huh...

[lyssie]

It's irritating, to be involved in icon contest comms. I always feel guilty if I don't vote--even if the icons on offer are some of the shittiest icons ever made. Seriously. If I can't tell what's on your icon? It's not good. It's not pretty. It's just ugly as shit. The addition of tiny tiny text? Not a good fad. Probably one of the most pretentious and obviously stupid fads ever to hit iconing.

But you've all heard me mock it before, I'm sure.

I'm a simple gal, generally. I'd rather go for an icon like this:


Than an icon like this:


Guess which won a place in a contest?

It's not the clear, easy to see icon. It's the deliberately shitty-looking one with extraneous signage and pointless little graphicy thing in one corner.

That's right, the one that was intentionally awful won an award while the one that actually took longer in artistic time 5 minutes to design, crop, sharpen, etc. didn't. Makes you wonder if people deliberately vote for the awful ones.

eta: The sad thing is, I don't have a .psd for the Stark icon. I think the text is prose from Sam/Kara fic, though.

Comments

[ilanala]

Yeah, that's why I can't do icon contests. I like icons that are simple, and I'm far more interested in creative or entertaining text than something with 50 filters and unreadably tiny text that doesn't say anything terribly exciting anyway, but it's usually the second kind that wins. I hold no illusions about my icons being the prettiest things ever, so I don't know that I'd have a chance anyway, but I'm never going to win with standards like those, and it's just not worth the effort.

[lyssie.livejournal.com]

*nods* It depends on my mood. I've created some deliberately awful icons, for the hell of it. And then I've done some very nice ones, and invariably, the ugly ones win while the nice ones are ignored.

I don't get icon contest standards. I just don't.

[redstarrobot.livejournal.com]

Are these both yours? Because I just wrote up an analysis of them, but it occurs to me that it might be funny to post it, if you were trolling the contest with the second icon. :)

[lyssie.livejournal.com]

They are, yes. *snerk* And I'd love to hear your analysis of them. (dude, if I can bitch about it, I should be able to take my lumps) and while the second was totally trolling, the first wasn't (well, insomuch as I didn't expect it to win since it was simple and clear without a ton of bells and--yes, I'll shush).

[redstarrobot.livejournal.com]

It drives me crazy that the number of obvious filters you apply to an image is a better indicator of how well people will regard it, than the actual aesthetics of the image (which are frequently benefited by the filters you can't tell are there in the final product). That's why I stopped participating in the icon communities; I couldn't even find icons to vote for, the weeks I didn't put anything in. Like people who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing, they can see the gloss but not the quality.

I'm really surprised the second one got voted higher. There are so many problems with it that I can't believe they didn't see. Constrast used poorly, color used poorly, several composition problems ranging from the placement of the head (and its cropping) to the lines created by the placement of the yellow overlay to the really unfortunate placement of the graphic (it looks like it's growing from the tip of his chin!). The text issue... okay, I'm not so keen on unreadable text, it annoys me 90% of the time (10% of the time, anything goes). But that aside, it's unbalanced as a design element compared to the rest of the composition. It's a very top-heavy icon, and the text should be balancing that instead of contributing to it. It's also a bad color for that image.

The first icon, on the other hand, while not quite the design choices I'd made, has fabulous use of color - that color's been deliberately retouched for effect, and it works; it brings out all the richness in the image. The contrast is used to fantastic effect; it enhances the composition and makes the subject stand out. The composition itself is fantastic; the design elements are balanced, the eye is drawn through it smoothly and evenly. Even something as simple as the natural tendency to follow the direction of someone else's eyes is taken into account, and balances out all the elements. The top line of text is a tad small, but shows you really can do small text and make it work. (I'd have upped the constrast behind it with a translucent layer, personally, but it works okay as is.)

