*Willie's New Sig

[Toasty]

[Eco]

2.5/5: The render you picked is very low-res and I find the background too chaotic. The text is very hard to read and badly placed. It would be better if you brought the texts together to the bottom of the sig and maybe put the logo behind them. That being said the render work is pretty decent, especially the helmet. It would have been so much better if you had a high-res render.

[Nokazoa]

UPDATE:
New Grade: 3
Awarded 150k

While I agree with the critiques given, I will adjust the grade to a 3 for the following:

Toasty made this sig while he was working as a graphics grader. During that time, the graders had decided that, per our interpretation of the rubric, for a signature to be at least a 3, some form of render editing had to take place, i.e. jersey swaps, filters, etc. Toasty, not wrongly, believed that he deserved a 3 for the doing the render work and sig. Aside from it being a low res photo, he clearly did put a lot of time into the swap itself. With the circumstances in mind and the effort put in, I will bump up your grade and award the difference. That said I believe I should expand on my thoughts on this. You can stop reading because I'm about to go common law on the graphics department.

If you do no render work/editing then your sig will be unable to rise above a 2. However, you are not guaranteed a 3 for doing render work, as all the elements must meet the standard. While the render work/editing is the gate keeper for a 3, if your sig can not be also be described with "text begins to blend and the image altogether, looks clean and crisp but lacking motion or depth to really catch the eye." then you will be given a less than 3.