The start of a series...

[cappital92]

Well, I'll be leaving for Italy for two weeks tomorrow. So, I had a concept series I was planning to start up after I got back, but I've somehow been able to get two things done already. It's a little series for MLB teams without road scripts on their away jerseys. First teams: St.Louis and Baltimore.

[kewp80]

Ok, first what's with the B and E on BALTIMORE?

Second you gotta have the birds on the bat for the Cards, always. If it said St. Louis and had the birds on the bat, I might actually consider it.

[VitaminD]

1. Nobody appreciates cryptic thread titles.

2. If you really were the "Master of Raster", your work wouldn't be Patsox-grade sloppy in many places. See the blue circles below.

3. Gray socks beneath the stirrups? Really?

4. The radial arcing on the team name is so off I don't know where to begin.

4a. Would the O's rip off their division rivals from New York by using a Block Varsity outlined font for their city's name on their road jerseys?

5. Piping at the neck and sleeve trim ought to match. See green arrow.

6. PM Roger and ask him to explain which parts of the template should and should not be colored in. Especially when the front and back of the same jersey don't agree on the same concept. See purple arrows and question marks.

7. Is there a reason that the front number is crammed right under the "BALTIMORE" (and "ST. LOUIS" for that matter) and the rest of the torso is plain?

And I'm not even going to start on St. Louis. Master of Disaster, maybe...

[patsox]

Aside from the "Patsox grade sloppiness" I think these look pretty good. The sleevelogos are on the wrong side jerseys though I think.

[McCall]

Aside from the "Patsox grade sloppiness" I think these look pretty good. The sleevelogos are on the wrong side jerseys though I think.

You would.

[patsox]

Aside from the "Patsox grade sloppiness" I think these look pretty good. The sleevelogos are on the wrong side jerseys though I think.

You would.

Yes I WOULD, because I can look past people's MS Paint difficulties and relative sloppinesses and judge the overall idea without being an hole in the process. Nice concept capp.

[swilson160]

I'm impressed that PATSOX has come into usage as an adjective (as in "Patsox-grade sloppiness").

[chestnutz]

Yes I WOULD, because I can look past people's MS Paint difficulties and relative sloppinesses and judge the overall idea without being an hole in the process. Nice concept capp.

I actually agree. Not to sound mean as well, but you guys are just bein di.ck heads to the guy just because he doesn't have a fancy photoshop/illustrator program. You should be able to look past that and judge the idea of the design, not how well it's done. And are you really that nitpicky to go in and circle a tiny little dot saying, HAHA YOU SUCK (basically).

[McCall]

Yes I WOULD, because I can look past people's MS Paint difficulties and relative sloppinesses and judge the overall idea without being an hole in the process. Nice concept capp.

I actually agree. Not to sound mean as well, but you guys are just bein di.ck heads to the guy just because he doesn't have a fancy photoshop/illustrator program. You should be able to look past that and judge the idea of the design, not how well it's done. And are you really that nitpicky to go in and circle a tiny little dot saying, HAHA YOU SUCK (basically).

It really doesn't have anything to do with his (Patsox) use of MS Paint. A lotta guys here use it and do wonderful things with it. It's more his reluctance to take any criticism, even when it's constructive. No matter what you tell him, even if it's to improve his work, he tells you to shutup and refuses to take it. He's a whiney little attention whore who seems to think he's the shiznit of CCSLC board.

[patsox]

Yes I WOULD, because I can look past people's MS Paint difficulties and relative sloppinesses and judge the overall idea without being an hole in the process. Nice concept capp.

I actually agree. Not to sound mean as well, but you guys are just bein di.ck heads to the guy just because he doesn't have a fancy photoshop/illustrator program. You should be able to look past that and judge the idea of the design, not how well it's done. And are you really that nitpicky to go in and circle a tiny little dot saying, HAHA YOU SUCK (basically).

It really doesn't have anything to do with his (Patsox) use of MS Paint. A lotta guys here use it and do wonderful things with it. It's more his reluctance to take any criticism, even when it's constructive. No matter what you tell him, even if it's to improve his work, he tells you to shutup and refuses to take it. He's a whiney little attention whore who seems to think he's the shiznit of CCSLC board.

Who's whining now

[McCall]

Yes I WOULD, because I can look past people's MS Paint difficulties and relative sloppinesses and judge the overall idea without being an hole in the process. Nice concept capp.

I actually agree. Not to sound mean as well, but you guys are just bein di.ck heads to the guy just because he doesn't have a fancy photoshop/illustrator program. You should be able to look past that and judge the idea of the design, not how well it's done. And are you really that nitpicky to go in and circle a tiny little dot saying, HAHA YOU SUCK (basically).

It really doesn't have anything to do with his (Patsox) use of MS Paint. A lotta guys here use it and do wonderful things with it. It's more his reluctance to take any criticism, even when it's constructive. No matter what you tell him, even if it's to improve his work, he tells you to shutup and refuses to take it. He's a whiney little attention whore who seems to think he's the shiznit of CCSLC board.

