael 3]

i just do signatures just to make johnny look goodNOT!!!!