[GFX] Depth in signatures

Big Casino

Money for Nothing
Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2007
Messages
7,422
Location
Scotland
Gil
0
Is this in the right area? who know dutchy can see to that.

Now everyone speaks about depth but im not sure they understand what it actually is. Now i have my own idea of what depth is in a signature and how it should be done. I can say lately my tags have been suffering from what i think is flatness but when you work with vector i think flatness works but when working with something more 3Dish it looks at its best when its deep, this is completely opinion i suppose as a sig doesnt have to have ''depth'' to look fantastic. Ofc many things make that more difficult. The main one being lighting. That can really rain on your parade..so tae speak. Much harder on sigs aswell with all the limited space and what have you whereas with largepieces its a very different story but still lighting makes things..harder.

Im not gunna say what my opinion about depth in tags is just yet. I wanna hear what other people think first and il see if i agree with you.

Im linking a tutorial by the welsh paddy which is a great example of applying depth to an image. Go look at it folks its simple but brilliant.

http://www.finalfantasyforums.net/t...hics-A-Simple-Technique?p=1048106#post1048106
 
Last edited:
I was always taught on other gfx forums that depth is adding a light source, giving the focus a touch that doesn't let it get drowned by the background. but, i'm no expert and i'm probably completely wrong. :lew:

also, i probably explained this all like an idiot. :wacky:

i've actually always wanted to ask about depth but no one's ever answered me before :/
 
There's nothing wrong with flatness in a signature. If that's the style you're going for, and especially in vectors, flatness works a lot better than adding depth. I don't think many people realize that sometimes, a flat look is in fact, intentional by the artist. For me, depth can be achieved in a few ways, but I like to blur the background a bit to enhance focus to the subject. Now, this is not to say that just because a background was blurred, the overall look automatically has a sense of depth. I like to work with the piece bits by bits, combining different tools and other things. Some will use Dodge and Burn tool, which works too, but I haven't used those tools for a few years now. You can also combine lighting and blurring together...but there's literally hundreds of ways to achieve the same (if not similar) effects. I'm not very good at describing these stuff too much -- I just do it and my work makes more sense that way.
 
Last edited:
There's nothing wrong with flatness in a signature. If that's the style you're going for, and especially in vectors, flatness works a lot better than adding depth. For me, depth can be achieved in a few ways, but I like to blur the background a bit to enhance focus to the subject. Now, this is not to say that just because a background was blurred, the overall look automatically has a sense of depth. I like to work with the piece bits by bits, combining different tools and other things. Some will use Dodge and Burn tool, which works too, but I haven't used those tools for a few years now. You can also combine lighting and blurring together...but there's literally hundreds of ways to achieve the same (if not similar) effects.

I have a very similar processs to you to start with BGs must always be blurred. I was hoping youd see this thread because its something your very very very good at and i wanted to see what you thought. I will add in all my thoughts later when more folks post.

EDIT: Six definitely not clan only :lew:
 
Last edited:
If this is meant as a Clans only thread, you're good. If general, I'll move it for you. :ryan:

I think adding depth to a signature, meh, I know it's important to a lot of people, but then again, it might not be the look you're going for. Like Mitsuki said, sometimes that 'flat' look is intentional. I'm the same though burn/dodge/blur tool is your friend, I always like to apply the background and set it to a blur, erase certain parts. Pop a light source on the render from the right angle, and you have a nice "shadow" effect going too. :ryan: That's how I do it anyway.
 
I heard about this in one of my art classes. :hmmm: I think the complete term is depth of field and it can only be found in visual arts. Basically the rule is that visual art has three planes: foreground, middleground and background.

In videos and photography the planes are evident - you have the subject of a shot which can be in either of the three planes. Take any photo or any video and you will always find a foreground, middleground and background. Like in this photo, foreground: rocks, middleground: shore, background: sea.

Actually, the middleground concept is still a little blurry to me because there are instances when a photo or video scene does not seem to have any apparent middleground at all. But I remember that questioned being raised and the prof said it might not be obvious but it's still there etc etc :hmmm:

In paintings and graphic design the same rule applies. It may not be as obvious as in videos and photos, but it's always there. Even in abstract art (which is a style I find frustrating :rage:) the three planes can always be found.

Out of all the GFX artists on this site, @Big Casino's style is the deepest. @Oxide's style isn't as deep but both of them create stunning pieces. When it comes down to it, graphics is about taste as much as it is about depth. Taste and depth should weave together and complement each other. At least that is what I believe :hmmm:
 
Thread moved to the GFX Lounge.
 
I always considered depth to be the sort of thing that gives the illusion of distance on a 2d surface. :hmmm:

Of course, there are many ways of accomplishing this. Simply resizing an image and placing it around the larger image doesn't automatically make it look like it's further away. But with making use of lighting, blending and shading you can create the illusion of distance between those two images. In regards to making use of light and shadow, I tend to find that lighter things get drawn to the front, whilst darker objects get pushed to the back.
 
I always considered depth to be the sort of thing that gives the illusion of distance on a 2d surface. :hmmm:

Ya same here. Distance is a much better word than depth tbh :lew: Makes a sig nice and deep and somewhat 3d as opposed to flat.

I linked your tutorial in my opening post cuz i thought it was excellent. Its very simple but a perfect example of how to apply depth to an image. I was gunna do a quick tutorial myself but planned on doing a whole sig. Never woulda even have thought to have done a tut using just a single picture which is much much more effective way in showing it off. Its a great tut mate. Nicely done bud :ryan:
The Welsh Paddy
 
Cheers! :monster: I've actually yet to do this in any of my sigs, but it was something I picked up from my graphics tutor in college a few years back. :D
 
Back
Top