What does this look acceptable despite all the proportion mistakes? Is polishing a turd actually good?
>>7860090Believe it or not, people will eat a cake if it looks and tastes good enough. The biggest critics of the cake will be the both the original and other bakers, normies don't know and don't care as long as it is good enough.
>>7860090another quality /ic/ thread, good job op
>>7860090Have you ever watched a cartoon/anime in your life?
>>7860090>proportion mistakesWhy don't you redline it, anon? At least then this thread might have some value.
>>7860234This whould be good. Listen to this guy OP and do the magic!
https://mcmullansovercoat.blogspot.com/Scroll down and look at the figure drawings here. Do any of them look 100% proportionally correct? No. Do they look convincing? Yes and arguably because they are exaggerated in the most logical places for emphasis. You should read the first few chapters of High Focus drawing to see what I mean. tl;dr yes polishing a "turd" is actually what you need to be doing
What proportion mistakes?
>>7860090>proportion mistakesHey! My wife's asian. They are just built a little small, no need to punch down.
>>7860090redline the proportions, retard
>>7863718>>7863751>>7863739zoom out a little. The left eye is smaller than the right one.
>>7864016This actually happens in real life, sometimes to a great degree. Bruce Lee had one shorter leg, my mum has one smaller eye. It's not often noticeable in day to day ibteractions because we move arou d and are seen from various angles more frequently than head on and perfectly stationary, and we probably have a tendency to shift our mental image of most people to a more symetrical vision than matches reality.
>>7864016redline a little
>>7864016go out and observe real people, 99% will have asymmetrical faces
>>7860090because it's asian and your brain can identify that some asian out there might look this way.
Differentiating between "mistakes" and "style" is one of the hardest things for sure but it's one of the keys to making it.The difficulty is only multiplied by the fact that, to a large degree, it's subjective.Academic art, which is all about technical correctness, not being the most popular form of art, should tell you something however.THOUGHEVERBAIT>>7864016Try a ruler. You might discover something surprising.
>>7860090>>7864016Stop opening bait threads, retard.
>>7860090The eyes are more or less the same size, although there is a little bit of asymmetry in how much of the sclera is visible below the iris, and where the bottom of the "eye bag" falls. The only issue I noticed straight away is that the mouth is not parallel to the rest of the features, but this can be chalked up to facial expression (you can lower one side of your mouth). I wouldn't say any of these points constitute a "mistake," as in something that brings down the work. As others have noted, real faces aren't perfectly symmetrical.
>>7864661Op is a faggot confirmed
>>7860090>proportion mistakesthose usually reveal themselves to me by flipping the pic horizontally. nothing jarring shows up here.the shadows are in any case too ambiguous to seek exactitude on that front (the right eye is not smaller than the left eye if you look closely, btw).
>>7865837>the shadows are in any case too ambiguous to seek exactitudeambiguous technique might actually be the answer to OP and >>7863345, which in a sense is the opposite of polishing a turd. the turd should not be too detailed. as long as you get the main bodily features minimally right you already have a solid frame, while ambiguities can be filled up by the viewer's imagination.ever see how pixelization can enhance some 2D game scenes by hiding flaws in drawing technique? the logic is similar.
