Stocks, Renders Or Scratch ? [SIGS]

[Champjev]

Simply I am just wondering how many forumer’s that use PDN make there sigs/tags using a stock or render and work off of that? I have seen that most people make there stuff from scratch which looks nice but I myself prefer the PS style render and stock sigs that I have become so used to and fond of.

Basically post you’re opinions of which type of sigs you make.. either stock. Render or made from scratch.

I my self am a stock/render type of person and rarely make things from scratch but trust me working with these is not easy. A lot of technique is involved well adding depth, colour scheme, effects and much more to make the sig flow.

But there is also a lot of creativity and experience involved well making sigs from scratch because you are basically making it as you go or have planned it ahead which must be hard.

And if you can post 1 example of you’re work either with a render, stock or made from scratch….

{Ch@/\/\p}

[Simon Brown]

Poll?

[Champjev]

Done!

{Ch@/\/\p}

[Simon Brown]

What about "I don't have a sig" and "it varies" options?

[R3VENGE]

mostly from scratch and some of my own things that ive made like fractals but now and then ill use renders

[Dark End]

80% of the time I use renders. When I can't find a render I like, I use a stock image and cut out the render. (My sig was made with a render.)

[Simon Brown]

Do images you create yourself but in other programs or with your camera count as stock?

[Milkybarkid]

I think that you can guess my current one is 100% PDN (with a nice fractal render )

[Max Power]

My sigs on this forum are 100% PDN...no stocks no render...we could say I'm not earning reputation for works I didn't made myself

[R3VENGE]

I think that you can guess my current one is 100% PDN (with a nice fractal render )

actually its a c4d from what i can tell and a c4d is different from a fractal so...

c4d=cinema 4d=abstract random swirly graphics things

[Milkybarkid]

It still looks like a fractal,. but yes it is C4D. I never got the hang of C4D, so I use Planet Renders.

[jake2k]

I use em all haha

[Bablorub]

I use em all haha

Yep blud, it's real deal when you ain't got nolimit :wink:

[TopHATslash]

Usually renders..

[The_Lionhearted]

Using renders and stocks definitely isn't 100% PDN...

[TopHATslash]

Using renders and stocks definitely isn't 100% PDN...

Check out the text below my sig..

[The_Lionhearted]

Using renders and stocks definitely isn't 100% PDN...

Check out the text below my sig..

Sorry, I was referring to champjev. Didn't even notice you... :oops:

[Crazy Man Dan]

I believe that Paint.NET is as much an image manipulator as it is an image creator. Probably more-so, since vector tools are primarily used as image creation tools because of their high level of editability and scaleability.

I don't mean to offend, but if someone does a PhotoChop in PhotoShop, it's still considered a "PhotoShopped" image. Why then is a photochop made in Paint.NET considered as less worthy of being called a PDN image?

My primary use of bitmap editors is photomanipulation, so I have a soft-spot in my heart for it and a recognition of just how difficult making a good photochop can be. Masking, blending, enhancing, smoothing, adjusting, et cetera - these features were made for photomanipulation, and using them for that purpose shouldn't come at the cost of the respect of one's peers.

Now, I understand there's a much higher difficulty level when one starts with nothing and makes something photorealistic, but we're not all freaks of nature like Ash. If stock is used, but Paint.NET is the only editor used, I think it should still be considered a 100% PDN image. If Paint.NET is the only editor someone uses, then they are 100% Paint.NET.

Me, I use Paint.NET, The GIMP, and Inkscape, but if you weight them based upon how often I use each editor, then I'm probably only about 10% Paint.NET. Still, everything I post on this forum is completely edited with Paint.NET unless explicitly specified otherwise.

[Simon Brown]

I agree - although the types of images most people here seem to create from scratch probably wouldn't be appropriate for a vector editor.

Did I mention how terrible InkScape's interface is?

[oma]

perhaps say 100% edited with paint.net and not 100% paint.net.? just a thought?

actually when I even use a picture import I took myself I consider that not 100% made but 100% edited.

or I'm likely to put 95 or 99% paint.net. and give explination of where picture source came from even if from my own camera taken image.

OMA

[The_Lionhearted]

perhaps say 100% edited with paint.net and not 100% paint.net.? just a thought?

actually when I even use a picture import I took myself I consider that not 100% made but 100% edited.

or I'm likely to put 95 or 99% paint.net. and give explination of where picture source came from even if from my own camera taken image.

OMA

That's really more the way I've been leaning...when Ash says that his tiger is 100% Paint.NET, I know that he just opened up the editor and drew it...no outside material was used. Not a big deal, but it is an interesting topic and I'm glad I coerced more people into telling me their opinions.

[Crazy Man Dan]

Did I mention how terrible InkScape's interface is?

Which version did you use?

.45 introduced new, better-looking tool buttons, and .46, the most recent version, introduces a dockable palette roll. It's actually quite an improved workflow. The one area which admittedly is still grossly lacking is layers management.

perhaps say 100% edited with paint.net and not 100% paint.net.? just a thought?

I don't know. I suppose it would fit better, but the difference seems mostly semantic.

Not a big deal, but it is an interesting topic and I'm glad I coerced more people into telling me their opinions.

You sly dog you.

[Simon Brown]

.45 introduced new, better-looking tool buttons, and .46, the most recent version, introduces a dockable palette roll. It's actually quite an improved workflow. The one area which admittedly is still grossly lacking is layers management.

I will have a look.

[Helio]

Doesn't a render count as stock? <_<

I primarily start a signature with a blank 500x100/1000x200/2000x400px canvas. I have used stock images in signatures before, though. Well, actually only one that I can remember.

I back CMD's argument; when using stock, some of the skill of making the work is editing it and manipulating it to your needs in PDN. This should qualify as 100% Paint.NET work. It may not be 100% your work, unless you take your own photos/create your own renders. For example, take millennia (see how I cleverly insert links to my own work!). I consider it to be 100% Paint.NET.

[R3VENGE]

i only consider it 100% when it is all completely made in paint.net