Who's whining now

That's not whining. It was an explanation. Look it up in the dictionary. It's the big book with a bunch of words.

[-kj]

[Mod:] Ahem. Gentlemen, that's quite enough.

[Jezus_Ghoti]

I think you guys are being a bit rough on cappital92. The concepts might be a bit sloppy, but you can see see what he wanted to do without any difficulty. In that sense, they are much better than Patsox's stuff. With Patsox, I can never look past the sloppiness.

The main problem I see here is that the concepts just aren't really that good.

[BallWonk]

5. Piping at the neck and sleeve trim ought to match. See green arrow.

This is absolutely not a valid rule. Piping at the neck and sleeve trim ought not clash, but there's no reason a team couldn't have, say, sleeve piping but no neck piping. Which is what this concept looks to me like it's doing. The neck and sleeve need not have identical trim. Several actual MLB teams have less attractive jerseys than they might precisely because they try to hard to do the matching neck/sleeve trim thing.

Or am I wrong, and that's supposed to be black neck piping with orange sleeve trim? There is no good reason why such a contrasting-trim jersey couldn't work in principle, though if that's what's going on here I'm not sure I would like it in this instance.

But on to substantive critique. I like the cap, though it would work better at home with the bird on the road to sustain some sense of the team's nickname with the city name on the jersey. As for the city name, it's just not viable for another AL East team to use Yankees-style outlined block letters like this. Boston-style Tuscan is verboten as well. You need a more Baltimore-specific approach to the script.

Also, brownie points from me for using such a dark gray. Teams need to darken their roads in general, so kudos for incorporating a darker gray into your concept that the slightly off-white that so many teams use.

[Brass]

MS Paint difficulties

There barely is any difficulty in MS Paint....

[patsox]

I have no difficulties either. Some people do.

[Brass]

I have no difficulties either. Some people do.

Not even going to say anything....

[maz]

What a welcome back gift for capp to see this thread in the graveyard.

[Jimmy!]

Yes I WOULD, because I can look past people's MS Paint difficulties and relative sloppinesses and judge the overall idea without being an hole in the process. Nice concept capp.

I actually agree. Not to sound mean as well, but you guys are just bein di.ck heads to the guy just because he doesn't have a fancy photoshop/illustrator program. You should be able to look past that and judge the idea of the design, not how well it's done. And are you really that nitpicky to go in and circle a tiny little dot saying, HAHA YOU SUCK (basically).

If I gave that explanation to my boss, I'd be laughed out of a job. I won't speak for other designers, but for me, a concept is only as good as its execution. The concepts aren't the worst I've seen, but they could be presented better. Clean up the rough edges, and make sure your arcs and your spacing are ok. Look at anything by Bucco B, joshuamings, or gordie delini. Those guys work the digital canvas quite well.

[tBBP]

It is entirely possible to create clean-looking concepts using MS Paint (I just saw a NJ Devils concept in this forum that was created using said program...and looks damn near vector quality...although I probably couldn't make a MS Paint concept if I tried.!)

As far as all the and going on in here about cleanliness and presentation...

...It is true not everyone has the same skill set (or software, for that matter), and one's proficiency level may not be on the same par as another. Having said that, while some concepts may not be presented 100% clean or organized, most relatively are. HOWEVER, I will say this: the work we all present in here is a direct reflection of ourselves in a way. Now, having said that, I believe most of us can tell when some people are actually trying to improve and better our skills, and I also believe it can be ascertained when some people rush through an idea just to get it up without reviewing the finer details (which, let's be honest, is what can and often will make or break a concept...we're all logo/uniform nuts in here...I believe our eyes are rather well-trained to detect those types of things).

There are certain individuals, however (and I ain't naming names) who continue to get chided on a consistent basis. But I find (or at least have found) that it isn't due so much to the lack of quality presentation so much as it is continued ignoring or otherwise dismissal of criticism of the work presented. Said another way, if a patten of sloppy work and/or belligerent arrogance in defending said work develops, then that is pretty much a magnet for mockery and things of that sort.

I'll also say this: for the more seasoned vets, I believe most of you (us???) do not hop on here with an agenda to seek out all sloppy or otherwise "unprofessional" work (although I am also not naive as to think there aren't a few bad apples out the bunch). And I'll close with this: constructive criticism deals with the work, not the particular individual. I believe if it was kept to that, then maybe there'd be a lil' less quabbling going on and many fewer personal vendettas (of which, if they must be acted upon, can be taken care of via PM or outside e-mail or what have you). And to the more "sensitive" types, I'll say this: not everyone is going to agree with presented concepts, or at least not all aspects of it. But, if one truly wishes to improve and get better (which I believe is the aim of most if not all concept posters in this community--keyword UNITY), pay real close attention to the more "negative" points of the C&C and use THAT as motivation to get better...and use the "positive" points as building blocks, since you'll know what you are good at or have improved upon. It'll take time, but keep at it.

That said, I'll now get off my soapbox and back to reading and viewing. Thank you.