this thread is usually dead so i think youre good to talk pretty much anything...
but geeeez guY. thanks for the diagrams, glad to see you had art class too
all i read was "you didnt say respective lighting instead of relative." and a little bit of blood shot out my ear.
"Lighting really has almost nothing to do with the appearance of the image, but rather the content WITHIN the image." Whaaaaaa?
idk bra maybe you shouldnt try to apply your photography lessons from elementary school to sigs?
I was wrong when i first used the 'lighting' term, true..... what i meant was the brightness-contrast. But if you REALLY wanna get technical with me, lighting is also used to refer to how much reflective light shines onto the image. And with signatures its especially hard to actually fuck up the lighting you were so kind to draw us a picture of. Since its such a small workspace you can basically ignore that detail and worry about more important things such as contours and value. But yeaaaah looking at the sig I still say the lightings screwy, in every sense of the word. So screwed that you couldnt fix it with a quick opacity change.
Sorry lucifus, didnt wanna crush your hopes and dreams but he made me do it.