Opinions?
Onideus Mad Hatter
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/_Scraps/Logo_Test.png
I kinda like it better than the current form, but I'm wondering what
else I might be able to do to improve upon it...well I suppose I could
animate the thing...although I'm trying to get away from constantly
animating chit to make it look "impressive". Like the wedding blog
thing, I like the animated clouds, but the sparkle animation is
starting to tire. I think I'll remake the background (maybe with a
live action photo) and make my own sparkle effect from scratch and see
if that works any better. I find I can usually improve upon other
people's work...problem is it usually requires a significant
investment of my time, like nyah:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog/stories/1-10.png
It took like 3 hours to reverse engineer that graphic.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ą x ą
http://www.backwater-productions.net
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog
Hatter Quotes
-------------
"I'm not a professional, I'm an artist."
"The more I learn the more I'm killing my idols."
"Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity
of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"
"Freedom is only a concept, like race it's merely a social construct
that doesn't really exist outside of your ability to convince others
of its relevancy."
"Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won't jump the gun and start
creamin yer panties before it's time to pop the champagne proper."
"Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."
"People are pretty fucking high on themselves if they think that
they're just born with a soul. *snicker*...yeah, like they're just
givin em out for free."
"Quible, quible said the Hare. Quite a lot of quibling...everywhere.
So the Hare took a long stare and decided at best, to leave the rest,
to their merry little mess."
"There's a difference between 'bad' and 'so earth shatteringly
horrible it makes the angels scream in terror as they violently rip
their heads off, their blood spraying into the faces of a thousand
sweet innocent horrified children, who will forever have the terrible
images burned into their tiny little minds'."
"How sad that you're such a poor judge of style that you can't even
properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."
"Those who record history are those who control history."
"Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You're sure? Awww,
gee...that's too bad...for YOU!" `, )
Larry Linson
use...@backwater-productions.net wrote on 03/19/2006 6:27 PM:
> I'm thinkin about using this as my new logo:
> http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/_Scraps/Logo_Test.png
Over 500k for that? hahahahahaha.
Your idea of a logo is funny.
Onideus Mad Hatter
Larry...you're an idiot.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm น x น
amgine
I can't remember what you had as a logo before. This looks remarkably
similar to what I can recall but it's been some time since I saw your
current logo. Personally I don't like too much animation but one can't
please all of the people all of the time can one? I suppose it depends on
what you're selling.
Is this a logo or some kind of web banner? If it's only for use on the web,
will it be used in the background behind text, or will it be taking up that
much space on its own?
The image is pretty enough, I wonder whether it could be simplified though.
Like the British Waterways logo and the now redundant National Rivers
Authority logo.
http://www.mistletoe.org.uk/glosbapweb/bw.jpg
http://www.the-river-thames.co.uk/nra.gif
Onideus Mad Hatter
>I can't remember what you had as a logo before.
The original is still up:
http://www.backwater-productions.net
>This looks remarkably
>similar to what I can recall but it's been some time since I saw your
>current logo.
It's pretty close, but with this version the whole "your kerning is
off" argument doesn't hold as good. It's also a little more subtle
color wise, the original is pretty saturated.
>Personally I don't like too much animation but one can't
>please all of the people all of the time can one? I suppose it depends on
>what you're selling.
I like more subtle animation effects myself...like the frog on my main
site, when you move your mouse over him he jumps away.
>Is this a logo or some kind of web banner? If it's only for use on the web,
>will it be used in the background behind text, or will it be taking up that
>much space on its own?
Well I have another version for business cards where it's like:
Backwater
Productions
instead of:
Backwater Productions
and the background on the business cards is a blue gradient.
For the web it'll look exactly the way it currently does in the
sample.
>The image is pretty enough, I wonder whether it could be simplified though.
>Like the British Waterways logo and the now redundant National Rivers
>Authority logo.
>http://www.mistletoe.org.uk/glosbapweb/bw.jpg
>http://www.the-river-thames.co.uk/nra.gif
Simplified isn't really my style, but I have considered a letter head
type logo, but then again I'd just assume print letters using color
and nice looking graphics...a lil more expensive I know (especially
since I have a seriously love of glossy photo paper), but I think it
reflects better on the quality of my business (even if it is a hobby
business). I've actually reached a point now where the only time I
don't use photo glossy paper is when I'm printing test graphics (for
alignment/sizing) or if it's just plain text.
I've also thought about some kind of a picture representation with
plain text (like on yer two examples), I've got this design for a "cow
fish" (a fish with a cows head jumping out of water) that Josh and I
came up with about 7 or 8 years ago, but I dunno, I kinda set it aside
and never bothered to really make a good version of it.
amgine
>
> The original is still up:
> http://www.backwater-productions.net
"This site requires Flash 8, you have Flash 7.
Click here to download the latest version."
I'm running OS9 on this machine and this is limiting my viewing experience
of your site at the moment.
>
>> This looks remarkably
>> similar to what I can recall but it's been some time since I saw your
>> current logo.
>
> It's pretty close, but with this version the whole "your kerning is
> off" argument doesn't hold as good. It's also a little more subtle
> color wise, the original is pretty saturated.
Surely everyone's happy as long as you don't auto kern; if you go for widely
spaced or tightly packed you're making a "bold statement with intentional
use of the space" aren't you?
However from my subjective viewpoint - something isn't quite working with
the type. I think it's something about the use of the hand written style "r"
that's not quite working. The same goes with the "u", "o" and "s" but the
"s" is less of a problem for me. The problem is that only these letters are
showing signs that they're supposed to be 'joined up' writing but have been
forced apart, the other letters look hand written but standalone. It might
work better if you removed the trailing links off the o and u.
In isolation the word Backwater is more effective than Productions the wave
going through it seems more cohesive. There's a kerning issue between the
letters "rodu" IMHO.
I fell foul with over-saturated colour recently. When I switched from
gorgeous, shiny RGB to practical CMYK, all the punch from the colours went
to dust and I had to fiddle with my colour profiles for the image to start
to make sense. You can't easily get that RGB look in print I'm afraid.
What program[s] did you use to create the illustration?
>
>> Personally I don't like too much animation but one can't
>> please all of the people all of the time can one? I suppose it depends on
>> what you're selling.
>
> I like more subtle animation effects myself...like the frog on my main
> site, when you move your mouse over him he jumps away.
I can imagine it. Like I say, I've been getting less entranced by
flash/animated web stuff. Even when I know it's clever or cute or even when
it's useful navigation... eventually it can get in the way of the
information/content. It's a difficult balance though, I'm also fed up of all
those monotonous, cloned corporate sites.
>
>> Is this a logo or some kind of web banner? If it's only for use on the web,
>> will it be used in the background behind text, or will it be taking up that
>> much space on its own?
>
> Well I have another version for business cards where it's like:
> Backwater
> Productions
Can you show me that?
> instead of:
> Backwater Productions
> and the background on the business cards is a blue gradient.
>
> For the web it'll look exactly the way it currently does in the
> sample.
That's taking up a lot of the space on the page. It might have different
impact on a black background.
>
>> The image is pretty enough, I wonder whether it could be simplified though.
>> Like the British Waterways logo and the now redundant National Rivers
>> Authority logo.
>> http://www.mistletoe.org.uk/glosbapweb/bw.jpg
>> http://www.the-river-thames.co.uk/nra.gif
>
> Simplified isn't really my style, but I have considered a letter head
> type logo, but then again I'd just assume print letters using color
> and nice looking graphics...a lil more expensive I know (especially
> since I have a seriously love of glossy photo paper), but I think it
> reflects better on the quality of my business (even if it is a hobby
> business). I've actually reached a point now where the only time I
> don't use photo glossy paper is when I'm printing test graphics (for
> alignment/sizing) or if it's just plain text.
When you say "hobby business" does this mean you do it for fun and not the
money? If so, what do you do for money?
I'm going through a "glossy" and colourful phase at the moment. But for
text, where people need to read or really see the image, I love matt art...
the the more matt, the better; I get tense when there's too much shine on
the page. If we could print CMYK well [brightly with no colour drop] on some
kind of bond I'd be really happy. But printers get a bit disparaging of the
idea of CMYK on bond.
So would you say you're not really a typographer, more an illustrator?
>
> I've also thought about some kind of a picture representation with
> plain text (like on yer two examples), I've got this design for a "cow
> fish" (a fish with a cows head jumping out of water) that Josh and I
> came up with about 7 or 8 years ago, but I dunno, I kinda set it aside
> and never bothered to really make a good version of it.
I've heard of a dogfish and a catfish but never a cowfish. Are you an
angler?
Onideus Mad Hatter
>>> I can't remember what you had as a logo before.
>>
>> The original is still up:
>> http://www.backwater-productions.net
>
>"This site requires Flash 8, you have Flash 7.
>Click here to download the latest version."
>
>I'm running OS9 on this machine and this is limiting my viewing experience
>of your site at the moment.
...how so? OS9 can handle Flash8 just fine, it only takes about 17
seconds for it to download and install off the Macromedia site and
afterwards you'll be able to see all sorts of cool content (mostly
video oriented stuff making use of the On2 codec).
>> It's pretty close, but with this version the whole "your kerning is
>> off" argument doesn't hold as good. It's also a little more subtle
>> color wise, the original is pretty saturated.
>Surely everyone's happy as long as you don't auto kern; if you go for widely
>spaced or tightly packed you're making a "bold statement with intentional
>use of the space" aren't you?
Oh it's not that, it's mostly the font itself, Cindy-Pam Marker; who
ever made it just didn't pay any attention at all to kerning
apparently. Also very much like the Care Bear font I have, on the old
site you can see a lot of strange kerning:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/carebears/
On the new version I've just manually corrected the odd spacing:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/care-bears/
>However from my subjective viewpoint - something isn't quite working with
>the type. I think it's something about the use of the hand written style "r"
>that's not quite working. The same goes with the "u", "o" and "s" but the
>"s" is less of a problem for me. The problem is that only these letters are
>showing signs that they're supposed to be 'joined up' writing but have been
>forced apart, the other letters look hand written but standalone. It might
>work better if you removed the trailing links off the o and u.
>
>In isolation the word Backwater is more effective than Productions the wave
>going through it seems more cohesive. There's a kerning issue between the
>letters "rodu" IMHO.
The new version's kerning should be off a bit as it has a bulging type
effect running through parts of it (to make it seem as if it's under
water)...that's why I'm thinking about animating it, as the effect
would be more recognizable.
>I fell foul with over-saturated colour recently. When I switched from
>gorgeous, shiny RGB to practical CMYK, all the punch from the colours went
>to dust and I had to fiddle with my colour profiles for the image to start
>to make sense. You can't easily get that RGB look in print I'm afraid.
I've always thought it'd be neat if they made some kind
light-refracting paper, kinda like photo glossy paper, but
semi-transparent, composed of some kind of crystaline/paper composite
and then have some kind of a binding peice with ultra-brite white
LEDs. So you could just slip the binding peice onto the side of the
page and BOOM! It'd be as bright as yer computer monitor.
>What program[s] did you use to create the illustration?
Oh, it's just like a Bryce2 render...I don't even remember if it's
mine or not. It might be something 7 or 8 years old from Digital
Blasphemy that I reedited (the original was more orangish/red I
think)...although it might just be based on something from DB. For
practice a lot of times I take other people's stuff and then reverse
engineer it from scratch. At some point in the next year or so though
I want to replace it with something better (using Bryce5 or 3DS Max),
maybe have the water animated and put in a more realistic looking rock
(the current one is like a preset from Bryce2). The original looks a
LOT more cartoonish, I kinda hid that by making the whole image
darker.
>>> Personally I don't like too much animation but one can't
>>> please all of the people all of the time can one? I suppose it depends on
>>> what you're selling.
>> I like more subtle animation effects myself...like the frog on my main
>> site, when you move your mouse over him he jumps away.
>I can imagine it. Like I say, I've been getting less entranced by
>flash/animated web stuff. Even when I know it's clever or cute or even when
>it's useful navigation... eventually it can get in the way of the
>information/content. It's a difficult balance though, I'm also fed up of all
>those monotonous, cloned corporate sites.
