How do you know that it's copyright infringement? Just because they are the same birds doesn't mean that she's done anything wrong. The source of the birds used by both Tracy and the Wall Decal maker could be Commercial Use in which case neither one of them has done anything wrong, if you have information to the contrary then by all means post the proof and I'm sure you will get the reaction you are looking for.
#197 WOW!!! You're fast!! I'm impressed. Thank you for finding the vectors for me. So if I buy the vectors I can make my own stickers?
#195 You may not like them buT I love them. You don't have to be so snarky about it.
The bird vectors have a Royalty Free Use in Design, Advertising, Web, Editorial. Edit + Modify. Single User. No need to rush to conclusions about copyright infringement.
Do you think she paid the $25 for those? Seems a high price for just a few birds. 25 credits = $25 I think on that site. ------
I have no idea if she did or did not, but I'm not going to assume that she didn't. Paying the higher price, however, would enure that not every cheap skate digi designer who doesn't want to pay real CU prices has the same CU birds.
1 credit= $1 Minimum purchase $25 The cartoon birds cost $1 Bravo to Tracy for being creative and thinking outside the box!! I loved the birds that's why I bought the kit. There was something different about it.
#195 #197 #4 Thank you so much for finding the vectors for me. Sorry about the snarky comment. It just seemed that way. I've been looking for these cartoon bird wall stickers for months. Okay, guilty. So I'm fascinated with cute stuff. Don't kill me! Maybe that's why my digi stash is full of cute kits.
Tracy *should* have bought the $25 one to use them as she is, but there's no way for us to know whether she has the proper license. Yes, I think $25 for the birds is high, that's the first 4 kits plus a little to pay for the use of the birds alone, but maybe she doesn't think it is. Or maybe she bought the $1 and assumes she'll get away with it. I know I'm not going to waste my time emailing the original creator to make sure that she bought the proper license. If someone else wants to, more power to them.
#8 OMG you're killing me today!! Thank you, thank you, thank you!! And I just found a site that turns vectors into wall decals for you so I'm good to go!! Doing the happy dance!
No one said it was ok, we said we have no way to know. I'm not a fan of her style, but if she expects to make a couple hundred dollars on that kit, $25 isn't that unrealistic.
It's nice to see some new products from SO this week. Too bad that free with purchase kit is a tired theme and not even worth free. The birthday "bash" is 4 events and 2 crops. Guess that FWP kit isn't the only thing tired at SO...
^^^^^^ Agree about the new products except that I have absolutely no use for Mormon-themed kits and I don't like Bella Gypsy's products. The collab between Kristin Aagard and Little Green Frog was nice though.
so disappointed with SO's birthday party. The FWP kit should've been a blog hop. Those add ons aren't even worth staying up all night to collect. And why is the mega an Easter kit?
The add-ons are lame, the lack of events is lame, it's all lame. I agree it's not even worth staying up for.
I didn't even see that the mega is an Easter kit. Just what everyone needs - another themed Easter kit! Original. I can get that along with the hideous, highly original picnic kit.
#20, I'm not the OP, but I agree that maybe a non-Easter-themed kit would be nice. Not everyone celebrates Easter. (Personally, I'd love a good Pesach kit.) BUT, I guess that's the risk every store/designer takes when they make a kit that's in any way themed, especially with a religious theme.
21 - the add-ons are in the birthday party agenda thread in the forum. You get them if you attend the whopping 4 events. I'm sure they'll be for sale after the party, though.
I have no use for the mormon themed kit either. Maybe I haven't noticed before with her work but that particular kit looks very newbie-ish. I was very disappointed.
I like Chelle's new kit and plan on getting it. The "Eternal" portion has a nice soft palette and I think is cuter than a lot of wedding/baptism kits out there.
---------------- Yes, but that was for permanent designers, wasn't it? I think it's a good idea for a store to have guests. As a customer, I like the variety a guest can bring to the stores where I shop.
will all the SO groupies piss off, please..... go pimp your stuff in your own forum.
------
You again? Why don't you fuck off and do us all a favor. No one is pimping or being a groupie. FFS, if you are going to bitch, at least do it right.
---
I agree. There's nothing anywhere that could possibly be construed as pimping SO product, etc. Had a stiffy for SO long? Geez, get a grip and get over it!
26 That Eternal part looks like an old kit that she had - Blessings. I think she re-packaged and gave it a new name. People might get pissed if they realize they have this and bought it again.
#35, I thought that too, but she mentions in the description that parts of it are from Blessings. I hate when designers rerelease old stuff as new.
