Seems you can't follow the rules you've set... The image itself looks low quality. IMO, it feels too dull. And nothing about it really feels right, the arrows and circles don't fit in well, imo. It may have looked better if the eye wasn't in greyscale, that's just my thoughts. Overall, it's a nice concept but I'm not a big fan of it. Also, the top left corner of the TV, there's a blank spot. Also, if you can't take the file and expand it without losing any clarity, it's not a vector.
If you want to get technical with me, I suggest you use the proper term. However, you appear unfamiliar with me. So I'll take it easy on you. Good use of vectors, but it's not that hard in GIMP. If you would add a little in front of him, it would probably add more depth, and make the image quality a little higher.
ill assume you find the irony funny and your not trying to be, well... ya. Ill admit i laughed at that. that blank spot actually happens to be the t.v. not the image on the screen. also thx for your opinions. i have no idea wat ur talking about
The correct term is a vector can be enlarged 5x and not lose quality. However, do to colloquialism, the definition is changed that vectors are signatures that include vector brushes.
I was wondering why all these sig's labeled as vectors didn't actually feature vector art work. Heh. Anyways on topic, I like it. You might want to increase the rays of light coming from behind the tv guy, make them a little stronger. Might help with the overall depth of the piece, and give it even more of a pop art feel.
i believe he was kidding around... hey since u dont quite like this one linubidix check out the one i just poted! go KATY! lmao
Figure of speech. You know; internet, easy button, etc. But there probably will be one soon. Anyhow, I was curious because you've ignored all the valid points I've been saying, in which have explained your questioning of "vectors."