At this point I can't imagine using anything BUT Flash, mostly because
it's the most cross-browser compatible solution there is. It takes
all the guess work out of wondering how your site is going to look on
someone else's system because the way it looks on yours is EXACTLY the
way it's going to look on someone else's.
And really, there are no arguments against Flash, just Flash designers
who don't know all the ins and outs. For example one time there was
this guy whining about how he couldn't save the images in a Flash
file...which, generaly, by default when you simply slap a picture into
a Flash file, yeah there's no way to right click and save it...but
that doesn't mean that you can't PUT IN that right click functionality
if you want really wanted it (which many designers don't, because they
don't want people taking their stuff). Flash is EXTREMELY powerful,
it's just most people barely scratch the surface of that
plenipotentiary...usually because it requires a bit of effort, after
all, with HTML the whole "right-click save-as" is already there, no
extra effort needed.
>>> Is this a logo or some kind of web banner? If it's only for use on the web,
>>> will it be used in the background behind text, or will it be taking up that
>>> much space on its own?
>> Well I have another version for business cards where it's like:
>> Backwater
>> Productions
>Can you show me that?
Version 1:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/_Scraps/Business_Card_01.png
Version 2:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/_Scraps/Business_Card_02.png
The kerning is more off on those I believe. I kinda like version 2
better than version 1.
>> instead of:
>> Backwater Productions
>> and the background on the business cards is a blue gradient.
>>
>> For the web it'll look exactly the way it currently does in the
>> sample.
>
>That's taking up a lot of the space on the page. It might have different
>impact on a black background.
Well, it's not really taking up any space that could be used by
anything else. Like I said, if you look at the main site you can see
what it looks like. I suppose if you thought it needed more "empty"
space it might be good to make it smaller, but I can only see that on
a 800x600 res since anything higher than that is gonna have all the
empty space around it you could ever want.
>> Simplified isn't really my style, but I have considered a letter head
>> type logo, but then again I'd just assume print letters using color
>> and nice looking graphics...a lil more expensive I know (especially
>> since I have a seriously love of glossy photo paper), but I think it
>> reflects better on the quality of my business (even if it is a hobby
>> business). I've actually reached a point now where the only time I
>> don't use photo glossy paper is when I'm printing test graphics (for
>> alignment/sizing) or if it's just plain text.
>When you say "hobby business" does this mean you do it for fun and not the
>money?
Not just for fun, but also because I love the art and I love pushing
my skills and learning new things. I'm not blind to the fact that
eventually it will bring money though...lots of it. And I also
recognize that if I REALLY wanted a ton of money right this moment
there are a variety of semi-finished projects I have that I could
buckle down on, finish and easily make $50,000 or more. Not to
mention any number of ideas and inventions that I could go and patent
for $1,000 a pop and then immediately sell off for 1,000 times that.
It's not that I fear sucess or celebritism or anything (as some have
suggested, mostly to try and explain my harsh points of view), it's
just at this point I'm not interested in "getting rich quick"...I need
more time to plan what I'm going to do with such funds, BEFORE I start
making it big. Money and fame are not things I need to be happy,
they're merely tools that I can use to further my art...but I need the
skills to use those tools first.
>If so, what do you do for money?
I'm a student, I'm going into debt for money. ^_^
...well, not entirely true, I do a lot of odd computer jobs, mostly
repair and networking and then on occasion I get a part time job
somewhere for 2 or 3 months, mostly for the experience. I've worked
in video stores (well, technically just one cause I quit the first
week after Lackluster bought us out), fast food joints, retail stores,
tech support, movie theaters, a bank, a roadside diner, a library,
worked as an instructor one quarter for this community learning class
at the local community college, hell I even worked as a janitor for 4
months (that and stock clerk are like the best kind of jobs you can
get if you like to stay up all night and go to bed at 6 in the
morning...which I do). The janitorial job was also a great workout, I
used to crank up the music and then see how fast I could finish (you
got paid by the night, not by the hour), I lost like 25 pounds when I
had that job.
It may not be glamourus work, but I get to be me and I get to make the
kind of art that *I* want to make. Personally I would rather be
flipping burgers than working as a graphic "designer" (most of those
jobs are less about coming up with new designs and more about just
rehashing the same old, same old). If I ever took a graphic design
job (or something along those lines) I wouldn't want to be working for
any place less than like...Pixar...where I could actually BE creative,
rather than just crankin out 3 or 4 color bullshit with InDesign for
some dribbling little print publication that no one is ever even gonna
give a shit about. But, in order to get a job at someplace like
Pixar, you're not even gonna get the fuck in the door with anything
less than a BA or a masters (even if you've got the skillz). I'm
workin on my BA now, then next I'll work on my masters.
>I'm going through a "glossy" and colourful phase at the moment. But for
>text, where people need to read or really see the image, I love matt art...
>the the more matt, the better; I get tense when there's too much shine on
>the page. If we could print CMYK well [brightly with no colour drop] on some
>kind of bond I'd be really happy. But printers get a bit disparaging of the
>idea of CMYK on bond.
>
>So would you say you're not really a typographer, more an illustrator?
I'm a little bit of everything. To me, it's about the art, things
like illustration, rendering, typography, video editing, coding, those
are all just tools to be used to create my work. The more tools
you're familiar with, the more options you have as far as expressing
yourself. That's my motto.
>> I've also thought about some kind of a picture representation with
>> plain text (like on yer two examples), I've got this design for a "cow
>> fish" (a fish with a cows head jumping out of water) that Josh and I
>> came up with about 7 or 8 years ago, but I dunno, I kinda set it aside
>> and never bothered to really make a good version of it.
>I've heard of a dogfish and a catfish but never a cowfish. Are you an
>angler?
Nah, I don't really do much fishing...unless you count the occasional
trip to the lake with friends...although that's more about getting
fasnickered and enjoying nature than really trying to catch anything.
The cow fish was just kind of a silly little idea, something kinda
unique and interesting.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm น x น
Drew
> I'm thinkin about using this as my new logo:
> http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/_Scraps/Logo_Test.png
>
> I kinda like it better than the current form, but I'm wondering what
> else I might be able to do to improve upon it...well I suppose I could
> animate the thing...although I'm trying to get away from constantly
> animating chit to make it look "impressive". Like the wedding blog
> thing, I like the animated clouds, but the sparkle animation is
> starting to tire. I think I'll remake the background (maybe with a
> live action photo) and make my own sparkle effect from scratch and see
> if that works any better. I find I can usually improve upon other
> people's work...problem is it usually requires a significant
> investment of my time, like nyah:
> http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog/stories/1-10.png
> It took like 3 hours to reverse engineer that graphic.
I continue to find these efforts weak and inefficient. The whole look
lacks cohesiveness while the "logo" itself doesn't stand up alone. If
the font choice is the problem with the kerning issues, another font
choice might be in order. The fact that the type treatment is in the sky
doesn't meet your "underwater" goals. Try some new imagery.
Keep trying, you've got a long way to go.
HTH
D
Onideus Mad Hatter
No offense Drew, but I've never seen any of your work (if a quick
browse through Google is any indication, no one has...because you
don't have any), you're sportin a hotmail account, postin via
Roadrunner on a Mac'n trash and I get the impression that "your" style
is more along the lines of ass raping copper-plate gothic bold with
some kind of a clip art motif attached onto the end of it...that's
not, nor will it EVER be my style. My style is quite a bit more
evolved from that canned corporate crap that school/spoon fed Mac
artists are often so quick to retard back to when they can't come up
with anything better. If there was ever a more perfect Mac designer
stereotype, it'd be fuckin you up the ass out of true love, Drew.
Keep trying, you've got a long way to go.
HTH
^_^
SpaceGirl
Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
> I'm thinkin about using this as my new logo:
> http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/_Scraps/Logo_Test.png
>
> I kinda like it better than the current form, but I'm wondering what
> else I might be able to do to improve upon it...well I suppose I could
> animate the thing...although I'm trying to get away from constantly
> animating chit to make it look "impressive". Like the wedding blog
> thing, I like the animated clouds, but the sparkle animation is
> starting to tire. I think I'll remake the background (maybe with a
> live action photo) and make my own sparkle effect from scratch and see
> if that works any better. I find I can usually improve upon other
> people's work...problem is it usually requires a significant
> investment of my time, like nyah:
> http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog/stories/1-10.png
> It took like 3 hours to reverse engineer that graphic.
I think the designs are equally poor, but I guess it depends to an
extent on the target audience. A "logo" should at least be memorable -
something that stands out from everything else, or at least leaves a
possitive impression. These logos you've posted feel very basic; thrown
together in some ultra-cheap 3d package. This isn't always a BAD thing
-- if you are trying to sell something ultra-cheap, sometimes a cheap
looking "brand" actually helps. I think rather than spending 3 hours
"reverse engineering", an hours research and two hours starting over
would have been better spent.
SpaceGirl
Dont ask for advice if you cant handle the feedback. When it comes to
"look and feel", everyone has a valid opinion - they dont have to be
designers or have their own portfolio. After all, the people VISTING
your site are not likely to be designers are they? A good designer
listens to ALL feedback.
Fred Doyle
"Onideus Mad Hatter" <use...@backwater-productions.net> wrote
> No offense Drew, but I've never seen any of your work (if a quick
> browse through Google is any indication, no one has...because you
> don't have any), you're sportin a hotmail account, postin via
> Roadrunner on a Mac'n trash and I get the impression that "your" style
> is more along the lines of ass raping copper-plate gothic bold with
> some kind of a clip art motif attached onto the end of it...that's
> not, nor will it EVER be my style. My style is quite a bit more
> evolved from that canned corporate crap that school/spoon fed Mac
> artists are often so quick to retard back to when they can't come up
> with anything better. If there was ever a more perfect Mac designer
> stereotype, it'd be fuckin you up the ass out of true love, Drew.
>
> Keep trying, you've got a long way to go.
>
> HTH
>
Does anyone still think this guy doesn't attack people if unprovoked?
Does anyone still think that this guy has any background or experience with
real art critiques?
Fred Doyle
Davémon
You can still have a "cheap" brand without sacrificing basic design
principles:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/crouchingbadger/59352352/in/set-524571/
hmm?
--
Davémon
http://www.nightsoil.co.uk/
SpaceGirl
> Does anyone still think this guy doesn't attack people if unprovoked?
>
> Does anyone still think that this guy has any background or experience with
> real art critiques?
>
> Fred Doyle
I think he's pretty unbalanced. Recently some of his posts have been
okay, but then suddenly he lashes out like that and it's just weird. He
needs a shrink. It's a shame because some of his work DOES have
technical merit, but it's completely lost on everyone because of his
horrible attitude. Actually I dont much care if he's a nasty person,
but if he really wants feedback on his stuff, this is hardly a smart
way to go about it.
:s
SpaceGirl
Cillit Bang adverts on TV for example, or any of those horrible ads
selling ringtone downloads. Bad design, horrible graphics, but it works.
Onideus Mad Hatter
<nothespac...@subhuman.net> wrote:
>Dont ask for advice if you cant handle the feedback.
I asked for opinions, not advice. And don't give feedback if you
can't handle the response.
Again, I'm used to the AMV community, where, yes, you can critique
other people's videos, but then the creator gets to respond to it and
essentially critique the critique. You may not like that, but it
breeds better design all around. It's such a powerful concept that
even eBay uses it with their user ratings.
Onideus Mad Hatter
<fdo...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>Does anyone still think this guy doesn't attack people if unprovoked?
Uh, everything about Drew's post was condescending. Because of that,
that's what he got back.
A guy named BuZZard over in AHM used to refer to it as my "mirror
trick"...basically I have a tendency to respond in the same attitude
as the original poster, but often magnified/escalated.
>Does anyone still think that this guy has any background or experience with
>real art critiques?
Do "real" art critiques never have their critiques critiqued? Cause
if they don't they probably aren't very good at critiquing art (or
making it).
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm น x น
Davémon
> Cillit Bang adverts on TV for example, or any of those horrible ads
> selling ringtone downloads. Bad design, horrible graphics, but it works.
Ahh. "cheap and nasty". Now I got ya!
