I have to agree with QKT here, you really didn't do much to this, so basically anything I say is basically just critique on the original image... I suppose the text is alright in the second one, though I have absolutely no clue what those numbers mean...
Ok, ok, I get it... I couldve played around with the image some more, but I didnt want to muddy up the artwork with un-neccessary effects. The only thing I found neccessary, besides splitting the image up to fit in a 350x140 size, was a lens flare to add depth to a otherwise flat image, and in the case of the first sig, to give a unified focal to a split-focal image. I guess Im just a fan of a more minimilistic approach. Oh well...
It's not so much that we don't like it as that there really is not anything to comment upon. Normally I would give off the standard list of flow, depth, blending, effects, text, focal and other comments, but really, if I tried those for this sig all I would be commenting on would be the original; you didnt change the flow, effects, blending or focal, I commented on text, and in terms of depth, sure the lens flare changed it a bit, but not that much.
Yeah, now that I look at it, the flare seems a bit too bright to distinguish depth. Thanks And Im not mad or anything. Its just after about three replys saying basically the exact same thing, I felt I should comment to awknowledge the issue and elaborate a bit.