First and foremost, I apologize in any case that I am terribly unclear, come off as bitchy (more than normal?), if I use too many commas and/or verbs. Prose has not had a front seat in my recent dealings, so it's... out of practice.
ABLOO
On with this trash.
As mentioned by Anon, the head is a bit big. I'm a little bothered by the muzzle shape. Do a google image-search on whatever species you're most strongly basing this from, there should be something there to reference. Or if you have a larger dog (I get the feeling it's something somewhat similar to a large canine head), reference from his/her face.
The outer edges around the eyes seem rather round too, and the forehead seems a tad on the small side. Ultimately, it's not stylistically unappealing, but you should stick with the grounds of realism right now.
I don't really have any gripes about the shoulders. You referenced from a photo of yourself? Did a fairly decent job of following the form and contour with it, supposing you didn't throw any tracing in there (and even if you did I can't say I really give a damn, as you've stated you have and if it's a photo of you it's not using anyone else's work anyway).
Careful with the foreshortening. I get the forearms, but they do look a little awkward. It's pretty natural that they do look weird at a straight-on angle though.
Now, unless - and even if - you have the archetype of male bodies (triangle, base being from shoulder to shoulder and the legs being angled downward toward the crotch), the shoulders are a bit wide in comparison with the hips. The legs seem really small too, with the knees being tiny when compared to the shoulders. They're closer to us, and when legs are folded knees are of comparable size to the shoulder, so should appear of equivalent or larger size.
Toes feel awkward, particularly on his right foot. Too much line definition, really flattens their appearance.
>>258
>>262
There isn't anything about this image that is particularly explicit, and the penis exists, even if we'd prefer to not emphasize it in the case of cleaner art. Really no reason to get all hyped about it.
Now I'm not really versed in the way of drawing dogdick, but it looks to me like the sheath goes a bit far down onto the scrotum, and that the scrotum might be a little high? Pink showing is probably a tad unnecessary, but whatever.
Keep a study of clothing in mind, but keep working on the basic anatomy junk. Skeletal system, muscular, fatty deposits, therefore how the flesh lays, and proportion (also different sorts of proportion, because variety is delicious). The Loomis stuff at the top is helpful, but do keep in mind that Loomis is not God.
HAI GUYZ I MIGHT BE BACK TO BITCH AT EVER'ONE
reply to thread or open thread in full view
thread contains a flash
/
expand/shrink thread
link to this post in full thread view
reply to this post in the quick reply window
reply to this post in full thread view
report this post to the moderators
No.248
248