--
Davémon
http://www.nightsoil.co.uk/
fsds...@gmail.com
Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
> I'm thinkin about using this as my new logo:
> http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/_Scraps/Logo_Test.png
>
> I kinda like it better than the current form, but I'm wondering what
> else I might be able to do to improve upon it...
I think this is an improvement. Still some odd spacing in the letters,
but it looks a more intentional than the original.
You've said before that you want it to look like text under water. To
me, it looks more like text written *in* water -- like if you wet your
finger and wrote out "backwater productions" on a table top (which
isn't a bad way to go, either, IMO). When something is under water,
it's either going to look all "wavey" from the ripples, or something
won't look all that distorted at all in still water.
I think you could explore few different directions with this to see
what happens:
1) Try to increase the "ripples" look to make it appear more like
you're viewing the text as though looking into a puddle or pond or
something. (You'd want to be careful not to go overboard though, as it
could quickly become illegible.)
2) Go for something like the viewer is also underwater looking at the
letters, in which case they should appear more like air bubbles.
3) Play up the "written in water on a table top" appearance.
If you wanted to play around with options 2 or 3, some additional air
bubbles or water droplets might add to the effect. I can't really
think of any "water" samples off-hand, so the only example I can really
provide is a logo I did a while back for a company called PondScum,
with which it was a specific intent to create "dirty" look:
http://www.freshlysqueezeddesign.com/images/work/logos/pondscum_logo.gif
Doing something similar to that (but obviously more like water drops
than dirt) might enhance the water appearance.
-- Robert
SpaceGirl
Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
> On 20 Mar 2006 06:04:29 -0800, "SpaceGirl"
> <nothespac...@subhuman.net> wrote:
>
> >Dont ask for advice if you cant handle the feedback.
>
> I asked for opinions, not advice. And don't give feedback if you
> can't handle the response.
Slippery ;) I posted an opinion -- and my response to YOUR feedback was
out of curiousity. If you expect any meaningful reply why do you attack
people? Or would you rather everyone just told you your stuff is great
and never learn anything at all...? It doesn't make sense.
> Again, I'm used to the AMV community, where, yes, you can critique
> other people's videos, but then the creator gets to respond to it and
> essentially critique the critique. You may not like that, but it
> breeds better design all around. It's such a powerful concept that
> even eBay uses it with their user ratings.
Need I bother pointing out this is not an AMV group?
You asked for an opinion. Someone posted an opinion. You they totally
laid into the person for posting that opinion. How in any way can this
be constructive?
Larry Linson
He is a poser when it comes to graphic artists. He is a wanna-be.
Larry Linson
use...@backwater-productions.net wrote on 03/20/2006 6:55 AM:
> On 20 Mar 2006 06:04:29 -0800, "SpaceGirl"
> <nothespac...@subhuman.net> wrote:
>
>> Dont ask for advice if you cant handle the feedback.
>
> I asked for opinions, not advice.
You are a nut boy. That is my opinion.
Fred Doyle
"Onideus Mad Hatter" <use...@backwater-productions.net> wrote
> Uh, everything about Drew's post was condescending. Because of that,
> that's what he got back.
No, you projected condescention into everything Drew wrote. There is no way
you can know if that is how he meant it from the words he used. Obviously,
they all seemed polite and appropriate to many here, hence the criticism of
your attitude.
>
> Do "real" art critiques never have their critiques critiqued? Cause
> if they don't they probably aren't very good at critiquing art (or
> making it).
All the time. A critique is a dialog. It is how you responded, and a
demonstrated inability to encourage criticism, to engage in dialog, to learn
from criticism that gives you away.
Fred Doyle
Fred Doyle
"Larry Linson" <bou...@localhost.not> wrote
>
> He is a poser when it comes to graphic artists. He is a wanna-be.
>
>
It appears so, doesn't it, and he can't even figure out why that is obvious.
Fred Doyle
Onideus Mad Hatter
Hey Larry (the idiot), like Drew, you have ZERO works. There are two
kinds of people online...those who produce...and those who run at the
mouth. Guess which one you are?
SpaceGirl
Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
> Hey Larry (the idiot), like Drew, you have ZERO works. There are two
> kinds of people online...those who produce...and those who run at the
> mouth. Guess which one you are?
How does this make their opinions less valid? You didn't ask "can any
professional designers please give an opinion" now did you?
Onideus Mad Hatter
<fdo...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>> Uh, everything about Drew's post was condescending. Because of that,
>> that's what he got back.
>No, you projected condescention into everything Drew wrote.
Sorry kiddo, but I didn't:
"I continue to find these efforts weak and inefficient."
"Keep trying, you've got a long way to go."
If I was projecting a condescending attitude, how come I didn't with
amgine's posts? Uh oh, I'm seeing plot holes the size of Tripoli in
your rather desperate attempt to save Drew's face, Freddyboi.
By the by, weren't you one of the people who was accusing Connie of
slurping my ass? Cause uh...well if Connie was slurping my ass, I'd
say you got Drew up the fuck on the spin cycle.
>There is no way
>you can know if that is how he meant it from the words he used.
...well, maybe YOU can't...I dunno, maybe you should get yerself
checked for Asperger Syndrome's...or take less Ritalin.
>Obviously, they all seemed polite and appropriate to many here, hence
>the criticism of your attitude.
Fact is lil Drew was itching for a lil Hatter retribution so he
decided to act like a condescending prick...don't start nothin, won't
be nothin. In other words, don't try and get into a verbal
conflagration with someone whose infinitely better at it than you are
and then turn around afterwards whining and crying about how you got
your Internet feelings hurt like you didn't know what was gonna happen
in the first place. Ya'll went and stuck yer idiot hand in a fuckin
hornets nest and started flailin about, what the fuck did ya think was
gonna happen?
>> Do "real" art critiques never have their critiques critiqued? Cause
>> if they don't they probably aren't very good at critiquing art (or
>> making it).
>All the time. A critique is a dialog. It is how you responded, and a
>demonstrated inability to encourage criticism, to engage in dialog, to learn
>from criticism that gives you away.
Drew's critique was weak and inefficient as is your attempt to defend
him. Keep trying, you've got a long way to go. ^_^
Fred Doyle
"Onideus Mad Hatter" <use...@backwater-productions.net> wrote
>
> Hey Larry (the idiot), like Drew, you have ZERO works. There are two
> kinds of people online...those who produce...and those who run at the
> mouth. Guess which one you are?
Larry/MikeC/ArtistMike, etc. has been around this group far longer than most
and has posted work many, many times. When you lash out at people without
knowledge, who do you think looks stupid?
Fred Doyle
Fred Doyle
"Onideus Mad Hatter" <use...@backwater-productions.net> wrote
>whatever
You still don't get why you like a poser wanna-be, now do you?
Fred Doyle
Fred Doyle
"Onideus Mad Hatter" <use...@backwater-productions.net> wrote
> By the by, weren't you one of the people who was accusing Connie of
> slurping my ass?
Uh, no. I said she was an apologist for your bad and boorish behavior.
Fred Doyle
Onideus Mad Hatter
<nothespac...@subhuman.net> wrote:
>> >Dont ask for advice if you cant handle the feedback.
>> I asked for opinions, not advice. And don't give feedback if you
>> can't handle the response.
>Slippery ;) I posted an opinion -- and my response to YOUR feedback was
>out of curiousity. If you expect any meaningful reply why do you attack
>people? Or would you rather everyone just told you your stuff is great
>and never learn anything at all...? It doesn't make sense.
How's the gravity over there in Retard Land? I don't mean to point
out the weight of your idiocy or anything, but uh, if any of your
desperate attempts to slurp Drew's ass was based in reality...why
didn't I attack amgine? They didn't particularily like it all that
much and offered some examples and ideas of what they thought would be
better...so uh, what the fuck are you retarding on, Spacey?
>> Again, I'm used to the AMV community, where, yes, you can critique
>> other people's videos, but then the creator gets to respond to it and
>> essentially critique the critique. You may not like that, but it
>> breeds better design all around. It's such a powerful concept that
>> even eBay uses it with their user ratings.
>Need I bother pointing out this is not an AMV group?
What does that matter?
>You asked for an opinion. Someone posted an opinion. You they totally
>laid into the person for posting that opinion. How in any way can this
>be constructive?
Drew will be less likely to be condescending the next time he decides
to critique my work. Or maybe he won't critique my work at all, which
is fine by me, he's NOT an artist nor is he any sort of designer, so
he ought to just keep his NONpinions to himself. If I wanted random,
uneducated, poser opinions from Mac trendies who think buyin a candy
colored piece of crap with a Photoshop package, gettin their ear
pierced and hangin out down at Starbucks make them a graphic artist
I'd go subscribe to comp.sys.mac.advocacy and ask them for their
opinions.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm น x น
Onideus Mad Hatter
<fdo...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>> Hey Larry (the idiot), like Drew, you have ZERO works. There are two
>> kinds of people online...those who produce...and those who run at the
>> mouth. Guess which one you are?
>Larry/MikeC/ArtistMike, etc. has been around this group far longer than most
>and has posted work many, many times.
Whose MikeC? And where is Larry's work? And ArtistMike? Well, he's
posted work...Photoshop's. *snicker*
>When you lash out at people without
>knowledge, who do you think looks stupid?
Freddyboi, I've been in this froup for well over a month now and other
than Connie, Spacey, Davémon and a few others I've seen ZERO
work...and even with those who have work up...well they aren't
producing much. So if you start mouthing off like yer Gods fuckin
gift to design when I'm producing more work in a month than you could
ever even complete in a LIFETIME, yeah, expect to get bitch slapped.
And if you don't like the conseuqnces...just shut yourself the fuck up
and put some blinders on.
Maybe that 14 Days bit ought to be changed to a 12 Months bit, try and
finish one REALLY good piece of work each month, every month, every
year.
The bottom line is that for a group of designers...well uh, you all
don't seem to be designing much...but y'all sure can run the fuck at
the mouth, huh? By the by:
http://www.sarcastic-caret.net/wedding/
While you've been talkin, I just finished the PHP backend of the
wedding blog.
*shrugs*
Onideus Mad Hatter
<fdo...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>>whatever
>You still don't get why you like a poser wanna-be, now do you?
Slow down there, Freddyboi, teh flame game isn't a race and the faster
you post the more mistakes you seem to make...or maybe you're just all
frustrated and upset...nah, that *couldn't* be it. ^_^
Don't worry, I'll try and give you more time to breath between your
lames, mmmkay?
Onideus Mad Hatter
Hey Larry, I haven't seen ArtistMikey post in like...well nearly a
month now. I guess that makes you the new ADG village idiot,
congratulations on the promotion!
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm น x น
Larry Linson
use...@backwater-productions.net wrote on 03/20/2006 7:45 AM:
>>> Does anyone still think that this guy has any background or experience with
>>> real art critiques?
>>>
>>> Fred Doyle
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> He is a poser when it comes to graphic artists. He is a wanna-be.
>
> Hey Larry (the idiot), like Drew, you have ZERO works. There are two
> kinds of people online...those who produce...and those who run at the
> mouth. Guess which one you are?
You are so easy to get spinning.
Larry Linson
Onideus Mad Hatter
<fdo...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>> By the by, weren't you one of the people who was accusing Connie of
>> slurping my ass?
>Uh, no. I said she was an apologist for your bad and boorish behavior.
...why would she need to apologize for me? ...why would she want to?
She likes teh verbal sparring, who teh fuck doesn't? ...well, okay, I
guess if yer the one gettin knocked into the ropes it ain't much fun,
but uh, well that's not too hard to avoid, now is it? You can NOT
agree with me you know, you can even HATE my art if you want...just
don't act like a pissy little fuck about it and start trying to insult
me...cause that's what yer gonna get back...and uh, I dunno if you
noticed it, but I'm FAR better at it than you kids. `, )
Onideus Mad Hatter
Hey Larry, I'm not sure if anyone explained this to you or not...but
the object of trolling isn't to make yourself look like an idiot...no,
really.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm น x น
Larry Linson
use...@backwater-productions.net wrote on 03/20/2006 8:09 AM:
> he's NOT an artist nor is he any sort of designer, so
> he ought to just keep his NONpinions to himself.
You don't get to decide who responds, Goofy.
Onideus Mad Hatter
<bou...@localhost.not> wrote:
>You are so easy to get spinning.
Right on cue, Larry gets his head hammered into the wall and starts
retarding back into the "IT WAS ALL JUST A TROLL, HONEST IT WAS!!1!"
You certainly are a one-trick retard, aren'tcha Larry?
Free cl00 for ya, Larry, unless you were trying to troll me into makin
you look like a fuckin retard...yeah, ya fucked it all up. And
seriously, it's not like I needed a fuckin invitation or anything,
Kiddo.
Onideus Mad Hatter
<bou...@localhost.not> wrote:
>> he's NOT an artist nor is he any sort of designer, so
>> he ought to just keep his NONpinions to himself.
>You don't get to decide who responds, Goofy.
Larry, you WILL reply to my posts...I give you no other choice, you
are my very own pet Retard and you WILL do as I tell you.
Now post, Larry, POST!
Good boy!
^_^
Larry Linson
use...@backwater-productions.net wrote on 03/20/2006 8:21 AM:
> expect to get bitch slapped.
> And if you don't like the conseuqnces...just shut yourself the fuck up
Take your own advice, little one.
Larry Linson
use...@backwater-productions.net wrote on 03/20/2006 8:25 AM:
>>> I asked for opinions, not advice.
>>
>> You are a nut boy. That is my opinion.
>
> Hey
What? Your message was cut off.
Larry Linson
use...@backwater-productions.net wrote on 03/20/2006 8:28 AM:
> I'm FAR better at it than you kids.
So what?
Onideus Mad Hatter
Post Larry, POST! ^_^
Good Stupid!
Onideus Mad Hatter
<bou...@localhost.not> wrote:
>Take your own advice, little one.
Post Larry, POST! ^_^
Good Stupid!
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm น x น
Onideus Mad Hatter
<bou...@localhost.not> wrote:
>So what?
Post Larry, POST! ^_^
Good Stupid!
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ą x ą
Larry Linson
use...@backwater-productions.net wrote on 03/20/2006 8:30 AM:
>
> the object of trolling isn't to make yourself look like an idiot.
Teach by doing.
Onideus Mad Hatter
<bou...@localhost.not> wrote:
>Teach by doing.
Post Larry, POST! ^_^
Good Stupid!
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ą x ą
Larry Linson
use...@backwater-productions.net wrote on 03/20/2006 8:33 AM:
>
> Right on cue, Larry gets his head hammered into the wall and starts
> retarding back into the "IT WAS ALL JUST A TROLL, HONEST IT WAS!!1!"
>
> You certainly are a one-trick retard, aren'tcha Larry?
>
> Free cl00 for ya, Larry, unless you were trying to troll me into makin
> you look like a fuckin retard...yeah, ya fucked it all up. And
> seriously, it's not like I needed a fuckin invitation or anything,
> Kiddo.
Spin for me, goofy.
Onideus Mad Hatter
Post Larry, POST! ^_^
Good Stupid!
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm น x น
Larry Linson
use...@backwater-productions.net wrote on 03/20/2006 8:34 AM:
> Larry, you WILL reply to my posts...I give you no other choice, you
> are my very own pet Retard and you WILL do as I tell you.
>
> Now post, Larry, POST!
>
> Good boy!
This is fun. Spin for me, goofy.
Onideus Mad Hatter
<bou...@localhost.not> wrote:
>Teach by doing.
Post Larry, POST! ^_^
Good Stupid!
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ą x ą
Onideus Mad Hatter
<bou...@localhost.not> wrote:
>Teach by doing.
Post Larry, POST! ^_^
Good Stupid!
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ą x ą
Fred Doyle
"Onideus Mad Hatter" <use...@backwater-productions.net> wrote
> ...why would she need to apologize for me? ...why would she want to?
Damn good question
Fred Doyle
amgine
> On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 11:52:08 GMT, amgine <nzt...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>> I can't remember what you had as a logo before.
>>>
>>> The original is still up:
>>> http://www.backwater-productions.net
>>
>> "This site requires Flash 8, you have Flash 7.
>> Click here to download the latest version."
>>
>> I'm running OS9 on this machine and this is limiting my viewing experience
>> of your site at the moment.
>
> ...how so? OS9 can handle Flash8 just fine, it only takes about 17
> seconds for it to download and install off the Macromedia site and
> afterwards you'll be able to see all sorts of cool content (mostly
> video oriented stuff making use of the On2 codec).
According to the Macromedia site I can only use Flash 7. I have to upgrade
to OSX to use Flash 8. That's according to them. I can't upgrade this
computer to OSX or I'd lose a load of software I need right now. I've got
OSX on my laptop, when I go in the other room to watch Poirot I'll get that
going and have a look at your site.
Later... oh, I see how you're using it now. The stuff I said about the size
of the thing is covered by looking at that. I prefer the sharpness of your
reworked type.
>
>>> It's pretty close, but with this version the whole "your kerning is
>>> off" argument doesn't hold as good. It's also a little more subtle
>>> color wise, the original is pretty saturated.
>
>> Surely everyone's happy as long as you don't auto kern; if you go for widely
>> spaced or tightly packed you're making a "bold statement with intentional
>> use of the space" aren't you?
>
> Oh it's not that, it's mostly the font itself, Cindy-Pam Marker; who
> ever made it just didn't pay any attention at all to kerning
> apparently.
Have you considered hand writing it yourself rather than using a font? More
often than not, when designing a logotype I have to get in there and fiddle
with the font. Not just the kerning but the counters, serifs, ascenders,
descenders etc... well I used to, until I became lazy and now I just use
Trebuchet straight out of the box. Most clients wouldn't know or care if
it's well designed just as long as it's fashionable and can be redrawn again
in 3 years time, or less, when they want an overhaul. Design classics are
history now [it seems] design is now all about change, change, change again.
So, to a large extent it doesn't matter if Cindy-Pam Marker is a crap font
and your kerning is rubbish, in fact it's probably better that way, then you
can have the excuse to re-do it in 3 years [or 3 months] time when you're
bored with it.
Eventually all logos will be a continual flowing animation that never stops
moving font/colour/brightness/shape etc. That way the logo will hit the nail
on the head for everyone by dint of the fact that it's an infinitely
moveable feast IYSWIM.
> Also very much like the Care Bear font I have, on the old
> site you can see a lot of strange kerning:
> http://www.backwater-productions.net/carebears/
>
> On the new version I've just manually corrected the odd spacing:
> http://www.backwater-productions.net/care-bears/
"This site requires Flash 8, you have Flash 7.
Click here to download the latest version."
I can't comment on the kerning. Don't the Care Bears have their set
corporate CareBear font?
>
>> However from my subjective viewpoint - something isn't quite working with
>> the type. I think it's something about the use of the hand written style "r"
>> that's not quite working. The same goes with the "u", "o" and "s" but the
>> "s" is less of a problem for me. The problem is that only these letters are
>> showing signs that they're supposed to be 'joined up' writing but have been
>> forced apart, the other letters look hand written but standalone. It might
>> work better if you removed the trailing links off the o and u.
>>
>> In isolation the word Backwater is more effective than Productions the wave
>> going through it seems more cohesive. There's a kerning issue between the
>> letters "rodu" IMHO.
>
> The new version's kerning should be off a bit as it has a bulging type
> effect running through parts of it (to make it seem as if it's under
> water)...that's why I'm thinking about animating it, as the effect
> would be more recognizable.
Yes, I can see the effect you're after. If you look at how you've worked on
the word "Backwater" and compare it to the word "Productions" you can see
that, even though both words are affected by the 'watery distortion', the
first word's distortion is effective without undermining the kerning.
>
>> I fell foul with over-saturated colour recently. When I switched from
>> gorgeous, shiny RGB to practical CMYK, all the punch from the colours went
>> to dust and I had to fiddle with my colour profiles for the image to start
>> to make sense. You can't easily get that RGB look in print I'm afraid.
>
> I've always thought it'd be neat if they made some kind
> light-refracting paper, kinda like photo glossy paper, but
> semi-transparent, composed of some kind of crystaline/paper composite
> and then have some kind of a binding peice with ultra-brite white
> LEDs. So you could just slip the binding peice onto the side of the
> page and BOOM! It'd be as bright as yer computer monitor.
It's called a pdf on your laptop isn't it? For practicality and cost
effectiveness we're stuck with CMYK on paper for now it seems.
Or this kind of thing? http://www.edmonds.co.uk/lenticular-faq.html to get
in some movement.
>
>> What program[s] did you use to create the illustration?
>
> Oh, it's just like a Bryce2 render...I don't even remember if it's
> mine or not. It might be something 7 or 8 years old from Digital
> Blasphemy that I reedited (the original was more orangish/red I
> think)...although it might just be based on something from DB. For
> practice a lot of times I take other people's stuff and then reverse
> engineer it from scratch. At some point in the next year or so though
> I want to replace it with something better (using Bryce5 or 3DS Max),
> maybe have the water animated and put in a more realistic looking rock
> (the current one is like a preset from Bryce2). The original looks a
> LOT more cartoonish, I kinda hid that by making the whole image
> darker.
You need to be clear on your site what is your original work and what you've
taken from others to rework. It's one thing to be inspired by someone else's
work but, in this day and age, you need to be careful of where the lines are
drawn. Using someone else's work for practise is a good way of working on
techniques and copying styles, take care how you use this when it comes to
selling it on though. I've got work that I've taken from other people to
"stitch together" illustration ideas but I wouldn't use these sketches in
any professional/commercial work. I was shocked when I found out [years ago]
that even using parts of photographs or video footage as a basis for an
illustration is considered as infringement of copyright... I'm not sure
where this leaves photomontage as an illustrative device, but we were warned
off when our studio tried it. It's an odd state of affairs - copyright
actually stifles creativity but without it where's the protection for your
own money-making idea? Personally I'm in favour of less protectionism.
>
>>>> Personally I don't like too much animation but one can't
>>>> please all of the people all of the time can one? I suppose it depends on
>>>> what you're selling.
>
>>> I like more subtle animation effects myself...like the frog on my main
>>> site, when you move your mouse over him he jumps away.
>
>> I can imagine it. Like I say, I've been getting less entranced by
>> flash/animated web stuff. Even when I know it's clever or cute or even when
>> it's useful navigation... eventually it can get in the way of the
>> information/content. It's a difficult balance though, I'm also fed up of all
>> those monotonous, cloned corporate sites.
>
> At this point I can't imagine using anything BUT Flash, mostly because
> it's the most cross-browser compatible solution there is. It takes
> all the guess work out of wondering how your site is going to look on
> someone else's system because the way it looks on yours is EXACTLY the
> way it's going to look on someone else's.
Except when they're using OS9 it would seem.
>
> And really, there are no arguments against Flash, just Flash designers
> who don't know all the ins and outs. For example one time there was
> this guy whining about how he couldn't save the images in a Flash
> file...which, generaly, by default when you simply slap a picture into
> a Flash file, yeah there's no way to right click and save it...but
> that doesn't mean that you can't PUT IN that right click functionality
> if you want really wanted it (which many designers don't, because they
> don't want people taking their stuff). Flash is EXTREMELY powerful,
> it's just most people barely scratch the surface of that
> plenipotentiary...usually because it requires a bit of effort, after
> all, with HTML the whole "right-click save-as" is already there, no
> extra effort needed.
>
>>>> Is this a logo or some kind of web banner? If it's only for use on the web,
>>>> will it be used in the background behind text, or will it be taking up that
>>>> much space on its own?
>
>>> Well I have another version for business cards where it's like:
>>> Backwater
>>> Productions
>
>> Can you show me that?
>
> Version 1:
> http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/_Scraps/Business_Card_01.png
>
> Version 2:
> http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/_Scraps/Business_Card_02.png
>
> The kerning is more off on those I believe. I kinda like version 2
> better than version 1.
I prefer the darker blue.
>
>>> instead of:
>>> Backwater Productions
>>> and the background on the business cards is a blue gradient.
>>>
>>> For the web it'll look exactly the way it currently does in the
>>> sample.