It is getting really annoying, whoever you are, that keeps praising SO. "oh the picnic kit is so cute, I'm spending $10 to get it!" "oh, I'm not mormon but Chelle's kit is perfect!" Gag. It's a smack blog, I'm sure lots of people will like the picnic kit, but that's not what we're here for. I bet you just love ScrapPin too.
37 - I LOOOOOOVE ScrapPin - doesn't everyone? It's the best thing since sliced bread. And I would spend TWENTY dollars to get that craptastic picnic kit!
37-I'm not one of the SO lovers, but actually, some of us do post some good news here at times. That is ok. You post what you want to post and let others post what they want to post--although I have to agree, that the SO lovers are a little overboard. Somebody usually posts critiques on the digi files which aren't all bad all the time.
Regarding Chelle's re-releasing a kit under a different name: I sense burnout. She says "several items were previously released as Blessings" when in actuality, it's the whole damn kit minus a feather that appears in Blessings by not in Eternal. Eternal does have a few more things (like the temple) but that's about it.
I agree. There's nothing anywhere that could possibly be construed as pimping SO product, etc. Had a stiffy for SO long? Geez, get a grip and get over it! ----
Um, no. I don't even like SO. Geez, why don't you stop with the inappropriate sexual innuendos?
There's nothing wrong with introducing old kits. I use to update kits all the time because there are always a lot of new scrappers looking for certain things. If a customer already bought the kit, they could send me their receipt and I'd give them the new kit for free. Old kits are new to new designers and sometimes mine sold better second cycle then my original so quit thinking there is anything wrong with it. There absolutely isn't.
The photos are awful and overprocessed and the entire page together looks like a plate of table scraps all combined together ready for the garbage can.
Designers - please tell me what you see in this scrapper!
53 - I am not fond of that style, but I am sure some are. The photos might not look the best, but I have photos at home that were taken with a limited camera, photos printed then scanned. Overprocessing might be the only processing to make them somewhat presentable (even if not up to digital quality as of late).
I am not crazy about Art Journaling style either, or minimalist style, but some are.
I had a call once, and I had a hard time finding one applicant that I liked the style while several were already on other teams so, to each their own taste and preference.
Maybe your photo processing isn't as amazing as you seem to think it is? I think everyone believes their pages are much better than they really are. However, your comments on photos lead me to think you're someone who's wasted a lot of money on a camera or actions, but still aren't getting CTs. If you aren't making CTs, picking at other peoples pages aren't going to make yours better. Sometimes I get picked for teams and sometimes I don't. I always think my pages were better than those who got picked. Obviously they weren't.
Maybe your photo processing isn't as amazing as you seem to think it is? I think everyone believes their pages are much better than they really are. However, your comments on photos lead me to think you're someone who's wasted a lot of money on a camera or actions, but still aren't getting CTs. If you aren't making CTs, picking at other peoples pages aren't going to make yours better. Sometimes I get picked for teams and sometimes I don't. I always think my pages were better than those who got picked. Obviously they weren't.
__
^^Award for the most self-serving, stupid post of the month^^ Congrats! You had some "stiff" competition but won hands down. Talk about reading a whole bunch of C.R.A.P. into a post that was..TRUE! The layout looks like shit.
I am not crazy about Art Journaling style either, or minimalist style, but some are.
__
I like lots of art journaling AND minimalist style, however, the layout in question STILL sucks. It looks absolutely awful. It has nothing whatsoever to do with style; it's very poorly done. The photos, element placement and papers ALL suck.
I don't like it, but I think she must of used everything in the kit. Maybe that's the appeal. Looks like she combined two layout templates together. I don't think I like the kit though, and I don't think it's her layout. I don't know though.
53 Carrie used to be a store CT when I was a designer and she always had wonderful pages then. I think the background paper just didn't work. Everyone has a bad page sometimes, but, overall, I think she is quite good. Here is one of hers I just love http://www.sweetshoppecommunity.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=272881&title=a-good-friend&cat=500
I've seen plenty of CT layouts that left me wondering how they got on the team, but I'm not sure that's one of them. I wouldn't add it to my favorites or anything, but it isn't all as bad as to create this big scene about it.
Layouts like this are a pet peeve of mine: http://www.sweetshoppecommunity.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=276444&title=fresh&cat=654
The two rolled paper roses tucked under the photo strip just drive me up a wall! It's so unrealistic. Those paper roses would be at least 1/2 inch high, so they would lift the photo strip off the page, but it's shadowed to make it look flat against the page. Why do people not make the shadows of "bulky" elements realistic? If it would cast a deep shadow on a paper page, it should cast a deep shadow on a digi page.
