and the reason too and things to improve on
beg
>>8038749somewhere near mid-beg
>>8038749her expression looks silly
>>8038749yeah it's beg but I like the ambition>things to improve onperspective/form and figure drawing in general
>>8038749HIGH-BEGDetails is what makes the difference at certain level. Like, you could be still in the "big general beg" level, but just by adding GOOD feet and hands in that drawing could push it into "mid-level".
>>8038749Mid-Beg. It's enough to make some money.
>>8038751>im a crab
>>8038844cope
>>8038749people keep saying beg but wont say why. its cause it isnt interesting/appealing, looks heavily referenced (which is different to BEING heavily referenced), and the forms and rendering are simplified without an understanding of the actual forms from a figure. overall its good to be ambitious and finish pieces, this person will probably be int within a year or two if they keep it up.
>>8038749This is pretty textbook /int/ imo. Low-mid /int/. It’s obviously good enough but you can tell it’s not all the way there yet. Ignore the seething crabs
>>8038912>its cause it isnt interesting/appealingno, you dumb nigger, it's because it has zero fundamentals the body doesn't even have form, let alone anatomy, the fucking neck isn't even in the center of her ribcageNOTHING about it is good and everything needs massive amounts of workyou'd need to be a terminally cumbrained retard to not see this
>>8038978>the body doesn't even have form, let alone anatomyyou people are so far removed from what illustration actually is its a wonder your eyes/brain function enough to navigate a browser to 4chan and type out words. it clearly "has form," there are overlaps and basic shapes present, you are a retard and you probably spam the term "symbol drawing" without knowing what that means. anatomy is a completely separate issue and more to do with detailing forms, stop using terms you dont understand. just because its done poorly doesnt mean its completely lacking in certain areas. its fine, if the artist who made op's image can see their mistakes they will progress. and besides you pretty much just ignored my points and agreed with me before calling me a retard.
>>8038978It’s just very obviously a human body. It looks fine. Not sure how you could get “no form” out of that. You’re either blind or intentionally trolling
>>8038987>>8038996>/beg/ speaksshan't be read
What kind of psychosis is this thread on? That artowork is clearly /int/ level, wtf.
>>8039188crabs be crabbing
>>8039188/int/ means transitioning to pro, this is pure /beg/everything in /beg/ is /beg/ too, there's a reason the """"int"""" larpers can't escape
>>8039210you are transitioning to nodraw
>>8039220seethe, /beg/
>>8039210/int/ doesn’t mean transitioning to pro. /int/ means /int/. That’s all it means.I understand the desire to be anti-hugbox, but you can take it so far that you become divorced from reality and you lose the ability to understand how your audience actually perceives your art and what they like and what they don’t.
sigh, the pelvis is bullshit, the feet are bullshit, the hands are bullshit, everything in the picture has pretty much the same saturation and the range of values is not realistic, the perspective is bullshit, just, god, its not competently drawn and thats it.Its a polished low beg, lets say mid beg because at least it is finished and we all know that finishing work is not easy>>8038978please stop writing like i usually do, idk what is up with you but capitalize your letters and get some catchphrase so you are recognizably not me
>>8039297>le sigh...>schizo babble>calling out some random anon about "copying your whole flow"
>>8039298he should get his own flow
>>8039285cease the begbabble, you will never ever be int
>>8038749because of the samefagging and cope op's meltdown is producing I'll actually point out why this artwork is beg tierfirst of all the perspective, the ground plane is not done properly, the pole and the knees are clearly not on the same place, thus positioning the character in a fucked up angle, floating, plus the foot which is just straight up on the air doing who knows whatthe anatomy is wrong, the belly button and abdomen muscles are too low, the right leg is too short, there is 0 anatomy definition on 70% of the body which shows ignorance, the buttock is showing for some reason, which makes it look like she has a flattened BALL ass??? and don't get me started on the hands and feetthe values are mild, uninspired, not enough contrast, your darkest values are not where there's ambient occlusion but on the collar bone?there are no hard shadows almost at all, it looks very muddy, the placing of highlights is actual trash, rim lights are added arbitrarily, and there are some weird artifacts like a form on the lower left leg? probably you copied that from the original reference without thinking. also the hair is not even renderedoh the render, it's bad, you don't know how to blend colors properly, don't know color theory as the colors are all over the place, not following a distribution, not knowing what color relativity is, and not defining shapes at all almostall that, and what makes you look beg the most is the low fidelity on the details, it looks amateur, take the top of the left stocking for example, it's not following the correct plane of how the leg is on 3d space, it's done quickly and without care, with trash linework, look at the bottom of the fold, it doesnn't even connect properly to the leg bro, you're not even tryingif you want to improve, copy from real life, take a reference, copy it 1 to 1, first checking proportions, make it 1 to 1, repeat, until you're out of breath, then to the same but focusing on contrast and values, repeat, glhf
>>8038749 low /int/the shading/rendering is good, the body proportions are good, hands are good, and the pose isn't stiff at all (with one exception). my main complaint is that the foot seems to just be floating there, it doesn't look like a naturally resting limb and it's very distracting, especially with no shadows. it also looks a bit under-sized realtive to the body.i think that the curvature of the stripper pole is really bad. if you were trying to go for a fish-eye distortion, then the rest of the image should be distorted too. a fish-eye distortion is a pretty advanced technique outside of 3D rendering. i don't recommend trying it outside of experimentation until you can do one and two point perspective perfectly.i think a piece like this would be worth a budget commission, though, so it passes /beg/ in my eyes
>>8039942Damn you wasted all that time typing all that retarded shit when you could have just looked at the drawing and said “yep, that sure is an elf girl in lingerie, looks good to me. /int/.”Like it really was that simple all along
/pretty beg/.everything is wrong but picture is pretty and intent is bold and conveyed well
>>8039969/beg/s seriously need to pipe down
>>8038749I have seen people pay for this kind of thing.So that makes it /pro/ by default.
>>8040105he asked for opinions from /ic/, of which /beg/s are a part of. i bet you're a nodraw which is even worse
>>8038894>Im
>>8038749It looks so much better in the thumbnail, once you open the image it loses most of its appeal, you start seeing the artist's shortcomings, what is this phenomenon?
>>8041667seeing
>>8041682I'm perfectly calm.
>>8038749I don't think this is very good.The volumes look mostly ok, I'd say that's the biggest thing going for you.The pose itself falls apart at the left leg, there's no way that foot has that perspective in that position.The fisheye effect is way overplayed with the pole but nothing else in the composition really cares about it.The lines don't feel confident nor do they add much aside from splitting pieces, but your flat colors already do that.The worst offender is your lighting, there are so many passes of different lights and things going on but they feel tacked on, not like the illustration was really planned.Won't say much about the background, not the worst but its mostly an issue of composition and framing.Here's a re-render of the lighting in just values. The most important part is separating the lit parts from the unlit. No lit section should ever be darker than an unlit section, and viceversa.Most of your detail should be in the division of lit to unlit, not within either the areas.
>>8041739What's with the vignette
>>8040202sad! but on the other handn profession means you can ouve off it. getting a com here and there isnt /pro/ just yet. closer to a panhandler