>>
>> That's taking up a lot of the space on the page. It might have different
>> impact on a black background.
>
> Well, it's not really taking up any space that could be used by
> anything else. Like I said, if you look at the main site you can see
> what it looks like. I suppose if you thought it needed more "empty"
> space it might be good to make it smaller, but I can only see that on
> a 800x600 res since anything higher than that is gonna have all the
> empty space around it you could ever want.
No, I don't think it needs more space around it. Now I've seen it in action
I see how it's being used. Really the logo is just the type isn't it? Not
the image. If it's both, you might want to reflect that in your business
card.
>
>>> Simplified isn't really my style, but I have considered a letter head
>>> type logo, but then again I'd just assume print letters using color
>>> and nice looking graphics...a lil more expensive I know (especially
>>> since I have a seriously love of glossy photo paper), but I think it
>>> reflects better on the quality of my business (even if it is a hobby
>>> business). I've actually reached a point now where the only time I
>>> don't use photo glossy paper is when I'm printing test graphics (for
>>> alignment/sizing) or if it's just plain text.
>
>> When you say "hobby business" does this mean you do it for fun and not the
>> money?
>
> Not just for fun, but also because I love the art and I love pushing
> my skills and learning new things. I'm not blind to the fact that
> eventually it will bring money though...lots of it. And I also
> recognize that if I REALLY wanted a ton of money right this moment
> there are a variety of semi-finished projects I have that I could
> buckle down on, finish and easily make $50,000 or more. Not to
> mention any number of ideas and inventions that I could go and patent
> for $1,000 a pop and then immediately sell off for 1,000 times that.
>
> It's not that I fear sucess or celebritism or anything (as some have
> suggested, mostly to try and explain my harsh points of view), it's
> just at this point I'm not interested in "getting rich quick"...I need
> more time to plan what I'm going to do with such funds, BEFORE I start
> making it big. Money and fame are not things I need to be happy,
> they're merely tools that I can use to further my art...but I need the
> skills to use those tools first.
I think I'd know how to be rich. My problem is I don't know how to get rich.
Not that it's much of a problem really; it's as much of a problem as my not
being able to fly, or walk on water.
>
>> If so, what do you do for money?
>
> I'm a student, I'm going into debt for money. ^_^
>
> ...well, not entirely true, I do a lot of odd computer jobs, mostly
> repair and networking and then on occasion I get a part time job
> somewhere for 2 or 3 months, mostly for the experience. I've worked
> in video stores (well, technically just one cause I quit the first
> week after Lackluster bought us out), fast food joints, retail stores,
> tech support, movie theaters, a bank, a roadside diner, a library,
> worked as an instructor one quarter for this community learning class
> at the local community college, hell I even worked as a janitor for 4
> months (that and stock clerk are like the best kind of jobs you can
> get if you like to stay up all night and go to bed at 6 in the
> morning...which I do). The janitorial job was also a great workout, I
> used to crank up the music and then see how fast I could finish (you
> got paid by the night, not by the hour), I lost like 25 pounds when I
> had that job.
>
> It may not be glamourus work, but I get to be me and I get to make the
> kind of art that *I* want to make. Personally I would rather be
> flipping burgers than working as a graphic "designer" (most of those
> jobs are less about coming up with new designs and more about just
> rehashing the same old, same old). If I ever took a graphic design
> job (or something along those lines) I wouldn't want to be working for
> any place less than like...Pixar...where I could actually BE creative,
> rather than just crankin out 3 or 4 color bullshit with InDesign for
> some dribbling little print publication that no one is ever even gonna
> give a shit about. But, in order to get a job at someplace like
> Pixar, you're not even gonna get the fuck in the door with anything
> less than a BA or a masters (even if you've got the skillz). I'm
> workin on my BA now, then next I'll work on my masters.
Good luck with the studying. Have you written to Pixar [or wherever] to find
out what they expect from their candidates? I've found that mostly what's
required to get a job is a solid reference from a word-of-mouth contact who
they already know, trust and love. To some extent they must be getting
gorgeous portfolios thrust through their doorway all day long... in the end
they probably pick the people who look pretty and know how to salsa. Perhaps
you need to consider /being/ Pixar rather than working for Pixar.
>
>> I'm going through a "glossy" and colourful phase at the moment. But for
>> text, where people need to read or really see the image, I love matt art...
>> the the more matt, the better; I get tense when there's too much shine on
>> the page. If we could print CMYK well [brightly with no colour drop] on some
>> kind of bond I'd be really happy. But printers get a bit disparaging of the
>> idea of CMYK on bond.
>>
>> So would you say you're not really a typographer, more an illustrator?
>
> I'm a little bit of everything. To me, it's about the art, things
> like illustration, rendering, typography, video editing, coding, those
> are all just tools to be used to create my work. The more tools
> you're familiar with, the more options you have as far as expressing
> yourself. That's my motto.
Do you do much pen and ink or pencil drawing on paper? Have you been tempted
to go into the fine arts?
>
>>> I've also thought about some kind of a picture representation with
>>> plain text (like on yer two examples), I've got this design for a "cow
>>> fish" (a fish with a cows head jumping out of water) that Josh and I
>>> came up with about 7 or 8 years ago, but I dunno, I kinda set it aside
>>> and never bothered to really make a good version of it.
>
>> I've heard of a dogfish and a catfish but never a cowfish. Are you an
>> angler?
>
> Nah, I don't really do much fishing...unless you count the occasional
> trip to the lake with friends...although that's more about getting
> fasnickered and enjoying nature than really trying to catch anything.
> The cow fish was just kind of a silly little idea, something kinda
> unique and interesting.
Well, why not? It can't be any less workable than a fish cow.
Larry Linson
use...@backwater-productions.net wrote on 03/20/2006 8:50 AM:
> Post
Good puppy, beg for it.
Connie Pierce
Hatter <use...@backwater-productions.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 10:37:54 -0500, "Fred Doyle"
> <fdo...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >> Uh, everything about Drew's post was condescending. Because of that,
> >> that's what he got back.
>
> >No, you projected condescention into everything Drew wrote.
>
> Sorry kiddo, but I didn't:
>
> "I continue to find these efforts weak and inefficient."
>
> "Keep trying, you've got a long way to go."
>
> If I was projecting a condescending attitude, how come I didn't with
> amgine's posts? Uh oh, I'm seeing plot holes the size of Tripoli in
> your rather desperate attempt to save Drew's face, Freddyboi.
>
> By the by, weren't you one of the people who was accusing Connie of
> slurping my ass? Cause uh...well if Connie was slurping my ass, I'd
> say you got Drew up the fuck on the spin cycle.
Just my two (most likely, unwanted) 2 cents, but I don't think Drew was
being condescending. To me, it sounded more like he was being reserved
and a bit formal. Could it be that he didn't want his words to come off
as an attack? I often "talk" that way in e-mails to clients . . .
mainly because the more "formal" you sound, the clearer your
position/content is. Again, my two pennies - spend them as you will! (
:
And no, Fred actually defended me! ( :
>
> >There is no way
> >you can know if that is how he meant it from the words he used.
>
> ...well, maybe YOU can't...I dunno, maybe you should get yerself
> checked for Asperger Syndrome's...or take less Ritalin.
>
> >Obviously, they all seemed polite and appropriate to many here, hence
> >the criticism of your attitude.
>
> Fact is lil Drew was itching for a lil Hatter retribution so he
> decided to act like a condescending prick...don't start nothin, won't
> be nothin. In other words, don't try and get into a verbal
> conflagration with someone whose infinitely better at it than you are
> and then turn around afterwards whining and crying about how you got
> your Internet feelings hurt like you didn't know what was gonna happen
> in the first place. Ya'll went and stuck yer idiot hand in a fuckin
> hornets nest and started flailin about, what the fuck did ya think was
> gonna happen?
Isn't it possible that you *expected* an attack from Drew? I mean, you
two haven't exactly been the best of buds . . . let's just say that I
don't see you guys going out and getting a cold one any time soon . . .
I *will* say that it wasn't exuding friendliness, but again, I don't
think you two have *that* kind of relationship . . . ( :
>
> >> Do "real" art critiques never have their critiques critiqued? Cause
> >> if they don't they probably aren't very good at critiquing art (or
> >> making it).
>
> >All the time. A critique is a dialog. It is how you responded, and a
> >demonstrated inability to encourage criticism, to engage in dialog, to learn
> >from criticism that gives you away.
>
> Drew's critique was weak and inefficient as is your attempt to defend
> him. Keep trying, you've got a long way to go. ^_^
But for what it's worth, Hat, I like your original logo better. The
colors ARE more saturated and thusly, they stand out more and call more
attention to itself. I would move the "d" over just a tad (in the
original), but that's about it. I think considering the name, the
context on the page (paired with a "swamp-like" - best word I could
come up with - scene) it fits (again, the original). As it is now, it
looks like you "diluted" the effect a bit on the new one. Overall, I
think the first is the best.
Flame me if you must - I'm sure it's not what you were looking for in a
critique (I think everyone prefers their "newest" work), but it's my
honest opinion, FWIW.
--
C Pierce
Creative Veritas
principal/designer
http://www.creativeveritas.com
*(Coming 2-1-2006)*
850 532 0835
Connie Pierce
Hatter <use...@backwater-productions.net> wrote:
> mmmkay?
Why does that make me picture Mr. Mackey from South Park? I think I'm
too much of a SP fan. LOL.
Connie Pierce
<fdo...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> "Onideus Mad Hatter" <use...@backwater-productions.net> wrote
>
> > By the by, weren't you one of the people who was accusing Connie of
> > slurping my ass?
>
> Uh, no. I said she was an apologist for your bad and boorish behavior.
>
> Fred Doyle
Again, he never accused me of being a BN . . . he understood my
"motives" and my sentiment *exactly*.
But I'm a bit clueless to what an "apologist" is . . . Fred? Any
light? (NOT meant in a smartass way . . . just doing a brain fart -
which may evolve into mental diarrhea! (; )
I think Hat's a mixed bag (I think SG used the word "unbalanced") . . .
on some subjects, especially where talent's concerned, I think he's
more prone to attack. But on every other front (from what I've seen -
can't speak for posts I've not read), he's perfectly reasonable,
intelligent and witty. Honestly, I see what comes "out" of Hat being
commisserate with what goes "in."
Connie Pierce
Hatter <use...@backwater-productions.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 11:06:30 -0500, "Fred Doyle"
> <fdo...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >> By the by, weren't you one of the people who was accusing Connie of
> >> slurping my ass?
>
> >Uh, no. I said she was an apologist for your bad and boorish behavior.
>
> ...why would she need to apologize for me? ...why would she want to?
I've never meant to "apologize" for Hat . . . for one thing, I have no
right to. His mistakes, his attitude, his . . . whatever . . . is his
business. too, I'd be really insulted if someone apologized on *my*
behalf.
I just don't see Hat, esp in light of the conversations that we've had,
as being an asshole per se. CAN he be an asshole? Most def. But being
an asshole occasionally doesn't make someone an asshole, in MHO.
> She likes teh verbal sparring, who teh fuck doesn't? ...well, okay, I
> guess if yer the one gettin knocked into the ropes it ain't much fun,
> but uh, well that's not too hard to avoid, now is it?
And yes, I do. I feel nasty admitting it, but sparring with Mimic WAS
fun (a fun I'm trying hard to indulge in). And as a past vic of Hat's
it DOES suck when you're the vic . . .
Connie Pierce
SpaceGirl <nothespac...@subhuman.net> wrote:
> Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
>
> > Hey Larry (the idiot), like Drew, you have ZERO works. There are two
> > kinds of people online...those who produce...and those who run at the
> > mouth. Guess which one you are?
>
> How does this make their opinions less valid? You didn't ask "can any
> professional designers please give an opinion" now did you?
She's right, Hat. When you ask for critiques, there's no reason why a
non-prof would feel that they're not allowed to reply. Too, whoever
said that a non-prof's opinion is good (since not all profs will be
hitting your site) is right, too.
I think your problem with the critique is based more on the perceived
attitude and verbiage, than the sentiment/content. Ugh . . . not sure
if that made sense . . .