Interestingly, this uses the same kit as the LO mentioned in #53. There were some bulky flowers tucked under photos in that one too. But they were lost in the very busy background paper so not as obvious.
74- those are also pet peeves of mine, however, I was shocked, last night, to see something like that in traditional scrapbooking. Check this layout: http://www.scrapjazz.com/gallery/image/layout/584531.html I never imagined it could be done in real, 3D scrapping (it still looks odd to me though). I still try to avoid that.
74 and 75, if those are your examples of bad layouts, I think you're both just haters. I realize they may not be your style, but I think both of those are beautiful, and I could easily find 100s of layouts that are way worse.
74- that is one of my biggest pet peeves in digi scrapping that along with those huge over done shadows that make the page look like everything is floating around. I love a well shadowed page and appreciate different styles I just don't get overblown shadowing it looks like a beginner did it to me and I am shocked that some of the scrappers that I see using them are on TONS of teams I just don't get it...........
76- I am 75, and I don't hate the pages, it just annoys me when I see, for example, a photo, apparently glued to a page, with a 1 inch flower underneath. It seems so unrealistic, but at the same time, I was shocked to see that one traditional layout used a thick flower and put a flower right on top of it. It does not look realistic. I am not saying it is a bad layout at all, just an annoying detail. I might like litterature and still get annoyed at spelling errors!
76 - I am 74. Where in my post does it say I think the layout is bad? I actually like the composition. But the fact that a photo strip on top of what are clearly very thick flowers is shadowed to look like it's flat against the page causes a visual disconnect for me. It's a pet peeve. It bothers me, and I'm not going to apologize for it. I like realistic shadowing. I don't like it overdone, as 77 mentions, and I don't like it underdone. If shadowing isn't something that you notice or care about, good for you. I'm sure I could call you a hater for pointing out something that bothers you that really doesn't affect me much one way or the other.
I think it's funny that I hear about wrong shadows on digital layouts but when I look at real layouts, often their shadows look 'wrong', but how can that be when they are real shadows?
53 Carrie used to be a store CT when I was a designer and she always had wonderful pages then. --- Actually, I agree with you that she's one of the better ones. However, her page from the Jenn Barrett Farm Kit (which is not one of Jenn's best by any stretch) is a HUGE FAIL! It's truly bad in almost every respect.
78 said "76- I am 75, and I don't hate the pages, it just annoys me when I see, for example, a photo, apparently glued to a page, with a 1 inch flower underneath. It seems so unrealistic" --- I agree that sometimes shadowing looks "wrong," but why do you assume that a photo is "apparently glued to a page" in digital scrapping? One of the reasons I do DS instead of traditional is because I can do nontraditional stuff on my page--like put a big, fat, bulky flower UNDER my pic--and it doesn't matter because (...wait for it...) there isn't any glue or staples or tape or whatever to worry about and I can shadow my page however I want. I use a tight shadow where the pic is over the flower and a loose shadow where the pic is over the bg ppr. So yes, I still shadow "realistically" even if the placement is unrealistic; but I don't worry like you. If I like it and it looks good, then who the fuck cares? You said yourself that you like the page, so what does it matter? It's DIGITAL scrap booking. Free your mind, dude.
SO has done the Mega FB hop for the past 3 months maybe longer I wasn't paying attention before that... I doubt it was in response to any comments here that they did it again this month.
Some people take nasty bitchy comments to a whole new level. ----- There should be a comma between nasty and bitchy. Also, "a whole new level" is way overused. Why not try something original if you're going to bitch about bitchy comments?
^^^^ way to make 4 nasty comments over the space of almost asanh minutes. We never would have guessed that you had so many nasty and nonsensical things to say on the topic. Well done, trolly wench!
90 ... regarding SO blog train. They've done a little mini word art or graffiti blog train on FB for at least the last couple megas they've released. It's nothing huge. Just a couple extra freebies that coordinate with that month's Mega. There will probably be a paper stack or two in the next newsletter. So, I don't think there was anything going on with the FB thing in regards to anything being said here. It's the same thing they've been doing.
Who cares how someone does their shadows, as long as you are happy with the way you do yours?
---> I care because those same people are usually the ones who make freebies, clusters and quick pages. LOL! However, unlike the previous poster to whom you were replying, I like my shadows lighter (much lighter) and farther away than what I usually see. The pages shadowed like this print out so nicely.
Why do people not make the shadows of "bulky" elements realistic? If it would cast a deep shadow on a paper page, it should cast a deep shadow on a digi page.
^^^ This bugs me too - a lot. And even more so when designers do it on their previews.
