Eric Clapton / SOTW

I'm not much of a fan of the blue explosion on the right. I like the flow though, very nice smudging also.

Focal looks blury and weird. And he doesn't really fit in.

He fits in Namek. The blurryness is because of the low contrast, which is a rarely used effect that I see on PR.

Impy either way, the sharpness of the background and the blur of the focal takes away.

Tons of jpg artifact on [our] left.

On 20-Jan-2009 tbug2007 said:

Impy either way, the sharpness of the background and the blur of the focal takes away.

Tons of jpg artifact on [our] left.

do you even know the meaning of JPG Artifact?

Yes, and I see alot of it.

On 20-Jan-2009 BreakingMyOwnHeart said:

do you even know the meaning of JPG Artifact?

I don't please explain so that I may better understand where he's coming from.

JPEG artifacts are areas in an image with a blocky or blotchy appearance such as what you can see in the extreme example on this page [view full size]. JPEG artifacts are the result of an aggressive data compression scheme that discards some image data. This is known as "lossy" data compression. Several types of artifacts can appear which are discernible and objectionable to the user. These can include noise around edges, blurring, a smeared appearance, color distortion, and/or checkerboard-like blocking in busy regions.

And that's exactly what I'm pointing out.

I see it too.
Mainly in the upper-left corner.
But the smudging is great, and I like it. The pink border....once again, don't really like...

On 20-Jan-2009 DeadWing said:

I see it too.
Mainly in the upper-left corner.
But the smudging is great, and I like it. The pink border....once again, don't really like...

the brown color is brushed on so yea not JPEG artifact it had a little bit of smudging on that layer so i sharpened it, really learn to tell the diff Taylor and its possible and not that hard either

« Last edited by BreakingMyOwnHeart on Jan 20th 2009 »

Don't give me that crap.



It's clear that you didn't "mean" to do that.

On 20-Jan-2009 tbug2007 said:

Don't give me that crap.



It's clear that you didn't "mean" to do that.

Taylor, the image is a PNG. Therefore it's not JPG artifact seeing as the bits you've indicated are areas that weren't part of the original stock.

Data compression isn't the only way in which colour distortion or noise can occur in an image. Hell, there's a "noise" filter in PS which I've used liberally in the past, so sometimes it can even be deliberate.

Also, stop waltzing into G&A threads and refusing to point anything out apart from "jpg artifact".

It's irritating.

That isn't a part of the stock by the looks of it. Even if it is, you can easily take it out.

jp artifact is a general term... I could say compression, but it's more know as jpg. For V's tag, I had to point out something then eat. For this, I pointed that out and the artifact.

I think I see what you mean, they look kinda...I guess fuzzy, bitsy, or the way water looks when you put it between two pieces of glass; is the word I'm looking for.

On 20-Jan-2009 tbug2007 said:

That isn't a part of the stock by the looks of it. Even if it is, you can easily take it out.

jp artifact is a general term... I could say compression, but it's more know as jpg. For V's tag, I had to point out something then eat. For this, I pointed that out and the artifact.

"That isn't a part of the stock by the looks of it."

...which is what I was saying..?

"jp artifact is a general term... I could say compression, but it's more know as jpg."

I was saying that compression is NOT the only way in which effects such as colour distortion and noise can be generated, and that they can even be deliberate at times. Oversharpening, for instance, can cause serious colour distortion.

Really, Taylor, my point here is that there are so many things you could be pointing out about a tag, and you always seem to go for "jpg artifact", which is the part of a tag the artist is least responsible for (at least, when you're applying the term correctly). I'm sure neither Vee nor Heart worked for a long time on their tags only to be told "jpg artifact". Especially when it takes you about five posts to actually point out where it is that you think you can see it.

I didn't just point it out now did I?

XD

This instance, which is what I'm referring to the whole time, is not intentional.

On 20-Jan-2009 tbug2007 said:

Don't give me that crap.



It's clear that you didn't "mean" to do that.

dude if you dont know what was done in the tag dont give me the "dont give me that crap"

your Graphics knowledge is lacking in actual terms as well as skill dont give me the shitty comments that you have no idea what your saying, i cant believe that the two mods that are active enough to say active are the shittiest Artists as of known on SC that actually post their stuff

main reason i left before was cause of the shitfaced comments people like you gave to me and everyone else. Same as countless other GFX people, SC sucks as far as GFX goes and always will cause of the people like you that lack in knowledge and lack in trying to improve your art. Also if your wondering who is worse then you it can only be PhilXZ

Also this is my leaving but this time i wont make the dumbass mistake of coming back

« Last edited by BreakingMyOwnHeart on Jan 20th 2009 »

...wow, I guess some people can give criticism, but not take it.