Connie Pierce
Hatter <use...@backwater-productions.net> wrote:
> The bottom line is that for a group of designers...well uh, you all
> don't seem to be designing much...but y'all sure can run the fuck at
> the mouth, huh? By the by:
> http://www.sarcastic-caret.net/wedding/
>
> While you've been talkin, I just finished the PHP backend of the
> wedding blog.
>
> *shrugs*
Not a critique, just a question . . . my cursor flickers when it's
over the links. I can SEE that they are links and they open up, but my
cursor flickers like crazy. Do you know what that means? I don't, so
I'm asking . . .
Otherwise, VERY cool!! ( :
Connie Pierce
<bou...@localhost.not> wrote:
> ":^) ®
Okay, another opp for me to look stupid and newbie . . . what does
that emoticon mean??
Drew
>>I continue to find these efforts weak and inefficient. The whole look
>>lacks cohesiveness while the "logo" itself doesn't stand up alone. If
>>the font choice is the problem with the kerning issues, another font
>>choice might be in order. The fact that the type treatment is in the sky
>>doesn't meet your "underwater" goals. Try some new imagery.
>>
>>Keep trying, you've got a long way to go.
>>
>>HTH
>
>
> No offense Drew, but I've never seen any of your work (if a quick
> browse through Google is any indication, no one has...because you
> don't have any),
To not be offensive you sure blew that after 3 words.
No where in the original post did you request that the opinions must be
from someone who has posted work before or has an on line portfolio. You
might want to clarify next time. Now, me thinks you haven't been looking
hard enough. Keep trying, Matthew.
I have enough confidence in my talent to not need the validation of my
peers or the wannabes. Those of value to me in this community know my
work well. You are not on the need to know list.
> you're sportin a hotmail account, postin via
> Roadrunner on a Mac'n trash and I get the impression that "your" style
> is more along the lines of ass raping copper-plate gothic bold with
> some kind of a clip art motif attached onto the end of it
You state that you have no clue of my design style. Thus your impression
has no value.
...that's
> not, nor will it EVER be my style. My style is quite a bit more
> evolved from that canned corporate crap that school/spoon fed Mac
> artists are often so quick to retard back to when they can't come up
> with anything better.
The equipment has nothing to do with the quality and you prove that
point without a shadow.
If there was ever a more perfect Mac designer
> stereotype, it'd be fuckin you up the ass out of true love, Drew.
Sorry, wrong again. My ass is Exit Only.
Your response to this honest and simple critique has more than
demonstrated that you're totally lacking professionalism, are in fact a
hobbyist poser, and a troll.
Have a nice day.
D
Drew
>>You asked for an opinion. Someone posted an opinion. You they totally
>>laid into the person for posting that opinion. How in any way can this
>>be constructive?
>
>
> Drew will be less likely to be condescending the next time he decides
> to critique my work. Or maybe he won't critique my work at all, which
> is fine by me, he's NOT an artist nor is he any sort of designer, so
> he ought to just keep his NONpinions to himself. If I wanted random,
> uneducated, poser opinions from Mac trendies who think buyin a candy
> colored piece of crap with a Photoshop package, gettin their ear
> pierced and hangin out down at Starbucks make them a graphic artist
> I'd go subscribe to comp.sys.mac.advocacy and ask them for their
> opinions.
"He don't know me too well, does he?"
D
Drew
>>Does anyone still think that this guy has any background or experience with
>>real art critiques?
>
>
> Do "real" art critiques never have their critiques critiqued? Cause
> if they don't they probably aren't very good at critiquing art (or
> making it).
You're exposing your ineptitude. You didn't critique the critique, you
critiqued the critequer. Big difference. Kinda like shooting the messenger.
D
Drew
>>>Uh, everything about Drew's post was condescending. Because of that,
>>>that's what he got back.
>
>
>>No, you projected condescention into everything Drew wrote.
>
>
> Sorry kiddo, but I didn't:
>
> "I continue to find these efforts weak and inefficient."
>
> "Keep trying, you've got a long way to go."
Wrong again. That's not condescension, it's opinion. See name of thread.
D
Onideus Mad Hatter
<use...@backwater-productions.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 08:48:40 -0800, Larry Linson
><bou...@localhost.not> wrote:
>
>>Teach by doing.
>
>Post Larry, POST! ^_^
>
>Good Stupid!
Oops, my bot got a lil excited there. Hey Larry, wanna play with my
bot some more? I think it's important for idiots like you to waste
massive amounts of time talking to inanimate pieces of programming.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm น x น
mug...@hotmail.com
Dont want to beat about the bush but that 'new design' is the same as
your current one. shit. and that stupid jumping frog!!! you think that
adds something to your sites experience? and whats with that abrupt
sound on the mouseover on the menu? your font for backwater productions
might as well be comic sans, its just as bad.
I would like to know how you justify charging $750, all your stuff
looks like your about 4 chapters into a 'learn flash' book.
your use of colours is fucking terrible, really really really please
get some design skills. you talk the talk but you've got utter shit to
show for it.
check out this fatty http://www.colorschemer.com/online.html
Larry Linson
use...@backwater-productions.net wrote on 03/20/2006 4:18 PM:
> I got excited there.
How cute.
Fred Doyle
> Oops, my bot got a lil excited there.
Your bot! LOL, could you be any more melodramatic?
Look Ma, Junior wrote a macro!
--
Fred Doyle
Connie Pierce
<mug...@hotmail.com> wrote:
http://www.colorschemer.com/online.html
Very cool site, Muggs!! Thanks!! ( :
Fred Doyle
> you talk the talk but you've got utter shit to
> show for it.
Well, one thing we know he doesn't have to show for it is a paycheck. Ain't
no one paying for those design skills, thats for sure.
--
Fred Doyle
James Douglas
> I'm thinkin about using this as my new logo:
> http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/_Scraps/Logo_Test.png
>
> I kinda like it better than the current form, but I'm wondering what
> else I might be able to do to improve upon it...well I suppose I could
> animate the thing...although I'm trying to get away from constantly
> animating chit to make it look "impressive". Like the wedding blog
> thing, I like the animated clouds, but the sparkle animation is
> starting to tire. I think I'll remake the background (maybe with a
> live action photo) and make my own sparkle effect from scratch and see
> if that works any better. I find I can usually improve upon other
> people's work...problem is it usually requires a significant
> investment of my time, like nyah:
> http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog/stories/1-10.png
> It took like 3 hours to reverse engineer that graphic.
>
Why bother posting as everyone knows yours is the best work anyone
has ever seen.
mug...@hotmail.com
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog/stories/1-10.png
please read the bit about 'a true graphic artist' and look at what he
has actually done.
im lost for words...
Drew
>
> why
> didn't I attack amgine? They didn't particularily like it all that
> much and offered some examples and ideas of what they thought would be
> better...so uh, what the fuck are you retarding on, Spacey?
> )
I was trying to save you $100 per, but didn't think you approved of
others doing someone else's work.
D
Fred Doyle
> I'm producing more work in a month than you could
> ever even complete in a LIFETIME
Now if you could only find someone who will pay you for it.
--
Fred Doyle
Woody
The font is so... elegant, and delicate.
hahahaha.
He just had to duplicate the error of the original artist.
hahahahaha.
fsds...@gmail.com
Truth about what? He asked for opinions about how to improve his
design. Seems to me the "truth" of that request would be to offer
opinions.
Look, I know the guy is harsh. He's said some nasty things in my
general direction, too, and made a lot of comments to a lot of people
that (to understate it) I really don't agree with. The difference is
that I don't care. I don't need Hatter's opinions to validate what I
do. If I need validation, I have paying clients and art awards for
that -- but even then, I've had some clients hate my work. You can't
please everyone and you'll only go insane trying.
So if Hatter wants to come in here and trash talk, what's it to me
(other than entertaining, that is)? His comments only mean anything to
*me* if I let them.
In the meantime, he asked for opinions about how to improve his design.
To me, that says that he *wants* to improve. Whether he gives a crap
about my opinion - or yours, or anyone elses - about how to improve
really doesn't matter. The fact is that he obviously recognizes that
there is room for improvement, which is a good thing no matter how you
slice it.
I don't expect him to change and suddenly play nicey-nice with
everyone. From what I've seen, that's not his style (although he does
occasionally engage in civil conversations), and, frankly, he'd be
pretty boring if he did suddenly become everone's bestest buddy. But
in the meantime, he asked for opinions and I, for one, am not really
into attacking him for that.
Then again, we all play this Usenet game differently, so if it's your
kink to continue to dig up photos of him from his own site and post
links, by all means, I wouldn't dream of trying to stop you. It's
nothing if not entertaining (and I'm sure Hatter really doesn't mind
the added exposure to his domain, either).
-- Robert
James Douglas
readability.
Onideus Mad Hatter
>can someone just tell him the truth please?
Here's the truth for you, Muggzy:
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=http://www.templatefunky.com
Traffic Rank for templatefunky.com: 5,592,943
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.backwater-productions.net
Traffic Rank for backwater-productions.net: 672,477
LOL...and I'm not even really trying to sell anything. ^_^
>Dont want to beat about the bush but that 'new design' is the same as
>your current one. shit. and that stupid jumping frog!!!
Yeah, covet it, you pathetic whiner.
>you think that
>adds something to your sites experience?
...well I *AM* the one with a 672,477 traffic rank.
>and whats with that abrupt
>sound on the mouseover on the menu? your font for backwater productions
>might as well be comic sans, its just as bad.
...and yet, *I'M* the one with a 672,477 traffic rank.
>I would like to know how you justify charging $750, all your stuff
>looks like your about 4 chapters into a 'learn flash' book.
...you have a 5.6 MILLION traffic rank...I don't. `, )
>your use of colours is fucking terrible, really really really please
>get some design skills.
Still frightened by the color blue, huh? I suppose I could do it up
like that one design that you ripped off that you're trying to
sell...you know, the one with dancing, multicolored crosses trailing
all over the place...yeah, that whole a-clown-shit-all-over-my-site
look sure is cool. That must be how you get a 5.6 MILLION traffic
rank, huh Downs?
>you talk the talk but you've got utter shit to
>show for it.
I act like arrogant fucking asshole, no one online particularly likes
me much, my site offers very little content, I'm charging $750+ for
web design and not going out of my way to do it (I turn down most
potential clients)...and yet, despite ALL that...I have a 672,477
traffic rank...out of 64,808,485 sites.
You should get the fuck down on all fours and thank me, Kiddo...cause
teh other truth in the matter is that you ranking, as pathetic as it
is, would be just about nonexistent if it weren't for the fact that
*I'M* smackin you around like a bitch.
>check out this fatty http://www.colorschemer.com/online.html
...wow, that's great, you're posting links to OTHER people's sites
now. Boy a loser like you will try and take credit for anything, huh?
Next you'll probably be running around claiming that you invented the
Internet.
You know what's REALLY interesting about that site:
http://www.colorschemer.com/schemes/viewscheme.php?id=1134
Hey look at that, they're offering the same color scheme I'm using on
my Backwater site...you know, the one you were pissing your pants
about. ^_^
(kinda spicin it up a lil with a complementary red/orange, personally
though I wanted to stay away from teh FF look).
mug...@hotmail.com
>Traffic Rank for templatefunky.com: 5,592,943
ive had my website up for less than a month! what is wrong with you!
>...well I *AM* the one with a 672,477 traffic rank
and what have you got to show for that? an amazing client list full of
great sites you've made? a pathway thats led to a successful career?
> *I'M* smackin you around like a bitch.
yeah ur words are so powerful
>Hey look at that, they're offering the same color scheme I'm using on
>my Backwater site...you know, the one you were pissing your pants
>about. ^_^
yeah but you havent used it well have you, all your shitty flash sites
look the same, a centered box with a coloured background, i wouldn't
slate you if you produced cool flash stuff like www.phong.com but your
doing utter trash. like that 'php blog backend' bollocks for that
wedding site.
so this took you 3 hours to do
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog/stories/1-10.png . i
love it that you use terms like 'reverse engineer' when you just copy
and edit. great stuff!
