I'm gonna choose the top one because... 1. The bottom one's right side is much lighter than the rest of the sig which makes it feel out of place 2. The text on the bottom was isn't very good. Also the lighting on the top one behind his head is nice.
I'd have to say the one on the top looks better. I would have to agree with Shatakai with the balance of colors is better on the top because of the white displacement on the bottom picture. But, other than that they both look really good.
They're both pretty mediocre signatures, but I chose the second. 1. Much better flow. The top signature is much too chaotic, and has no real focal point, while the second has an obvious flow, passable lighting, and actually looks decent overall. Too bad it's still really messy and gross looking. D: 2. Err, I think I summed it up. If my first one was the flow of the signature, my second choice would be the presence of a focal point on the second signature. My eyes look right where the sig maker wanted me to, and that's good. On the first sig my eyes are just like "What the hell? This is all messy." Also, avoid the text until you can do it right. Both pieces suffer from mediocre text.
Number 1's pros and cons: pros: the lighting seems to be pretty well laid out the text's position is well placed and easily noticed cons: text hard to read when it reaches further on just a bit too much lighting above the person's head IMO, the background could've been a bit less blurry Number 2's pros and cons: pros: a somewhat nice transition of dark (left side) to light (right side) clear render on the right side but that's when compared to the left side cons: the left side is over smudged the render on the left side is blurry and seems to be flattened out a bit the text killzone is hard to notice; blends in with background; along with a bunch of weird random red lines below it. I choose the first sig.
Those "weird random lines" provide a direction for the sig to move in. It adds flow, basically. First sig was way too clashy and chaotic.
Top. Lighting is well done, flow is good. It looks sick nasty with the three-eyed sniper, text is amazingly placed and makes the sig pretty much.
Are you kidding, the text is almost entirely illegible... I think you using its text as a strong selling point is kind of stupid, 'cause, you know, you can't hardly read it... white text on a light background... yeah, there's good design for ya.
Number 1's text is actually pretty bad. I can make out the "HELG" and maybe the "T," but certainly not the "AS" unless my nose is touching my monitor. Plus, I thought the text said "HELCHAST" until I checked the filename. Not very good text.
Top one, better lighting, text, and compo. Clearer focal too. The bottom just looks like he ended up with too much neg space so he smudged the hell out of it.
Bottom sig. Superior concept, depth and composition. The lighting and colour in the first are bad and the effects are really messy. Text is poor in both. I dont know what is happening in this thread... either a shitload of bandwagonning or people are just voting for the most conventional looking...
The first sig. I love the lighting and colors. The second one was sorta choppy and the text wasn't as good. Thats why I vote for the first sig.
KK Voting thread is over. First signature wins. I made the first. Pigglez made the second. Thanks for all the replies. As for the text in my sig, my laptop screen is set to be pretty dark so i can conserve the battery life, thats why i was able to see the text so clearly, and you people with brighter screen could barley see it. Thanks again...