Light BULBS Text Effect Updated again

Rellik419 · **Joined:** Aug 11, 2013 **Posts:** 123 **Location:** Ohio

Once again Conbagui. Super Effect! :yes

Mokonafan · **Posted:** Wed Oct 23, 2013 6:25 pm **(#2)**

Quite nice! I think unless the light bulbs are turned off they could use a bit more brightness/glow.

Good work!

Mokonafan · **Posted:** Wed Oct 23, 2013 6:52 pm **(#3)**

Oooo much better!

mackenzieh · **Posted:** Wed Oct 23, 2013 8:44 pm **(#4)**

Nice work! I like it.

PhotoComix · **Joined:** Apr 12, 2010 **Posts:** 5870

What a cool effect, very well done too !

tonysteele · **Posted:** Thu Oct 24, 2013 10:10 pm **(#6)**

As always nice effect.

ek22 · **Posted:** Thu Oct 24, 2013 10:16 pm **(#7)**

Lookin' good conbagui. Are you planning on redoing the PS tut for gimp?

Rellik419 · **Joined:** Aug 11, 2013 **Posts:** 123 **Location:** Ohio

conbagui wrote:

Thank you my friends I'm trying to create a Tut for this and classify it as Advance Tut. But it will take a lot of steps, are you ready for it?

I'll definitely give it a shot. :bigthup

ek22 · **Posted:** Fri Oct 25, 2013 5:41 pm **(#9)**

I'm not worried about long ones.

K1TesseraEna · **Joined:** Sep 22, 2012 **Posts:** 2089 **Location:** US

Nice job, conbagui!
You said in OP: 'No matter how hard and complicated a PS tutorials are, you can do it with Gimp too.'
If this is the PS tutorial
you're referring to, then the effect is somewhat different.

But your effect is equally nice and the tutorial would be greatly appreciated.

Couple of questions, though.
I don't know if it was done intentionally or not, but...

1. This outer bevel looks like a gradient banding, which is considered an artifact that digital artists try to avoid.
Was it meant to look like an outer glow or something?
2. IMO, this hard chisel effect (from inner bevel, I suppose) is a bit too strong to hint at a light bulb.
Looks rather metallic. Would you consider changing or even eliminating that?
3. This is another artifact that I think wasn't intentional. Jagged edges and stray pixels are apparent at full size image view.

I'm not sure what is meant by the 'Advanced Tut'. The length?
By the higher standards (I'm referring to websites like Abduzeedo, PSD Tuts+, etc.) it
usually means a perfectly flawless final image too. To be totally honest with you, I'd
recommend to get rid of these artifacts (whether they were intentional or not) before
you proceed with your tutorial.

ek22 · **Posted:** Sat Oct 26, 2013 12:36 am **(#11)**

Esper covered some techniques on getting rid of those jagged things you addressed there Kite. It can be softened with a tiny blur and curves tool at the very least. I often skip that while I'm messing with text effects until it's crunch time and I'm doing work for money. Then I go flawless. At least I try to. Perhaps conbagui will take this into account for his tutorial.

AnMal · **Posted:** Sat Oct 26, 2013 5:04 am **(#12)**

conbagui: i think you do a great job on your tutorials, and having them here on gc is great - any time i feel like trying one i just go look it up and i never really have problems with the effects in your tuts whether they are advanced or not

.

k1tesseraena: hmm... i think whenever i get across a tutorial that says "advanced", no matter what field it is in, i interpret it as "for advanced practicers of this technique", not "giving a perfectly flawless result". i've followed advanced make up tutorials, advanced handbag making tutorials and even advanced beading tutorials and they were all directed at people with lots of experience in these fields, but none of them made the claim that the result would be flawless. if the tutorials you talk of include that in their definition of "advanced tutorial" or not is another matter, but it's not what's generally meant by the expression and conbagui only uses it here (i think) to show it's a bit too complicated for beginners.

K1TesseraEna · **Joined:** Sep 22, 2012 **Posts:** 2089 **Location:** US

AnMal wrote:

k1tesseraena: hmm... i think whenever i get across a tutorial that says "advanced", no matter what field it is in, i interpret it as "for advanced practicers of this technique", not "giving a perfectly flawless result". i've followed advanced make up tutorials, advanced handbag making tutorials and even advanced beading tutorials and they were all directed at people with lots of experience in these fields, but none of them made the claim that the result would be flawless. if the tutorials you talk of include that in their definition of "advanced tutorial" or not is another matter, but it's not what's generally meant by the expression and conbagui only uses it here (i think) to show it's a bit too complicated for beginners.

I only voiced my opinion knowing what conbagui is capable of. Most of his works are quite impressive.
Talking here about the quality of his work we are all used to.
I think ek22 is right - this is just the preview to the tutorial which doesn't have to be polished yet.

Agree with you, AnMal, but just to a certain degree. I was talking about text effect tutorials specifically.
"Advanced practices of this technique"... OK. But what are the 'advanced techniques' for? I always thought the only reason
behind them was to improve the image quality, not the other way around. Maybe it's just me but when I see the word
'advanced' I expect a perfect result too, nothing less.

About 'perfectly flawless result'. Today, anyone can submit his/her tutorial/artwork to the websites like CG Tut+, Abduzeedo, TUTs, etc.
I see it as a real test based on honest, unbiased opinion about your work. The website inspector will always qualify or disqualify your
artwork/tutorial for publishing based on the final result quality and originality.
Another criterion would be the consistency of a workflow, as to avoid unnecessary/redundant or over-complicated steps, etc.
But at the end of the day, what they want is the 'perfect pixels' regardless of overall complexity.

ek22 · **Posted:** Sat Oct 26, 2013 5:53 pm **(#14)**

Edited for posterity and because I hate to waste a post. Have a kitten.