Why do people not make the shadows of "bulky" elements realistic? If it would cast a deep shadow on a paper page, it should cast a deep shadow on a digi page.
-----
Because it's digi and their choice. Not everyone want to make their pages 'realistic'.
This was not a one-time mistake for the Find It Friday. It's been that combo (regretfully) for some time. http://scraporchard.com/blog/category/find-it-friday/
Kinda like if you're on your way out, and you don't have a full length mirror - girl - you gots to ask somebody before you wander out looking like that! EEK!
I'm shopping there tonight. I don't think that makes me mediocre, but I agree that if I see another one of Miss Tiina's owls in my kits I'm going to jump off a rock.
722 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 722 of 722 Newer› Newest»I find it amusing the birds come up after all this talk about copying and yet, no one says a thing about Tracy.
Copyright infringement only apply to shit no-name designers who sell at shit shops?
#196 - geez, give it time, it was only posted a few minutes ago. Besides, how do you know she didn't buy the birds from the original source
http://www.vectorstock.com/royalty-free-vector/cartoon-bird-set-vector-253627
Which allows for the use of sale in digital kits.
Copyright infringement only apply to shit no-name designers who sell at shit shops?
---
Fer sure, that's why the the whole Project Mouse subject come up, shitty no name designers in shitty shops. Think before you write!
How do you know that it's copyright infringement? Just because they are the same birds doesn't mean that she's done anything wrong. The source of the birds used by both Tracy and the Wall Decal maker could be Commercial Use in which case neither one of them has done anything wrong, if you have information to the contrary then by all means post the proof and I'm sure you will get the reaction you are looking for.
197 - Do you think she paid the $25 for those? Seems a high price for just a few birds. 25 credits = $25 I think on that site.
#197 WOW!!! You're fast!! I'm impressed.
Thank you for finding the vectors for me. So if I buy the vectors I can make my own stickers?
#195 You may not like them buT I love them. You don't have to be so snarky about it.
The bird vectors have a Royalty Free Use in Design, Advertising, Web, Editorial. Edit + Modify. Single User. No need to rush to conclusions about copyright infringement.
Do you think she paid the $25 for those? Seems a high price for just a few birds. 25 credits = $25 I think on that site.
------
I have no idea if she did or did not, but I'm not going to assume that she didn't. Paying the higher price, however, would enure that not every cheap skate digi designer who doesn't want to pay real CU prices has the same CU birds.
The price for the birds is 1 credit.
How much does 1 credit cost?
#1 - I'm both #197 and #195 and I wasn't snarky, I just don't see them as being amazing, cute, yes, but amazing, no.
Yes, you can make your own stickers if you buy the vectors.
1 credit= $1
Minimum purchase $25
The cartoon birds cost $1
Bravo to Tracy for being creative and thinking outside the box!!
I loved the birds that's why I bought the kit. There was something different about it.
#195 #197 #4 Thank you so much for finding the vectors for me.
Sorry about the snarky comment. It just seemed that way.
I've been looking for these cartoon bird wall stickers for months.
Okay, guilty. So I'm fascinated with cute stuff. Don't kill me!
Maybe that's why my digi stash is full of cute kits.
Tracy *should* have bought the $25 one to use them as she is, but there's no way for us to know whether she has the proper license. Yes, I think $25 for the birds is high, that's the first 4 kits plus a little to pay for the use of the birds alone, but maybe she doesn't think it is. Or maybe she bought the $1 and assumes she'll get away with it. I know I'm not going to waste my time emailing the original creator to make sure that she bought the proper license. If someone else wants to, more power to them.
#6 - you are welcome. He, or she, has some other birds too.
http://www.vectorstock.com/royalty-free-vector/cartoon-bird-set-vector-253674
The standard license = $1
The expanded license = $25
The expanded license is necessary for use in Commercial resale items like a digi kit.
#8 OMG you're killing me today!!
Thank you, thank you, thank you!!
And I just found a site that turns vectors into wall decals for you so I'm good to go!!
Doing the happy dance!
The standard license = $1
The expanded license = $25
The expanded license is necessary for use in Commercial resale items like a digi kit.
Mar 27, 2013, 9:03:00 PM
-------
This!
I can't believe some people on here think it's OK if she only bought the $1 version. Oh, yes I can...
This!
I can't believe some people on here think it's OK if she only bought the $1 version. Oh, yes I can...
_
Who said they thought it was okay?
No one said it was ok, we said we have no way to know. I'm not a fan of her style, but if she expects to make a couple hundred dollars on that kit, $25 isn't that unrealistic.
Anyone hear back from KCB's guest CT call?