>(I turn down most potential clients)
Yeah cooourse you do
I do honestly think you have something wrong with you mentally, i dont
think your right in the head. I dont know why you believe your own shit
so much, you cant design at all. look at your business card,
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/_Scraps/Business_Card_01.png
i dont know what to say, is that honestly the best you can do? these
things are meant to be given to your potential/current clients. someone
said you have a long way to go, i think thats the only way to describe
your work. apart from shit that is you fat fucking idiot.
Onideus Mad Hatter
<bou...@localhost.not> wrote:
>Teach by doing.
Post Larry, POST! ^_^
Good Stupid!
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ą x ą
Onideus Mad Hatter
<fdo...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Onideus Mad Hatter" <use...@backwater-productions.net> wrote
>
>> ...why would she need to apologize for me? ...why would she want to?
>
>Damn good question
Here's an even better one...why do YOU need to believe that she is?
`, )
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm น x น
Onideus Mad Hatter
<in...@pierceillus.com> wrote:
>I've never meant to "apologize" for Hat . . . for one thing, I have no
>right to. His mistakes, his attitude, his . . . whatever . . . is his
>business.
And I LIKE IT! Slurp it, suck it, blow it the fuck up the ass and
turn to the dark side of the rump ride, all y'all bastards know ya
like it too.
>too,
You should trademark that quirk of yers, it's as beautiful as my
broken .sig delimiter.
>I'd be really insulted if someone apologized on *my*
>behalf.
Personally I wouldn't really care one way or another...of course, I'm
not even sure if I have the capability of even BEING insulted, so I
guess it goes without saying.
>I just don't see Hat, esp in light of the conversations that we've had,
>as being an asshole per se.
I'm more of a bastard than an asshole really...and hey, bastardly is a
growth industry.
>CAN he be an asshole? Most def. But being
>an asshole occasionally doesn't make someone an asshole, in MHO.
Don't worry, I murder a kitten every time I read any of your bullshit.
Makes me feel good inside. ^_^
>> She likes teh verbal sparring, who teh fuck doesn't? ...well, okay, I
>> guess if yer the one gettin knocked into the ropes it ain't much fun,
>> but uh, well that's not too hard to avoid, now is it?
>And yes, I do. I feel nasty admitting it, but sparring with Mimic WAS
>fun (a fun I'm trying hard to indulge in). And as a past vic of Hat's
>it DOES suck when you're the vic . . .
But remember, you're only the victim if you WANT to be the victim.
One of my favorite things to do is start fights with people over
technical discussions, usually taking the losing side, just to show
off the fact that you don't even need to be "right" to win.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ą x ą
Onideus Mad Hatter
<in...@pierceillus.com> wrote:
>> Sorry kiddo, but I didn't:
>>
>> "I continue to find these efforts weak and inefficient."
>>
>> "Keep trying, you've got a long way to go."
>>
>> If I was projecting a condescending attitude, how come I didn't with
>> amgine's posts? Uh oh, I'm seeing plot holes the size of Tripoli in
>> your rather desperate attempt to save Drew's face, Freddyboi.
>>
>> By the by, weren't you one of the people who was accusing Connie of
>> slurping my ass? Cause uh...well if Connie was slurping my ass, I'd
>> say you got Drew up the fuck on the spin cycle.
>Just my two (most likely, unwanted) 2 cents, but I don't think Drew was
>being condescending. To me, it sounded more like he was being reserved
>and a bit formal. Could it be that he didn't want his words to come off
>as an attack?
No, no, no, I never said he was attacking anybody, I said he was
condescending...which he was...I mean, seriously, explain how those
two quotes AREN'T condescending. The first one is describing my
"effort" as "weak and inefficient"...he was attempting to belittle
*MY* "effort", not the end result of that effort.
The second quote is another no-fuckin-duh point of condescention,
telling a person to keep trying but then turning right around and
claiming that any such effort is next to impossible.
No offense or anything, but you're talking to someone whose a near
expert in language mechanics. I make it a point to break down and
analyze the way that people use words and the logical connections of
those words...and more often than not people don't even realize
they're saying what they're actually saying. I have no doubt in my
mind that Drew actually believes he WASN'T being condescending...but
often what you THINK you're doing and what you're ACTUALLY doing are
two entirely different things.
>I often "talk" that way in e-mails to clients . . .
>mainly because the more "formal" you sound, the clearer your
>position/content is. Again, my two pennies - spend them as you will! (
...for fun I copied the quotes and emailed them to Josh (who is a
production coordinator/copy editor) and he told me that they would
NEVER talk down to a client like that. *shrugs*
>Isn't it possible that you *expected* an attack from Drew?
Uh...well yeah. Who wouldn't expect that from Drew? On a couple
occasions he openly admited to being bothered by my words...unless
he's no longer human it would be plainly stupid not to expect some
kind of opportunisitc verbal jab.
If he was a Netter he might not have such a need to try and "get back"
at me...but then, if he was a Netter, he would have enjoyed making an
attacking post and getting the return attack back from me.
>I mean, you
>two haven't exactly been the best of buds . . . let's just say that I
>don't see you guys going out and getting a cold one any time soon . . .
...well of course not. I'm extremely picky about who I choose to hang
out with. Unless you're just overly interesting, highly intelligent
or bursting with creativity...yeah, I don't wanna hang out with you.
I don't recall ever seeing any work from Drew, so I can't say as he's
creative, he's not that intelligent and he certainly isn't very
interesting.
>> Drew's critique was weak and inefficient as is your attempt to defend
>> him. Keep trying, you've got a long way to go. ^_^
>But for what it's worth, Hat, I like your original logo better. The
>colors ARE more saturated and thusly, they stand out more and call more
>attention to itself. I would move the "d" over just a tad (in the
>original), but that's about it. I think considering the name, the
>context on the page (paired with a "swamp-like" - best word I could
>come up with - scene) it fits (again, the original). As it is now, it
>looks like you "diluted" the effect a bit on the new one. Overall, I
>think the first is the best.
>
>Flame me if you must - I'm sure it's not what you were looking for in a
>critique (I think everyone prefers their "newest" work), but it's my
>honest opinion, FWIW.
...uh, well ~technically~ speaking you've got it reversed. The "new"
one is actually an older version of the logo that I just recently
retweaked a bit. Personally I like both for different reasons...hell
I even like teh 2003 version (let's all hit the fuckin button on the
Wayback Machine):
http://web.archive.org/web/20030629194807/http://www.backwater-productions.net/index.html
I just wanted to see how teh regs in here would react to the two and
then use that in an analysis of your own work in order to try and
study your style...which is why Drew can just go fuck himself, he has
no work, neither does Muggz and like half the other "regs" in this
froup.
And as I explained in a prior post, your reasoning for liking it or
disliking it is mostly outright meaningless without some kind of
analysis of your character and creativity, because what you mean to
say, isn't always what you're ACTUALLY saying. With opinions though
you need some kind of a basis of comparison (in your case I'm using
your website and the content you have on it as well as your reactions
and opinions to other people's work that's been presented here).
Onideus Mad Hatter
<whoisthat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>Does anyone still think that this guy has any background or experience with
>>>real art critiques?
>> Do "real" art critiques never have their critiques critiqued? Cause
>> if they don't they probably aren't very good at critiquing art (or
>> making it).
>You're exposing your ineptitude.
You're exposing your need to attack, Kiddo.
>You didn't critique the critique, you critiqued the critequer.
Oh...you mean...like THIS:
"I continue to find these efforts weak and inefficient."
You continue to find these EFFORTS...not works, EFFORTS...weak and
inefficient. You critiqued the artist, not the art, Drew Buddy. And
now yer all pissy and upset cause that's what you got back? Awww,
poor wittle diddums wants to dish it out but can't own the fuck up to
it afterwards, huh?
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm น x น
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
>> Oops, my bot got a lil excited there.
>Your bot! LOL, could you be any more melodramatic?
...what's melodramatic about my bot? It posts the same message over
and over again to a specific poster in a specific froup, it's not
exactly some incredible piece of programming, just a fun way of
keeping retards busy...which is important you know, I mean, you need
to keep your retards entertained.
Onideus Mad Hatter
<nothespac...@subhuman.net> wrote:
>> Hey Larry (the idiot), like Drew, you have ZERO works. There are two
>> kinds of people online...those who produce...and those who run at the
>> mouth. Guess which one you are?
>How does this make their opinions less valid?
If you have to ask, you'll never know.
>You didn't ask "can any professional designers please give an opinion"
>now did you?
...well no, why would I do that? I WANTED to include the lessers like
Drew...you know, for MY entertainment. Remember, YOU'RE the one with
the problem, not me.
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
>"Onideus Mad Hatter" <use...@backwater-productions.net> wrote
Your mom pays for it d00d...seriously.
Onideus Mad Hatter
<in...@pierceillus.com> wrote:
>In article <C0441861.77513%bou...@localhost.not>, Larry Linson
><bou...@localhost.not> wrote:
>
>> ":^) Ž
>
>Okay, another opp for me to look stupid and newbie . . . what does
>that emoticon mean??
Most of the time emoticons can mean whatever you want. They're like
the English language...adaptable. Come up with somethin new...give it
a meaning...get it in circulation, BAM! Yer a trend setter! It's
sorta like when I started calling regs of AUK stAUKers...and then
suddenly EVERYBODY who hated the AUK regs started doin it.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm š x š
Onideus Mad Hatter
>
>mug...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> can someone just tell him the truth please?
>>
>
>Truth about what? He asked for opinions about how to improve his
>design. Seems to me the "truth" of that request would be to offer
>opinions.
Robert, that's not the "truth" and you know it. You need to get it
the fuck together and start retarding back into the sheeple mentality
and support your...special little...well I guess friend would be too
much of a stretch, but hey, from his point of view, everyone who
agrees with him is his "bestest bud". Don't you want ONLINE friends,
Robert? I mean, come on, just jump on the Hatter hatin bandwagon and
agree with the "truth".
>Look, I know the guy is harsh.
Eight shades of ass blistering reality coupled with a few sharp bitch
slaps of hard, biting sarcasm.
>He's said some nasty things in my
>general direction, too, and made a lot of comments to a lot of people
>that (to understate it) I really don't agree with.
The primary difference is that you can actually recall them...me...not
so much. If I ever said anything nasty to you for example...well uh,
sorry, but I can't remember it. Like I've said before, most of my
more...colorful, responses are never so much about the person I'm
replying to, it's just word art and I'm using your post as my canvas,
it's nothing personal (well not for me anyway).
>The difference is that I don't care.
*golf clap*
>I don't need Hatter's opinions to validate what I do.
Geez, I would certainly hope not.
>If I need validation, I have paying clients and art awards for
>that -- but even then, I've had some clients hate my work. You can't
>please everyone and you'll only go insane trying.
As I always say, no matter what you do there's ALWAYS gonna be someone
who loves it, someone who hates it and someone who just doesn't give a
fuck...the important part is not catering to the people who hate your
work.
>Then again, we all play this Usenet game differently, so if it's your
>kink to continue to dig up photos of him from his own site and post
>links, by all means, I wouldn't dream of trying to stop you. It's
>nothing if not entertaining (and I'm sure Hatter really doesn't mind
>the added exposure to his domain, either).
My open archives:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/brklnk
Are one of the most popular attractions on my server. I always think
it's so funny though, when like someone starts posting links out of
the photo directory, like they were some big secret and I NEVER wanted
anyone looking at them...LOL...if I didn't want anybody lookin at em I
wouldn't have put em up in a publicly accessible directory, Smarts!
^_^
It's very telling though, in WHAT a person will choose to try and
attack me with out of there. Like one guy started linkin the pic of
my dad and started goin off about homos and shit...and then another
time this guy was postin a link to a pic of me and started goin off
about how being overweight is some HORRIBLE thing...LOL...yeah, I
suppose to them it might be, and that's the slip up. See when you
attack someone, I mean, REALLY try and "get back" at them...well, HOW
you do it often shows more of your own weakness than you'd like to
admit. Take that Muggzy guy who was raving on about how he thought my
dad was gay...like that would be some horrible thing...well, for him.
