which one?

fourn44 · Post by **fourn44** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:46 pm

which should i use as my sig?

or

if the second one, im going to add text

Dr.Cox · Post by **Dr.Cox** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 1:01 pm

to be honest the both really not that great.... so neither

RaVNzCRoFT · Post by **RaVNzCRoFT** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 1:25 pm

Second because the brushing is better. But to recolor it, give it a gradient instead of a color balance. The color change right now is too harsh.

Ombre · Post by **Ombre** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 1:33 pm

Use the second one, but cropt it so its 350x120 its to long right now, I dont think any sigs need to be 500 pixels wide, after 400 it usually looks horrible.

BEEF!!! · Post by **BEEF!!!** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 1:55 pm

Niether. They both exceed 75 KB

RaVNzCRoFT · Post by **RaVNzCRoFT** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:09 pm

Ouch, Beef, that hurt.

Yeah fourn, if you're going to use them here, compress them.

maca_§ · Post by **maca_§** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 7:18 pm

Compress/use the second.

Patrickssj6 · Post by **Patrickssj6** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 7:33 pm

Go to vivd=no compress no resize.Yeah take the lower one but use Gradient

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 7:44 pm

the detail's great but the colors look like Peanut Butter & Jellydropped in Dirt.

BFIGHTER · Post by **BFIGHTER** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 10:13 am

Kinda seems like too much is going on.