/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

Is there any reason why I can get semi professional or professional results when I use reference while my full drawings from imagination looks like complete /beg/ stuff?

Sure, I can draw completelly from imagination like pic related, even if I copied the designs, the pose, the folds on the clothes and the shading are still my work.

I'm happy with pic related and outside /ic/ hardcore autism, people on normie sites were impressed by it.
I think pic related could work as a real page in a manga magazine, I've seen worse shit being published in japan.
Some japs told me it looked fine pic related.

Of course I still relied on reference to make this drawing, even if the pose is from imagination.
I've come to the conclusion the real profressional artists, all used reference or copied from real life models.

My work simply goes from advanced /beg/ shit when I relly 100% on imagination to semi professional results when I relly on good references, even I can get some realistic results when I use photo studies.

It seems loomis in his books also talk about the same, and he talks about using photo reference to increase the quality of your work.

People alway praise my works when I relly more on reference, and for me, they clearly are more skilled on surface.
But I still feel using reference is like cheating, but at the same time I see I wont get professional results from pure imagination, I'm not that good.
Even /ic/ also falls on the same trap as non trained artists when they praise a more realistic drawing without realizing is just a copy from a reference.

>>3736891
>>3736889
>>3736886
>>3736885
I have yet to hear any real criticism over why this pic isn't japanese enough.

>>3578003
>>3578005
here's a more newer drawing.