It's a rip.

The brushwork and effects are identical. The single pixal black stoke and source image are identical.

I read the tut, it begins with the brushwork, and even if you really tried to match what the tut writter had done I doubt you could get the brush work identical to the pixal man.

But if you still maintain your inocence then it should be easy for you to:

Simply re-do the sig, you don't have to match the brushwork, but use the same set, except this time put the source image on the left side of the sig instead of the right.

Do that and you will prove yourself truthful.

Nice catch Apoc.

thats lower than low.

Ugh. ban:

He did it on another one of his sigs in another thread.

its a pos sig that he will use for a week who the fuck cares its not like hes going to be selling the rip as a graphic to make money off of, get a life who gives 2 shits sleeping:

what's the point of using a tut with the same exact picture?

we all know its a rip, and no offense but some of "your" sigs make me wonder how they can look so good except the text can look so out of place, i just wanted to ask that. and dont try to deny the rip anymore, we have proof its exact same. now keep working on your own sigs so you can learn and get better instead of taking other peoples hard work and slapping your name on it. annoy:

Who gives a shit.It isnt like we will be seeing the sig at all or anything..Hes gonna be gone in 1 week like half the other noobs oOo:

Very simple. Take one pic, put it on top of the other and set to difference. What do you get? This:

[img]http://www.reichnation.com/upload/store/ripdif.jpg[/img]

The only difference is the text and a bit of .jpg compression artificating on the right. Photoshop doesn't lie.

Edit:: Hello magum

use

ugh..

busted hake:

nag: