View Full Version : Some Abstract Eye-Candy
Mobius
19th January 2005, 05:37 PM
I found this
http://www.pressdesign.sk/?press=3
reminds me of a song:
John was a scientist - he was hooked on LSD...
infoxicated
19th January 2005, 05:48 PM
That falls nicely into the "give 100 monkeys 1000 photoshop filters and some time and you have a design agency" category.
Like http://2advanced.com , for example.
eLhabib
19th January 2005, 07:10 PM
this is just utter crap. some people oughtta realize, that having graphic design software on your computer doesn't make you a graphics designer...
Hellfire_WZ
19th January 2005, 07:15 PM
27 pics of exactly the same thing... Is this art? 'Spose they'd make nice desktop backgrounds.
Mobius
19th January 2005, 08:08 PM
oh ok - one to it's own...
DuraFlex
19th January 2005, 08:22 PM
I like http://www.depthcore.com/ more, they have got some nice art.
infoxicated
20th January 2005, 10:00 AM
I like http://www.depthcore.com/ more, they have got some nice art.
Holey crap - a site with a non-skippable intro... Great Scott Marty - we're back in the year 1999! 8O :D
DuraFlex
20th January 2005, 10:42 AM
Just click it :P the whole intro appears to be the skip button! The technology of the future? :lol: I dont even think its an intro, just an animation wich is looped.
Aside from that, I think the abstract art is great
Hybrid Divide
20th January 2005, 11:23 AM
Like http://2advanced.com , for example.
*sighs*
My art school praised that site to no end...
I couldn't stand it myself...
G'Kyl
20th January 2005, 11:24 AM
That falls nicely into the "give 100 monkeys 1000 photoshop filters and some time and you have a design agency" category.
Like http://2advanced.com , for example.
OK, so I don't know a thing about (web) design ;), but what is it you don't like about 2advanced? I always thought they've had some pretty things on their site(s).
As for nice images in general, I prefer browsing through the catagories at www.deviantart.com. There's some cool, sometimes non-standard, stuff. Got all my latest desktops from there. :)
Ben
infoxicated
20th January 2005, 12:27 PM
I don't dislike 2Advanced - they're in my "Cool Sites" folder along with the link Mobius gave us above. It's just that I find the whole "photoshop filtered layers on top of countless other photoshop layers, with teeny weeny winy text and random vector lines" stuff is so 2001 that I got sick of it all long ago. I was mostly referring to 2Advanced's wallpapers, which are a similar kind of wheeze.
It's like all those DR rip off's you see out there - and dog knows I'm no big fan of DR - they're all so tedious and obvious that I wonder why they even bother - it's not like they're doing something unique now. Cool - so they know how to use photoshop filters to good effect... but so do half a million other people out there because **** like that is everywhere, and it has been for years now.
G'Kyl
20th January 2005, 01:21 PM
Guess you're right, it's all been standard procedure for years. So which sites do you think differ (apart from your's... ;) )? I can't remember having seen anything _really_ deviant (yep, that's a deliberate allusion) in years.
infoxicated
20th January 2005, 02:42 PM
I wouldn't even think of mentioning my own site in the same breath as a site designed for designers. For one I'm not exactly the worlds best designer, and secondly I don't design for designers - I design for standards compliance and usability - with the emphasis falling on the latter.
So, although I think those sites already mentioned are full of nice looking stuff, to my mind it's not the hallmark of great design.
G'Kyl
20th January 2005, 02:46 PM
I wouldn't even think of mentioning my own site in the same breath as a site designed for designers.
I know. :) I too prefer sites that are focused on usability. In fact, I still have to see a flash-page that equals a well-done html-site in terms of accesability.
Lance
20th January 2005, 03:51 PM
.
i think that both flash and javascript should be 'legally' restricted to those people who have already proven that a: they can think, and b: that they have some content worthy of access. i have never seen a site that makes heavy use of either coding option that was worth a damn. they are almost invariably far larger in code and far less in content than plain html sites.
.
gbit
23rd January 2005, 06:26 PM
All the 'art' is almost exactly the same and bland, with a look that is circa 2001.
BUT!!!!
Check out this guy's deviantart page. Some of his newer works are pretty good.
Mobius
23rd January 2005, 08:19 PM
thats funny
since i started the thread the website has had a makeover :)
Lance
23rd January 2005, 09:10 PM
.
yep. and it's good that he's using flash bypasses that actually bypass! :) sweet.
.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.