-

>>525

10 months 47 finished pics. That is what I consider not drawing at all. So yeah life hasn't been nice and I haven't been as serious as I want to be with it. Hence taking the drawing class and trying to practice more.

Now why I'm replying is beyond me. Perhaps I'm trying to help you understand where I'm coming from but then again maybe I'm just whining. But yes I do need practice with anatomy and no I haven't had any hard studies of it. though looking at that pic compared to others I've recently done I notice differences albeit subtle ones. such as putting the curvature on the thighs for the quadricep and such. I'm still not so great at showing load bearing but mainly what I've been doing is trying to learn to ink better. Also at showing volume with varying line thicknesses though progress has been slow in that. (having a place to draw would also help as I currently rest the pad in my lap when I do draw.)

Now I submit to you a piece I actually put everything I had into. Which I get the feeling you are going to say the same thing as always and that I've not improved what so ever. (and I'm going against my better judgement on this one) If you could please don't be too mean and harsh.

-

>get the feeling you are going to say the same thing as always and that I've not improved what so ever

U don' no me
U don' no me at all

-

I believe I alluded in your FA journal that I was officially worn out.
I concede, essentially, and am giving you advice and going the hell away afterward (this is a lie, clearly I am going to still be 'here'). You owe me a drink in two years.

>>507
The problem with the lighting is that you do not have one set light source. You need to pick one - assuming you're sticking with the basics of one at the moment - and shade according to the form of the character. When dealing with cast shadows, the part that would be, say, the feet or body onto the tail, the further away the edge of the shadow is, the more diffused - or fuzzier - it gets.

In working with shadow, I would suggest dropping the color and just going with straight black and white. If you are able to work out how to effectively work without any half steps, smoothing things out will only be easier.
I would also suggest taking closer note of the spacing on the brush. One of the most annoying things to me is that 25% spacing thing going on. Lower it down as much as you possibly can, and strokes will be much smoother and more appealing.

>>530

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

-

>>533

no questions so far. Thank you very much for this one. It's detailed and very helpful. ^^

Ultimately you have it down on all points it seems. I will take time to work on these points along with my other things and I hope the next time I post on here in a long time I'll be able to show massive improvement ^^

Again thank you for the detailed help. now where is my dog laying <.<

-

>>533

-

Sorry, but this board is for original works.

In addition, we do not allow manipulated images in general on fchan.

-

>>520

"we do not allow manipulated images in general on fchan"

A rule which I'm happy to respect, but that needs to be specified at
http://fchan.us/home.html#rules
and or
http://fchan.us/faq/
so others will know of the rule

Right now, the only thing I see about manipulations is "no live images, photomorphs or photomanipulations of live images, of an adult nature are to be posted"

/is not the OP

-

>>528
Please see: http://fchan.us/home.html#rules 4. e)

-

>>503 No it looks great to me. The pose is great and realistic. This might just be me but i think the jaw (the side you see more of) is just a little too big, IMO but i don't think you should run the risk of ruining the sketch for something very trivial.

-

Anatomy, anatomy, anatomy. You can fool a nooblet with your line quality but it's quite clear that you're winging half of it, and that you don't understand form very well.

Learn the understructure, the skeleton, muscles, fat deposits and the way the flesh lays. Work on proportion. Don't be concerned with intentionally putting your 'style' into something. As you learn, your flair will take place and your style will develop naturally. You need to know how something appears and exists before you can effectively stylize it, say the face for example.

Color? No. Show me your shading, show me you understand value and can produce a form, then I will help you with color.

And for the record, her tits could shoot spaceships out of the sky. It's not as appealing in appearance as you may think.

-

Stunningly beautiful.
Clearly you are a master of the masterclass. Why you would stoop down to this level is beyond me, as you would certainly do better hanging this fantastic work up in a gallery and selling it for tens of thousands of dollars. I am honored to see your work here.

I applauded, then I cried, then I applauded again.

-

>>485
Holy shit, are you serious?

>So what if you can't draw realism?

No one 'can't' draw realism. Maybe people just don't have the practice to 'see' and therefore cannot draw absolute photorealism, but that's another cookie. We're not talking about that cookie.
It's all a matter of practice and study.
It's the very BASIS for which style emanates. You need to understand how an arm works before you can go breaking the rules and stylizing it, otherwise it's just going to end up looking like shit. A convincing, intelligently stylized arm comes from the knowledge of how that arm works and what about it is appealing.

>You don't want to draw realism?

That's fine. You don't need to sit and draw photorealism all the time.

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

-

Hey. Guys. Can we just let it drop? It seems people are starting to get a RELATIVELY clear idea that I'm posting here for critique. I could post a still life, a landscape, a TASTEFULL nude pic of something, PORN, or even clothed (since I'd sometimes want critique on fabric).

Most of the work I post to this very site will be along the lines of clean and not-so-clean art for the fact that this is fchan.

I know one or two people here will DEFINITELY critique my art for art - not with the stupid idea that I'm a random fool posting porn for kicks - because they now know I'm not that kind of a person.

TL;DR: I THINK they get the idea now.. no need to let the flaming continue.

-

>>487
Chill man, no-one is say anything about you any more, you cool.

This is just Deathz dealing out some learnings to some naive furry who thinks whiteknighting is a good thing.

-

I've officially gotten as far "improved" as I am gonna bother (save for color) with this pic. I've been trying to re-work it enough so yeah. Frustrated enough with pixels this time around, I've re-worked it with the brush tool.