It is really bad if you can make an icon deliberately bad and have it do better. But it's sort of just proof of what it looked like was going on. It's not hard to run an image through a few filters and stamp a graphic brush on it, especially if you use templates to begin with. That's not what makes it aesthetic or well-designed. It's usually the reverse. Icons are intended to be... iconic.

[timjr.livejournal.com]

I know exactly what you mean. I keep trying to tone myself down, because all the extra craziness is kinda... pointless. I'm stickin' to text, colors, and borders for the most part. Occassionally I'll go crazy with other designs, but, still.

And I know what you mean about voting, oi vey.

[lyssie.livejournal.com]

In moderation, funky colors/filters/whatever are ok. But I don't get why people think they're more work than doing a nice crop, coloring nicely, and slapping a decent border on. Not to mention finding appropriate text. If I can't read it, the text means nothing to me.

[sabaceanbabe.livejournal.com]

Huh. The first one is nice and crisp and Aeryn clean while the other is just, well, kinda muddy.

Heh. Weaker species indeed.

[lyssie.livejournal.com]

*g* I'm now regretting not saving the second as a .psd. I must have been in a hurry that day. sigh.

I think it has about three layers of Stark, plus at least two others for the filters, the border layer, the stupid sqirly thing, one small text one, and then the larger text one.... damn. This also means I have to re-crop it, if I want a non-crappy version. *sulks*

[meeshy.livejournal.com]

I agree with you - I make simple icons for icon contests, and thus am never placed. *le sigh*

[ancarett]

The problem, sometimes, with icon contests is that people react more to the character (a favourite episode, moment, image) than to the icon that results. So I think that skews the results a fair bit.

Nonetheless, I agree that the first icon is miles better than the second.

[redstarrobot.livejournal.com]

Most icon contests that I've seen choose the screencap(s) the icons are to be made from, so everyone's working from the same image(s).

[ancarett]

Many, not all -- sometimes I see themes and characters, not screencaps. That said, I'm getting sick enough of seeing, in certain icontests, the same "style" winning every week that I've even stopped voting. Can't be arsed when I know it won't make a difference. . . .

[shadowserenity.livejournal.com]

I dislike that and being given a texture to use - extremely cappy textures at that. I'm trying to do a pretty icon of this person all clean and crisp and I'm someone supposed to put a nature texture in there with a grainy filament.

*does tear hair out*

I run a comm, bsg_icontest, and I *so* try to avoid that.

[lyssie.livejournal.com]

While I totally admit to voting against shippy icons (any ship. Even ones I support), I definitely try to go for what looks the best. (unless there's only one or two chick icons, and then I get all femininazi and vote for the girls. 'specially Lizzie).

[wandersfar.livejournal.com]

"Word" on the tiny tiny text. So. Damn. Annoying. Ruins otherwise perfectly spiffy icons. After all, if you can't even read the text, what's the point?

[lyssie.livejournal.com]

To secretly put in "This icon is pretentious"! Yes. And femslash.

[shadowserenity.livejournal.com]

I'm being semi fanatical about my tiny text lately, hee, but that's only because I learnt how to make it look good, hee.

Ick, I don't like that bright white layer on the second icon, yeah. The first is pretty, though :). Do you often try the Unsharpen Mask feature? It gives it that extra clean and crisp effect.

[redstarrobot.livejournal.com]

I have a secret suspicion that people who use tiny text the most have newer, non-standard monitor resolutions, and enjoy rubbing it in the faces of those of us on the standard 1280x768. :) I know my icons looked very different when I made them on a 1400x1200 monitor. But on a standard monitor, I can't tell if that's text in your icon, or a bizarrely broken 2-pixel-tall random white line.

[shadowserenity.livejournal.com]

omg, see my overuse of hee in that post!

[jacksrubberduck.livejournal.com]

::sympathises::

I'm still obnoixiously refusing to use lots of brushes and tiny text for the most part.

Although I do admit I use tiny text sometimes but only ever as an accent.
If you can't read it on my icons it doesn't matter what it says.