It's nice to see some new products from SO this week. Too bad that free with purchase kit is a tired theme and not even worth free. The birthday "bash" is 4 events and 2 crops. Guess that FWP kit isn't the only thing tired at SO...
^^^^^^
Agree about the new products except that I have absolutely no use for Mormon-themed kits and I don't like Bella Gypsy's products. The collab between Kristin Aagard and Little Green Frog was nice though.
so disappointed with SO's birthday party. The FWP kit should've been a blog hop. Those add ons aren't even worth staying up all night to collect. And why is the mega an Easter kit?
The add-ons are lame, the lack of events is lame, it's all lame. I agree it's not even worth staying up for.
I didn't even see that the mega is an Easter kit. Just what everyone needs - another themed Easter kit! Original. I can get that along with the hideous, highly original picnic kit.
I loved the free with purchase kit SO is giving and I plan on spending at least $10 to get it.
It's one of the best picnic kits I've seen.
#17 Maybe because Easter normally is in April.
Why is it so hard to beleive that an Easter kit would'nt be suitable in April?
#18 What add ons are lame and why can't I find them?
#20, I'm not the OP, but I agree that maybe a non-Easter-themed kit would be nice. Not everyone celebrates Easter. (Personally, I'd love a good Pesach kit.) BUT, I guess that's the risk every store/designer takes when they make a kit that's in any way themed, especially with a religious theme.
21 - the add-ons are in the birthday party agenda thread in the forum. You get them if you attend the whopping 4 events. I'm sure they'll be for sale after the party, though.
GP is looking for guest designers.
I have no use for the mormon themed kit either. Maybe I haven't noticed before with her work but that particular kit looks very newbie-ish. I was very disappointed.
I like Chelle's new kit and plan on getting it. The "Eternal" portion has a nice soft palette and I think is cuter than a lot of wedding/baptism kits out there.
I agree SO's bday event seems lame after the past big events for lesser celebrations. I really thought there would be a FB hop too.
Maybe it's so quiet this year because it's so close to Easter?
Didn't GP just do a designer call?
will all the SO groupies piss off, please..... go pimp your stuff in your own forum.
will all the SO groupies piss off, please..... go pimp your stuff in your own forum.
------
You again? Why don't you fuck off and do us all a favor. No one is pimping or being a groupie. FFS, if you are going to bitch, at least do it right.
Didn't GP just do a designer call?
----------------
Yes, but that was for permanent designers, wasn't it? I think it's a good idea for a store to have guests. As a customer, I like the variety a guest can bring to the stores where I shop.
Brownie Scraps is closing.
will all the SO groupies piss off, please..... go pimp your stuff in your own forum.
------
You again? Why don't you fuck off and do us all a favor. No one is pimping or being a groupie. FFS, if you are going to bitch, at least do it right.
---
I agree. There's nothing anywhere that could possibly be construed as pimping SO product, etc. Had a stiffy for SO long? Geez, get a grip and get over it!
26 That Eternal part looks like an old kit that she had - Blessings. I think she re-packaged and gave it a new name. People might get pissed if they realize they have this and bought it again.
33-That doesn't surprise me, but it's sad to see another one bite the dust.
#35, I thought that too, but she mentions in the description that parts of it are from Blessings. I hate when designers rerelease old stuff as new.
It is getting really annoying, whoever you are, that keeps praising SO. "oh the picnic kit is so cute, I'm spending $10 to get it!" "oh, I'm not mormon but Chelle's kit is perfect!" Gag. It's a smack blog, I'm sure lots of people will like the picnic kit, but that's not what we're here for. I bet you just love ScrapPin too.
^^^ this!
I call BS that those praising the SO kit arent affiliated with SO. Buzz off- we all see through you!
37 - I LOOOOOOVE ScrapPin - doesn't everyone? It's the best thing since sliced bread. And I would spend TWENTY dollars to get that craptastic picnic kit!
37-I'm not one of the SO lovers, but actually, some of us do post some good news here at times. That is ok. You post what you want to post and let others post what they want to post--although I have to agree, that the SO lovers are a little overboard. Somebody usually posts critiques on the digi files which aren't all bad all the time.
If you can't say something nasty, then don't post here!
(tongue firmly in cheek)
Regarding Chelle's re-releasing a kit under a different name: I sense burnout. She says "several items were previously released as Blessings" when in actuality, it's the whole damn kit minus a feather that appears in Blessings by not in Eternal. Eternal does have a few more things (like the temple) but that's about it.
Lazy, lazy, lazy.
Not only lazy, but extremely misleading.