Personally, if my dad was gay...eh, what the fuck would I care, it's
not any of my business. And if I was gay, uh, well what the fuck
would be the problem there? In his desperate little attempts though
Muggzy went all stupid and revealed that his own worst fear is being
labeled as a fag...and thus, he pretty much painted a giant bulls eye
right the fuck on his ass.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ą x ą
Onideus Mad Hatter
<whoisthat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> No offense Drew, but I've never seen any of your work (if a quick
>> browse through Google is any indication, no one has...because you
>> don't have any),
>To not be offensive you sure blew that after 3 words.
Um, it's reality Drew...you don't have any work. If you're offended
by the fact that you don't have any work, well, that's YOUR problem,
now isn't it?
>No where in the original post did you request that the opinions must be
>from someone who has posted work before or has an on line portfolio. You
>might want to clarify next time.
...uh, why would I do that? If I did that I wouldn't be able to have
any fun with the lessers like you. Remember, YOUR the one with the
problem, not me. I LIKED you pathetic attempt at verbal retribution,
it was the perfect canvas to paint you up like an idiot. *shrugs*
>I have enough confidence in my talent to not need the validation of my
>peers or the wannabes.
Gosh, thanks for attempting to EXPLAIN and JUSTIFY your lack of work
to me...cause, you know, I certainly was askin...oh, wait, no I guess
I wasn't actually.
>Those of value to me in this community know my
>work well. You are not on the need to know list.
OH U R GODS I DIDN'T MAKE TEH HAET LITS!!1!
Seriously kiddo, can you say "overcompensation"? Drew thinks he's in
a Usenet clique! LOL...now THAT'S funny! ^_^
>> you're sportin a hotmail account, postin via
>> Roadrunner on a Mac'n trash and I get the impression that "your" style
>> is more along the lines of ass raping copper-plate gothic bold with
>> some kind of a clip art motif attached onto the end of it
>You state that you have no clue of my design style. Thus your impression
>has no value.
My impression comes from your witless NONpinion, not from your
non-existent design style.
>...that's
>> not, nor will it EVER be my style. My style is quite a bit more
>> evolved from that canned corporate crap that school/spoon fed Mac
>> artists are often so quick to retard back to when they can't come up
>> with anything better.
>The equipment has nothing to do with the quality and you prove that
>point without a shadow.
Actually the equipment DOES have something to do with the quality,
it's one of those reversal kinda deals though. Sorta like somebody
saying that most black people are criminals, poor and uneducated...I
mean, THEY ARE...but that reality doesn't come from an inherent
nature, it comes from social constructs and pre-existing environment.
In other words, if *YOU* were to suddenly start using a PC...yeah, you
would STILL be a talentless, unproducing fuckwit...just like how if
you took some dumb ass, drug dealin nigga out of the hood and put him
white suburbia he's prolly not suddenly gonna STOP being a hood rat.
Fact is most BAD designers wind up using Macs simply because it's a
trend...one built primarily out of a desperate need to try and be
non-conformist. BAD designers often overcompensate for their lack of
ability with an attempt to be "different" from everybody else. Where
as someone like me, hells bells I have like 20 different graphic apps
on my system and I don't really subscribe to any of them outside of
the basic facts as far as what they can and can't do (for example I
often use Paintshop over Photoshop because of it's abilities as far as
file format compression).
For BAD designers their attitudes are based more on personal opinion
and less on hard facts and reality.
...although if you're a BAD designer I guess having over 200 different
options for a graphics card alone isn't all that important...I mean,
it's not like you're designing anything. LOL
>>If there was ever a more perfect Mac designer
>> stereotype, it'd be fuckin you up the ass out of true love, Drew.
>Sorry, wrong again. My ass is Exit Only.
You think it'd go down that far, huh?
>Your response to this honest and simple critique has more than
>demonstrated that you're totally lacking professionalism, are in fact a
>hobbyist poser, and a troll.
I'm an artist, not a professional. And how can I be the poser when
*I'M* the one whose actually PRODUCING...you, yer just runnin at the
fuckin mouth, all whining about your clique list and how only your
stuffed animal collection can see your nonexistent work, retarding off
excuses and backpedalling bullshit...but when all is said and
done...all the fuck you did was talk a lot of shit, Poser Boi...I
actually produced something:
http://www.sarcastic-caret.net/wedding/
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm น x น
Onideus Mad Hatter
<in...@pierceillus.com> wrote:
>> > Hey Larry (the idiot), like Drew, you have ZERO works. There are two
>> > kinds of people online...those who produce...and those who run at the
>> > mouth. Guess which one you are?
>> How does this make their opinions less valid? You didn't ask "can any
>> professional designers please give an opinion" now did you?
>She's right, Hat. When you ask for critiques, there's no reason why a
>non-prof would feel that they're not allowed to reply.
...er, why wouldn't *I* want them to?
Onideus Mad Hatter
<in...@pierceillus.com> wrote:
>> The bottom line is that for a group of designers...well uh, you all
>> don't seem to be designing much...but y'all sure can run the fuck at
>> the mouth, huh? By the by:
>> http://www.sarcastic-caret.net/wedding/
>>
>> While you've been talkin, I just finished the PHP backend of the
>> wedding blog.
>>
>> *shrugs*
>Not a critique, just a question . . . my cursor flickers when it's
>over the links. I can SEE that they are links and they open up, but my
>cursor flickers like crazy. Do you know what that means? I don't, so
>I'm asking . . .
>
>Otherwise, VERY cool!! ( :
Are you speaking of the navigation at the top or the calendar part?
If teh later it's because of how I have it setup at the moment (with
OnEnterFrame functions), so it's like constantly checking/refreshing
itself. I need to alter it though so it's not doing that all the
time. There's several other minor bug fixes that need to be
made...like when you first go to the site, you can see the background
screen flash for a second before the loader starts goin. Also if you
click on one of the other subsections and then click on a date on the
calendar with a blog entry, it stays in the current subsection, rather
than tracking back to the weblog page. I'll get all this stuff fixed
in the next few days or so. At this point it's still very much a
prototype...a working one, but it can certainly be refined.
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ą x ą
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
><mug...@hotmail.com> wrote
Fred, I have a client list...you don't. Oh, oh, look stupid Fred,
look stupid now! ^_^
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm น x น
Onideus Mad Hatter
>>Here's the truth for you, Muggzy:
>>http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=http://www.temp...
>>Traffic Rank for templatefunky.com: 5,592,943
>ive had my website up for less than a month! what is wrong with you!
Oh boy, here come the excuses. Oh hey, Muggzy, yet another day with
no clients for you, huh? ^_^
>>...well I *AM* the one with a 672,477 traffic rank
>and what have you got to show for that? an amazing client list full of
>great sites you've made? a pathway thats led to a successful career?
If I was actually going for that my traffic rank would probably be in
the 10,000 range.
>> *I'M* smackin you around like a bitch.
>yeah ur words are so powerful
Muggzy, I'm not sure if you've noticed it or not...but out of all the
post you make to Usenet...ALL OF THEM are either directed TO ME or are
ABOUT ME...that's called OBSESSION, kiddo. The point now is WHY
you're obsessing...obviously my words have had an impact on you,
they've turned you into a terminally obsessed Hatter Addict. Again,
you DO NOT make a post on Usenet unless it's TO ME or ABOUT ME...I own
you, bitch.
>>Hey look at that, they're offering the same color scheme I'm using on
>>my Backwater site...you know, the one you were pissing your pants
>>about. ^_^
>yeah but you havent used it well have you,
Uh oh, backpedal, LOOK OUT!
>all your shitty flash sites
...uh, not all of my sites are Flash based, Stupid.
>look the same,
...yeah if yer blind, Ritalin deficient, short bus riding retard maybe
they look the same.
>a centered box
Downs, ALL WEBSITES ARE CENTERED IN A BOX...unless you think the
website is drifting off the screen and floating randomly around your
BOX SHAPED MONITOR...you fuckin retard.
>with a coloured background,
Oh boy, just how fucking reachingly stupid do you get? First of all,
MOST of the sites in existence use some kind of a colored background
(seriously, how retarded are you)...for me, I've used all sorts of
different backgrounds...linear gradients, photo backgrounds,
illustrated backgrounds, rendered backgrounds, animated backgrounds
and even plain white backgrounds...so uh, I dunno what the fuck yer
retarding on, Downs, but obviously you haven't even seen half my
sites.
>i wouldn't slate you if you produced cool flash stuff like www.phong.com
...wow...that has just about got to be THE WORST navigation system
that has EVER been conceived of...not to mention the fact that the
entire site IS NOT in Flash and the parts that are in Flash are
nothing more than extremely simplistic animated shapes with partial
transparencies tracking the mouse location...WOAH, boy THAT'S sure
hard to do...*snicker*...now if he had ACTUALLY done some REAL
programming and made the "tentacle" parts actually LOOK like FLUID
tentacles, instead of partially curved blocky looking chit I might be
slightly impressed (although it would still seriously blow as a viable
navigation system).
>but your doing utter trash. like that 'php blog backend' bollocks for that
>wedding site.
Which, coincidentally, is about THOUSAND times more complex than the
site you listed, Downs. That site you listed is only using Flash of
trash animation effects, the site owner is so incredibly deficient he
doesn't even know how to use Flash for the rest of his site...LOL.
>so this took you 3 hours to do
>http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog/stories/1-10.png . i
>love it that you use terms like 'reverse engineer' when you just copy
>and edit. great stuff!
Spoken like a true idiot. If it's so easy to just "copy and
edit"...well let's see you do a rendition, Downs! Hell, let's see
ANYONE in this froup do a rendition. `, )
BTW, the original source was a FLAT jpg, so despite how you THINK
things work, it would be entirely IMPOSSIBLE to simply copy and
edit...anything. You fucking moron. Not that it comes as a surprise
that you don't comprehend any of this, I mean, you simply outright
steal other people's work and then attempt to resell it. You've
probably never even USED a graphics application. *snicker*
>>(I turn down most potential clients)
>Yeah cooourse you do
>
>I do honestly think you have something wrong with you mentally,
This coming from the "Save Terry" poster child whose devoted over 99%
of his time online to obsessing over everything me.
BTW, are you still hanging out in alt.sex.passwords begging for free
porn? LOL...
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ą x ą
Drew
>>You didn't critique the critique, you critiqued the critequer.
>
>
> Oh...you mean...like THIS:
> "I continue to find these efforts weak and inefficient."
>
> You continue to find these EFFORTS...not works, EFFORTS...weak and
> inefficient. You critiqued the artist, not the art, Drew Buddy. And
> now yer all pissy and upset cause that's what you got back? Awww,
> poor wittle diddums wants to dish it out but can't own the fuck up to
> it afterwards, huh?
Hell, I ain't in the least upset. That's you with your continuous
projections.
BTW, your EFFORTS are your WORKS.
Seems you're the one getting all pissy and upset. Just look at your
whinnying trail in this thread.
D
Connie Pierce
Hatter <use...@backwater-productions.net> wrote:
> Are you speaking of the navigation at the top or the calendar part?
> If teh later it's because of how I have it setup at the moment (with
> OnEnterFrame functions), so it's like constantly checking/refreshing
> itself. I need to alter it though so it's not doing that all the
> time. There's several other minor bug fixes that need to be
> made...like when you first go to the site, you can see the background
> screen flash for a second before the loader starts goin. Also if you
> click on one of the other subsections and then click on a date on the
> calendar with a blog entry, it stays in the current subsection, rather
> than tracking back to the weblog page. I'll get all this stuff fixed
> in the next few days or so. At this point it's still very much a
> prototype...a working one, but it can certainly be refined.
No, it's the actual nav part. I'll hover over the nav button (right
before clicking) and the cursor (and yes, I'm holding it still. LOL)
will flicker. Not like it will go back to being an arrow, but it
disappears entirely and then reappears. All very quickly.
If it means anything (not asking for a flame, here) . . . I'm using
Safari 2.0.3 (yeah, I know, you could care less about Macs) and the
latest vers of IE for Mac (checked it there, too).
I didn't notice any other bugs, though . . .
--
C Pierce
Creative Veritas
principal/designer
http://www.creativeveritas.com
*(Coming 2-1-2006)*
850 532 0835