Print

[Arjun]

8. really liking it. i would have given it a 9.5, but we dont want ur self esteem going that high .

damn i need to get back into gfx...

[dmanjohn]

7

i like the colors but its halo

[_GhOsT_]

6

far to plain

some one rate this sig

[Owtlaw333]

7.8
White text is a lil harsh and the beveled text is a lil outta place and a lil large. I love the bg of it though. If you had a more simple font with the opacity down a lil, it would be much cleaner and look better imo.
After those changes, 8.8, lol.

[twistedsymphony]

9.0

I like any sig that uses transparencies, plus it's really smooth and comes together overall.

the color combo is a little harsh (maybe intentional? I don't like it) and some of the white rays are a little jagged, your name could have been integrated into it a little better, overall my complaints are just nit-picky though.


If I change my sig here is the one you're raiting:

[Owtlaw333]

QUOTE(twistedsymphony @ Apr 21 2006, 11:15 AM)

9.0

I like any sig that uses transparencies, plus it's really smooth and comes together overall.

the color combo is a little harsh (maybe intentional? I don't like it) and some of the white rays are a little jagged, your name could have been integrated into it a little better, overall my complaints are just nit-picky though.
If I change my sig here is the one you're raiting:

7.5
It's good for what it is, but lacks originality IMO (the fact that it's a screen shot). The blocking of the icons gives nice depth but takes away from the fact that it's a gamercard. Maybe if it didn't block them quite as much, it would help. I'm not too familiar with the gamercard setup, but I'm assuming ur forced to use fonts like that (the "Twistedsymphony Recreation"), which is a shame cuz it's a lil distracting. Also, if you could darken up the BG to the left of the car it would help that left side, because as is, it's too busy. But the overall composition is nice. The car really pops.


And unfortunately with the jaggies, that's how PS handles vectors. I could prolly go in and fix it by hand, but I really don't feel the need to put THAT much effort into a sig, lol. And I like the high contrast of colors, so there  haha

[CattyKid]

Hmm... outlaw I say 9.0 as well.  I really like it, it just kind of flows together.  I would try and make the white space by DREAM transparent as well, though, to make it look even better.

[socalx]

what the heck i cant even see outlaws sig

[CattyKid]

QUOTE(socalx @ Apr 21 2006, 10:07 PM)

what the heck i cant even see outlaws sig

What browser are you using?  I can see it with Firefox, but can't see when Hazanko posts a picture without pasting the link in my browser.

Oh, and 8.3 for your sig.  I like the look of motion and the frames.

[socalx]

well im using firefox too but all i see is that best buyt thing but i can see everyone elses sigs

[Owtlaw333]

QUOTE(socalx @ Apr 21 2006, 07:07 PM)

what the heck i cant even see outlaws sig

Can you see this one? Quality is a lil... ok... REALLY crappy on this one cuz it's a GIF (the one in my sig is a PNG)... it's wierd that you can't see it. I too have no problem when veiwing in IE or FF. Although I did notice the color is different in each one. IE looks brighter and richer in color than in FF.... odd. Oh well.

Here's a JPG without the transparency on the left just so you get a look at a better quality picture.

[CattyKid]

QUOTE(metaldevil @ Apr 22 2006, 07:09 AM)

Check to see if you didn't accidentally block his images from being displayed. I accidentally did that once, and I had a hell of a time trying to figure out why every image would load except a handful from photobucket. I had to copy-and-paste the link like you mentioned and it would show up in another tab just fine, but images from that specific photobucket address (something like i14.photobuc....) wouldn't be displayed on regular webpages. I knew for a fact that I hadn't blocked any images, but I was wrong, of course. LOL

I'm using 1.5.0.2 so the steps may be slightly different for pre-1.5 releases. This is how to check sites that you've blocked images from loading in webpages:

Tools > Options > Choose "Content" button

Where it says "Load Images" (should be checked), look to the right of it and click "Exceptions." Here you can see all the sites that you've blocked from displaying pictures. Select the site you want to unblock and click "Remove Site."

Let me know if that helps.

Nope, sorry, no exceptions set at all.  I think it worked a few months ago, then after I updated to one of the newer releases it stopped showing them.  Weird, because it IS only his like you said and it DOES work fine if I copy and paste into the address bar, just like you said.  But there aren't any exceptions.
Weird, huh?  I was sure your explanation would fix it.
Anyway, thanks for taking the time to try to help me, maybe I'll report it as a bug to Team Firefox?

EDIT:
Okay, now they work?  Tell me that isn't "peculiar." I had no sites on my Blocked list, so I blocked my own Photobuket to see what would happen because I was curious if it would show up with an image placeholder or just a blank space.  It showed up as a blank space.  So I went to that menu you told me about and clicked "Remove All Sites."  Refreshed the page, and now I can see Hazanko's pics.
Thanks, but I'm just a LITTLE confused as to why it wouldn't show up as "Blocked" .  Whatever, I'm happy, it worked!
Thanks again!   to you, too.

[socalx]

no none of that didjt anything cuz i have no sites in there and i still cant see it but i can see the one he posted

[socalx]

crap now i cant see any pictures

[juanman]

8
it would be higher but i feel there could be something better where the tire track patter is