I agree. There's nothing anywhere that could possibly be construed as pimping SO product, etc. Had a stiffy for SO long? Geez, get a grip and get over it!
----
Um, no. I don't even like SO. Geez, why don't you stop with the inappropriate sexual innuendos?
44 - If you consider that a sexual innuendo, you must consider dry humping actual sex.
^^^
LMFAO!!!
If you consider that a sexual innuendo, you must consider dry humping actual sex.
------
Nope, however, perhaps you need to look up the word innuendo.
#46 - small things amuse small minds.
There's nothing wrong with introducing old kits. I use to update kits all the time because there are always a lot of new scrappers looking for certain things. If a customer already bought the kit, they could send me their receipt and I'd give them the new kit for free. Old kits are new to new designers and sometimes mine sold better second cycle then my original so quit thinking there is anything wrong with it. There absolutely isn't.
I meant that new to new scrappers but then again I sold CU so it was new to new designers too.
Some people take nasty bitchy comments to a whole new level.
47 - I'm well aware of what the word innuendo means. You may want to look-up what sexual means.
I do not understand how this scrapper got a guest spot on Jenn Barrette's team, let alone how she got a spot anywhere.
http://www.sweetshoppecommunity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1104953&postcount=38
The photos are awful and overprocessed and the entire page together looks like a plate of table scraps all combined together ready for the garbage can.
Designers - please tell me what you see in this scrapper!
53 - I am not fond of that style, but I am sure some are. The photos might not look the best, but I have photos at home that were taken with a limited camera, photos printed then scanned. Overprocessing might be the only processing to make them somewhat presentable (even if not up to digital quality as of late).
I am not crazy about Art Journaling style either, or minimalist style, but some are.
I had a call once, and I had a hard time finding one applicant that I liked the style while several were already on other teams so, to each their own taste and preference.
I think that layout would look a lot better if she used a different paper than the seed packet one...a lot better!
Maybe your photo processing isn't as amazing as you seem to think it is? I think everyone believes their pages are much better than they really are. However, your comments on photos lead me to think you're someone who's wasted a lot of money on a camera or actions, but still aren't getting CTs. If you aren't making CTs, picking at other peoples pages aren't going to make yours better. Sometimes I get picked for teams and sometimes I don't. I always think my pages were better than those who got picked. Obviously they weren't.
I make teams. I just don't understand how she does.
But thanks for answering my question...
Is she retiring? All her kits are on sale for $1.
http://scrapable.co/store/La-Belle-Vie-Designs/?sort=&page=2
#58 I really hope she is and if she isn't I hope the stores she is in are giving her the boot
I think that layout would look a lot better if she used a different paper than the seed packet one...a lot better!
---------
Agreed.
47 - I'm well aware of what the word innuendo means. You may want to look-up what sexual means.
---
So are you telling me that stiffy isn't sexual? Sorry to break it to you, but it is.
Maybe your photo processing isn't as amazing as you seem to think it is? I think everyone believes their pages are much better than they really are. However, your comments on photos lead me to think you're someone who's wasted a lot of money on a camera or actions, but still aren't getting CTs. If you aren't making CTs, picking at other peoples pages aren't going to make yours better. Sometimes I get picked for teams and sometimes I don't. I always think my pages were better than those who got picked. Obviously they weren't.
__
^^Award for the most self-serving, stupid post of the month^^ Congrats! You had some "stiff" competition but won hands down. Talk about reading a whole bunch of C.R.A.P. into a post that was..TRUE! The layout looks like shit.
I am not crazy about Art Journaling style either, or minimalist style, but some are.
__
I like lots of art journaling AND minimalist style, however, the layout in question STILL sucks. It looks absolutely awful. It has nothing whatsoever to do with style; it's very poorly done. The photos, element placement and papers ALL suck.
I don't like it, but I think she must of used everything in the kit. Maybe that's the appeal. Looks like she combined two layout templates together. I don't think I like the kit though, and I don't think it's her layout. I don't know though.
C.R.A.P.
-----------
What does the acronym C.R.A.P. mean?
53, That's Carrie1977, she's on a TON of CT and a HoneyBee at SO. Agree that this is a bad page. Maybe she got picked 'cuz of her "rep"
53, That's Carrie1977, she's on a TON of CT and a HoneyBee at SO. Agree that this is a bad page. Maybe she got picked 'cuz of her "rep"
-------
She's one of those that just doesn't scrap that well. There must be appeal from other efforts like participation in forums, etc.
What does the acronym C.R.A.P. mean?
