i've never posted a topic for a reason like this before, but since my friend and i had a debate about this, i'm going to post it. my latest image "quirk": it got pushed off of the first page of the new images basically right away, so i'm afraid not many people got a chance to see it.
the debate is over whether or not it's too simple-- we're still arguing about it. particularly the background, which is just a flat blue with some gradiation. what do you all think?
Too simple? I personally don't think so, but it could probably be argued. I like how it gets more defined and deeper at the... ummm... "lens flare point" (for lack of a better term). Color wise I think it is pretty simple however.
My first suggestion is to try to avoid using a lens flare whenever pssible. In professional circles it is considered a very amature effect and usually will discount your work as substandard. I like what you've done with the tentacle at the center near the flare, however it looks less impressive on the left when it blurs out.
I like the image and there's nothing wrong with simple - personally, I don't think anything is too simple unless it just a swirl or twist or something - meaning, using just one filter :) I like the lens flare and can see why you've used it here but maybe it just needs something else? Not sure what though - which is probably the reason you used the flare (yep, I used flare too - check out Butterfly - LOL). While it seems that lens flare is considered amateur, some of the works on this site have used it to great and popular effect.
well one of my images , 'Flood-Verge' has been said to be almost too subtle.. so i guess i can see where your debate is coming from... but there is still a lot going on in the your image. its got a high contrast between the swirl and the background and i wouldnt say it was too subtle.. im not saying its garish or clashing, but its definetly not too subtle.. just keep them coming, thats what i say.. quality and quantity please!! ;D
I already left a comment on the image before I noticed this post... I will paste it below:
-----------------
I must say I don't agree with caedes comment about the lens flare... you shouldn't avoid doing something or using a particular effect just because it isn't considered "cool" by some artists... sounds a bit snobbish to me. I say if it works in a particular work/context, do it... there are no "rules" to follow in art...
-----------------
On another note, I am astonished by the number of new uploads at the moment... it would be a bit annoying to be pushed off the front page so quickly... I guess the moderators are going to have to start working overtime or soon there will be too many new images to fit...
Lens flare amateur, eh? I wish someone had let me in on that. Seeing as how many of my images have lens flares I now look like an amateur idiot. I suppose that means they are simple as well. Interesting. Thanks for the heads-up caedes…
btw - reddawg - I personally like the images that you uploaded. Sometimes simple is nice.
Understand that I'm not trying to cut anyone down, I'm just stating a common theme in the graphic design/digital art scene. Anytime you use an 'effect' you want it to be unclear as to exactly what you did. If someone can say e.g "Oh, I see you used a canvas texture over some rendered clouds", then that really takes away the appeal/mystery/magic of the piece. You want it to look cool but not obvious in it's construction.
Understood. I tend to slightly agree with your comment about making something obvious as to how it was done. However - amateur I am. Substandard - I hope not. It will certainly make me think twice before I begin making an image to upload here. But - I feel that if it is appealing to the eye regardless of what you used or how you did it - then so be it. Many of our images here are obvious in the techniques that we have used. It certainly doesn't mean that they are not well liked. And - I am, more so than some, all too willing to actually tell someone how I did it. Does this make it substandard once ppl know? Granted, I am no where near as technical as Depth Core (I need to learn how to do that) but....okay, you are right...I am substandard. ; )
that's a good way of pointing it... i love when people ask how I did things. what's also cool is knowing that there is more than one way to achieve the same effect.
Another thing to remember is that this is primarily a wallpaper site; so like Tract said, as long as it looks cool, and people like it, it doesn't matter that much if it's great "art"... the Mona Lisa is a great peice of art, but that doesn't mean I want it on my desktop...
the debate is over whether or not it's too simple-- we're still arguing about it. particularly the background, which is just a flat blue with some gradiation. what do you all think?