So trolls, I'VE STOPPED USING THE BINARY. My art is SERIOUS BUSINESS now. Once I draw a tiger with tits, it'll be SERIOUS CERTIFIED BUSINESS. (lol yay for bringing back some stupid shit)

I had an alternate version that was more painted-esque than this but I didn't like the turnout, so I removed those layers, leaving the light shading I did here. The highlights were far more controlled than in this version but meh. The main issue I have here was the anatomy - not coloring and whatnot.

I've started a newer and (with the exception of one person who hasn't gotten the memo that I'm you know.. trying to get REAL critique) hopefully less drama-filled (we know this is virtually impossible but...) board so let's see what happens.

-

This whole thread

-

> I was told it shouldn't be a big deal posting non furry work here

It isn't.

>>488
Lots of detail in there. That's the good i can say about it.

The bad: Utterly terrible lighting. For me this breaks the whole image. I cannot get any sense of real perspective from this. Especially bad are the spikes at the ceiling which are lighted from left and right, while the ones no the floor are only lighted from the right.

Then there's also a problem with the water: The "detail lines" are just random white lines for one, with no real intent behind them. For the other, the ones in the distance are of the same thickness and fidelity as the ones in front, again destroying any possible sense of perspective.

>>489

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

-

>>490

these links my help you out a bit

http://characterdesigns.com/

http://www.conceptart.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=30

-

Aren't you supposed to be in the other thread, busy waxing poetic about poorly replicated weaboo penguin with not-so-well-thought-out penis attachment?

-

>>497
wat

-

>>497

Did you say something?

Shoo. :)

-

And here's the practice
The anatomy is atrocious, I know... I am shame.

But that aside, you can see kind of what I'm aiming for. There is definitely TF2 inspiration in my coloring.

-

I honestly think you need to get a book or three on shading and depth perception. Not necessarily anatomy, but yeah, drawing some skin-less muscle-figures would likely help you work stuff out as well.

When comparing your images with Leyenfeld/Rockwell there's one glaring difference: Your images are both extremely flat, while their art is ridiculously three-dimensional.

You attempt to shade things a bit, but do so only for the legs and then seem to lose motivation/direction for the torso, head and arms.

Maybe try drawing figures that consist only of geometrical shapes, like cubes, cylinders, etc. without relying on line-art, but making sure they they are uniformly three-dimensional.

-

>>476

Hey thanks man, I'll give that a shot. I found a neat book called 'anatomy for the artist' by Jeno Barcsay that's chalk full of skinless figures. At first I thought it was a medical book because of all the crazy detail, but I think it'll do just fine for what you're suggesting.

Also, yeah, the whole three dimensionality thing is really pissing me off. I'll work some more on that.

-

No one can give me any tips on how to improve? I'd really love at least one comment on it

-

Patience, you'll get it eventually.

-

>>463
You asked for it. Harsh critique incoming. Don't blame me if you jump from a bridge after reading this.

The good: I like the way you draw fur. It looks sufficiently fuzzy.

The bad:

The paw in the foreground looks terribly deformed. No matter whether it is supposed to be animalistic or humanoid, there is no way to hold it like that. It has no wrist. The forearm is too long. It'd take way too long for me to tell you all the things you'd need to fix about this, so I'll say this:

Get a full-length mirror and a chair. Lean yourself onto the back of the chair with your arm and take the position seen in the picture. Compare that with the picture. You'll see that it's essentially impossible for you to emulate the arm in that image. The ratio of forearm length to upper arm length is off on the smaller one too.

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

-

>>467 well, i'll be waiting to know...

-

>>467 the thought i mean, of a group

-

You gonna pass or just keep puffin'?

-

This is pretty darn wat. Great success, OP.

Now you should take it a step further and go into sculpturing.

-

Finally, my latest piece.

I'm very happy with how it turned out.

Now, have at it.

-

You're not bad, but you definitely need to work on your anatomy and body proportions. Your calves and feet are consistently too big, as are your arms and shoulders. And no, you cannot explain that way with "but they're muscular", if you're thinking of that. Look at some actual human photos and compare to your stuff.

-

>>222
You can go one of two ways about this:
1) Forego any studying of anatomy, draw what you think you see, add muscles and ridiculous proportions, and VOILA, LIEFELD!
2) Study anatomy like a bat out of hell, apply the dynamics of comic book characters, make modern comic art.

I suggest the latter, which does require outside sources. Your intentions may not be to have perfectly anatomically and/or proportionally correct characters (clearly, superheroes go above and beyond out expectations anyway, especially the giantass beastlike monstrosities), but you should still study anatomy hard first.
In Loomis's "Figure Drawing for all it's Worth" there's a nice little chart with a couple different head heights of male characters. 7.5 being the art school accepted 'normal' height (which he explains is dumpy then draws an intentionally dumpy character in there... 7.5 =/= dumpy), 8 being artistic normal, 8.5 being model proportions, 9 being heroic... I'd suggest brushing up on that, drawing various characters at different proportions, and taking note of how they're built at those proportions.
Also what >>230 said.

That out of the way...

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

-

>>231

Ah, what the hell. Why not.

http://www.furaffinity.net/user/silvermoonwolf/

Go take a look if you like. I'll be working on my reference and figure drawing for about a month.

I'd appreciate it if you singled out some things you like, don't like and things that you think I could improve upon beyond what you already said.

-

Lol wow, so I've been watching you for a really long time, I'm actually pretty surprised that I didn't see this when you uploaded these a couple weeks ago.

>singled out some things you like,

Beard. :>

>don't like and things that you think I could improve upon beyond what you already said.

Dunno, will think about for the weekend, for srs.