___
It's a secret.
http://www.acronymfinder.com/CRAP.html
Cheap Redundant Assorted Products
Citizens Revolt Against Poop
53 Carrie used to be a store CT when I was a designer and she always had wonderful pages then. I think the background paper just didn't work. Everyone has a bad page sometimes, but, overall, I think she is quite good.
Here is one of hers I just love
http://www.sweetshoppecommunity.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=272881&title=a-good-friend&cat=500
I've seen plenty of CT layouts that left me wondering how they got on the team, but I'm not sure that's one of them. I wouldn't add it to my favorites or anything, but it isn't all as bad as to create this big scene about it.
Layouts like this are a pet peeve of mine:
http://www.sweetshoppecommunity.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=276444&title=fresh&cat=654
The two rolled paper roses tucked under the photo strip just drive me up a wall! It's so unrealistic. Those paper roses would be at least 1/2 inch high, so they would lift the photo strip off the page, but it's shadowed to make it look flat against the page. Why do people not make the shadows of "bulky" elements realistic? If it would cast a deep shadow on a paper page, it should cast a deep shadow on a digi page.
Interestingly, this uses the same kit as the LO mentioned in #53. There were some bulky flowers tucked under photos in that one too. But they were lost in the very busy background paper so not as obvious.
74- those are also pet peeves of mine, however, I was shocked, last night, to see something like that in traditional scrapbooking. Check this layout:
http://www.scrapjazz.com/gallery/image/layout/584531.html
I never imagined it could be done in real, 3D scrapping (it still looks odd to me though). I still try to avoid that.
74 and 75, if those are your examples of bad layouts, I think you're both just haters. I realize they may not be your style, but I think both of those are beautiful, and I could easily find 100s of layouts that are way worse.
74- that is one of my biggest pet peeves in digi scrapping that along with those huge over done shadows that make the page look like everything is floating around. I love a well shadowed page and appreciate different styles I just don't get overblown shadowing it looks like a beginner did it to me and I am shocked that some of the scrappers that I see using them are on TONS of teams I just don't get it...........
76- I am 75, and I don't hate the pages, it just annoys me when I see, for example, a photo, apparently glued to a page, with a 1 inch flower underneath. It seems so unrealistic, but at the same time, I was shocked to see that one traditional layout used a thick flower and put a flower right on top of it. It does not look realistic. I am not saying it is a bad layout at all, just an annoying detail. I might like litterature and still get annoyed at spelling errors!
If the incorrect spelling of "literature" was intentional, we should be friends. If it wasnt, that's pretty damn funny. ;)
76 - I am 74. Where in my post does it say I think the layout is bad? I actually like the composition. But the fact that a photo strip on top of what are clearly very thick flowers is shadowed to look like it's flat against the page causes a visual disconnect for me. It's a pet peeve. It bothers me, and I'm not going to apologize for it. I like realistic shadowing. I don't like it overdone, as 77 mentions, and I don't like it underdone. If shadowing isn't something that you notice or care about, good for you. I'm sure I could call you a hater for pointing out something that bothers you that really doesn't affect me much one way or the other.
So, Miss Realistic Shadow person, what do you have to say about the real layout where the shadows look wrong?
Hmm?
It just shocked me!
I think it's funny that I hear about wrong shadows on digital layouts but when I look at real layouts, often their shadows look 'wrong', but how can that be when they are real shadows?
83 - I think they look "wrong" when the lighting is bad in the photo. Just because it's real, doesn't mean it's done well.
Who cares how someone does their shadows, as long as you are happy with the way you do yours.
Who cares how someone does their shadows, as long as you are happy with the way you do yours.
___
Why do you care what anyone else says as long as you're happy with you? Shut UP! This is a smack blog.
53 Carrie used to be a store CT when I was a designer and she always had wonderful pages then.
---
Actually, I agree with you that she's one of the better ones. However, her page from the Jenn Barrett Farm Kit (which is not one of Jenn's best by any stretch) is a HUGE FAIL! It's truly bad in almost every respect.
78 said "76- I am 75, and I don't hate the pages, it just annoys me when I see, for example, a photo, apparently glued to a page, with a 1 inch flower underneath. It seems so unrealistic"
---
I agree that sometimes shadowing looks "wrong," but why do you assume that a photo is "apparently glued to a page" in digital scrapping? One of the reasons I do DS instead of traditional is because I can do nontraditional stuff on my page--like put a big, fat, bulky flower UNDER my pic--and it doesn't matter because (...wait for it...) there isn't any glue or staples or tape or whatever to worry about and I can shadow my page however I want. I use a tight shadow where the pic is over the flower and a loose shadow where the pic is over the bg ppr. So yes, I still shadow "realistically" even if the placement is unrealistic; but I don't worry like you. If I like it and it looks good, then who the fuck cares? You said yourself that you like the page, so what does it matter?
It's DIGITAL scrap booking. Free your mind, dude.
Why do you care what anyone else says as long as you're happy with you? Shut UP! This is a smack blog.
-------------------
Don't tell me to shut up. I can express my opinion as much as anyone else here. This is a smack blog, as you so very kindly reminded me.
Wonder if the SO FB train was a last minute thing after reading the comments here about their lacking birthday bash... word art....
It's been obvious on more than one occasion that TPTB and CT at So read here, so I would assume the FB hop was from here lol
I rushed to download that word art. Not. It's another lame attempt from SO. Epic fail.
SO has done the Mega FB hop for the past 3 months maybe longer I wasn't paying attention before that... I doubt it was in response to any comments here that they did it again this month.
Some people take nasty bitchy comments to a whole new level.
----
New here?
and it looks good
___
Yeah, but, it doesn't look good, Dummy.
Don't tell me to shut up.
___
Way to stand up to the anonymous poster anonymously!!
Some people take nasty bitchy comments to a whole new level.
-----
There should be a comma between nasty and bitchy. Also, "a whole new level" is way overused. Why not try something original if you're going to bitch about bitchy comments?
Don't tell me to shut up. I can express my opinion as much as anyone else here. This is a smack blog, as you so very kindly reminded me.
--
Go whine somewhere else. Now it's your turn to write back and say you can whine anywhere you want.
^^^^ way to make 4 nasty comments over the space of almost asanh minutes. We never would have guessed that you had so many nasty and nonsensical things to say on the topic. Well done, trolly wench!
90 ... regarding SO blog train. They've done a little mini word art or graffiti blog train on FB for at least the last couple megas they've released. It's nothing huge. Just a couple extra freebies that coordinate with that month's Mega. There will probably be a paper stack or two in the next newsletter. So, I don't think there was anything going on with the FB thing in regards to anything being said here. It's the same thing they've been doing.
Who cares how someone does their shadows, as long as you are happy with the way you do yours?
---> I care because those same people are usually the ones who make freebies, clusters and quick pages. LOL! However, unlike the previous poster to whom you were replying, I like my shadows lighter (much lighter) and farther away than what I usually see. The pages shadowed like this print out so nicely.
101---> I care because those same people are usually the ones who make freebies, clusters and quick pages
That is easy to solve--I suggest you make your own then.
Happy Easter Smackers! I hope you get to enjoy some time with family and friends today. Even if you don't believe, I hope you can enjoy the day!
So who do you all think is going to open at the DSA store?
Kristin posted her guest CT spots: http://www.sweetshoppecommunity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1105610#post1105610
104 - You mean the next store that is going to fail miserably?
Kristin posted her guest CT spots
__
I'm kinda impressed with how many people she chose. She's giving quite a few a chance and I like that.
Why do people not make the shadows of "bulky" elements realistic? If it would cast a deep shadow on a paper page, it should cast a deep shadow on a digi page.
^^^
This bugs me too - a lot. And even more so when designers do it on their previews.
Why do people not make the shadows of "bulky" elements realistic? If it would cast a deep shadow on a paper page, it should cast a deep shadow on a digi page.
-----
Because it's digi and their choice. Not everyone want to make their pages 'realistic'.
Go whine somewhere else. Now it's your turn to write back and say you can whine anywhere you want.
---------------
I feels sorry for you.
Okay so I just checked out the Scrap Orchard Facebook hop(April Mega Facebook Freebie) and there are only 6 freebies.
Am I missing something?
Whoever made this and decided to use a red font on a brown background should be dismissed from any design related role they have!
http://scraporchard.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/FindItFriday_March29.jpg
112- If it's the person who made the blog post, then it's the same scrapper people were smacking above for her crap CT layout.
I agree.
This was not a one-time mistake for the Find It Friday. It's been that combo (regretfully) for some time.
http://scraporchard.com/blog/category/find-it-friday/
Kinda like if you're on your way out, and you don't have a full length mirror - girl - you gots to ask somebody before you wander out looking like that! EEK!
Sugar Hill is having their annual 75% off sale. GREAT, all the same mediocre designers will be using all the same CU for the next two months.
I'm shopping there tonight. I don't think that makes me mediocre, but I agree that if I see another one of Miss Tiina's owls in my kits I'm going to jump off a rock.
I agree that if I see another one of Miss Tiina's owls in my kits
-----
So stop putting the owls in if you don't want them in your kits :)
New comments are not allowed.