/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

great thread moron

Go fuck yourself asshole.

>>4483998
>>4484009
kek

>loomis

>>4483996
I’ve had that happen.
The key is to post a lot of stuff without inking it.
Inked shit looks traced most of the time.

>>4484224
I'd take it as a compliment

>>4483996
That looks fine. I wouldn't have thought it was traced.

>>4483996
> get really good at tracing
> get accused of drawing

>>4483996
If u made some lines to suggest the volume of the left cheek, then it would not bee seen so much as just a blank face with nose, mouth and eyes glued on. Suggest some volume. Perhaps that's why peole say you trace.

>>4483996
>don't use loomes
>git good
>recommend loomes

>>4483996

>>4484824
Good advice and nice edit, anon. But I plan to keep the clean inked look. Something I find really attractive to look at.

>>4483996
Could try varying your line weights a bit. Traced work usually ignores line weights

>>4484838
Every drawing will gain value with richness. Richness of lines, richness of volume. If you like the clean inked style that's great, but I think there are a lot more place you could add lines, where it will fit your style AND enrich your drawings. For example, adding more hair strands, making careful and detailed eybrows, puting suggesting shadows with lines, making detailed hairs, etc.. but of course, it's your art and your choices.

>>4484224
inking is tracing your sketch so yeah

You can draw the rest of the body this well too, right OP? Your sketchbooks aren't full of floating heads, right OP?

>>4484824
>>4483996
Who eats like that?

>>4485006
This is the SFW version, anon

>>4484907
Painting your walls is renovating your house so shut the fuck up

>>4485001
I always aim to exaggerate bodies, so they usually look a little more surreal and no one thinks tracing. My style is very comics-like and occasionally looks like the artwork from Archer, or Stephen Bliss (Grand Theft Auto). I think the cleanliness is great to look at so I'm willing to keep it, and the occasional criticism doesn't bother me.

>>4485688
i still think lips are awful and tasteless, no subtlety

>>4485688
hahahaha

>>4485713
racist

>>4484907
Comic inkers would disagree but it’s not my fight so..

>>4485713
Opinion based. Not relevant to technique. OP should disregard.
>>4485715
Overt faggotry. OP should disregard
>>4485744
Pointless conversation. Anon should bail.

>>4483996
That means you're so good the crabs can't believe

>>4484224
>Inked shit looks traced most of the time.
Only if it sucks and has no varied lineweight. It always looks like a trace if you have a brush with constant width.

>>4485915
Pic related is a coomer who literally traces pornstars on instagram, has no line weight variance, is obviously traced (kek), and proves you're right.

OP's stuff has line weight variance and looks more heavily inked, at least here:
>>4485688

So I wouldn't say it's the same thing.

>>4485713
>comic book sci-fi alien warrior monk
>"no subtlety"

fucking kek

I tried to figure out why yours looks so unappealing

>>4486078
That looks like shit anon what kind of expression is that?

Also learn to draw something besides anime style. So far off the mark its cringe

OP is just saying well proportioned faces (unlike yours) get accused of being traced. Contribute to the topic or shut the fuck up

>>4486085
Why so butthurt, are you OP? Everyone can draw whatever they like, what's the matter?

>>4486078
Kek OP's actually has believable expression and proportions. This looks like a face out of your futa folder

>>4486078
OP's is techinically way better but I find yours more appealing.

>>4486093
>>4486085
>>4486095
Both are crappy and awkard. No one sticks their tounge out like that

>>4486093
Don't hate on futa.

>>4486078
You changed the expression so it looks disgusted but maybe that was intentional

I find the style of yours more appealing but I think the expression on OPs looks more intense. For me the expression on yours looks like she is opening her mouth and stretching out her tongue reluctantly whereas for OPs she looks so eager to eat that spaghetti, stretching her mouth wide and letting her tongue out. If you could tone up the intensity of the mouth on yours I think it would look more appealing to me.

>>4486096
OP here. Can confirm that women do, in fact, stick their tongues out like that. Because:
a) I've been with a woman before
and b) I used the reference photo by lining it up next to my sketch. Then I took measurements and angles with a coffee stirrer I was holding in my left hand. Then I'd slide the sketch over and drop a reference point so the angle and distance would be close. Then I'd exaggerate the features and gestures I liked and minimize the ones I didn't. If anything I made the tongue less extreme. Other anons please feel free to talk about their process since that it actually the purpose of this wretched place.

>>4486116
>I'm OP and why do people say I trace?
>I also use a stock reference and copy the almost exact outline as the photo with barely any variation.
>stumped

>>4486121
If you look at those and think the product is close enough to be traced you need to go back to /beg/

>>4486121
t. blind beg

>>4486078
the one on the right hurts to look at
fix the mouth plz, its unsettling

>>4486123
I know they are not traced. But they are so similar and so lacking a soul that of course people will say it's traced. It's the same pose, same model, same proportions and the style is shit. No lineweight, values or color. Incomplete and derivative. The most it has changed is a bit different nose and a strand of hair. Big deal Picasso.

>>4486121
Dont you see he makes them prettier by giving them plastic surgery, lip filler. It's an improvement!

>>4486140
Let me refer you to >>4486124

>>4486140
Too late, anon. Other posters already got the energy.

This is not a critique thread, dipshit. I already know its competent and I don't care what you think about it, kek

>>4486147
Let me do a rhyme. If you can't take the heat, don't make a thread about your art in IC.

>>4486116
>its in a photo so people do it

>>4483996
point me in the direction of the "good face"

>>4486140
>OP is showing his sketch/construction lines
>"incomplete"

Top tier critique, anon

Breddy entertaining thread. Quality bantz

>>4486149
Im not him but whats "competent" about it? Its a copy of an image without any real appeal.

>>4486149
>/ic/ artwork/critique
every thread is for critique if you want it or not

judging by >>4485688 youre already trying some line weight which is good, look deeper into that
Colorings fine but very boring

I kinda like that face but the guy youre replying to is right, nobodys gonna love drawings like that, they are lacking something to make them special

>>4485688
>>4483996
It looks traced due to copying from the reference while having limited understanding of the forms you've attempted and how perspective works.

It creates inconsistencies within a single image, technically accurate alongside poorly executed areas due to lack of understanding. This is notable most traced images from beginner artists.

>>4486197
What is with faggots posting their work and not wanting critique?
Go to DeviantArt or some shit.
It fucking saying “critique” in the description of this board.

> Though I already know you’re posting this because you think it’s god-tier and think in your mind that the more people that shit on it, the better it is.

Get on my psychological level faggot. I haven’t even scratched the surface of explaining what I’ve already figured out about you.

>>4486232
Kek what a fucking retarded word salad

>>4483996
When people say it looks traced they just mean it looks uncanny due to being a /beg/ or a lower-/int/

>>4486245
It looks like shit because OP doesn't know how to actually draw a fucking face. He's just sticking as close as he can to the reference.

Is that better for you?

If you're critiquing the "soul" or "completeness" of black and white line art with the construction lines still on it, you are a literal fucking retard.

And if you can't tell the spaghetti is just a placeholder for something coomer, you are also a literal fucking retard, and what does that say about your "insight" for "appeal"?

>>4486274
You might as well use a tripcode, butthurt OP

>>4486116
1) You lose the interesting shape when the brow crosses the bridge of the nose (you create an unappealing tangent and put the eyelashes at the wrong spot on top of that).

2) Your lips have no sense of volume. I can see the top side and the under side of the upper lip on your ref (and it creates a cool shape). You just negate all of that and draw an amorphous blob with no sense of up and down.

Same mistake with the tongue which goes from a clearly defined sort of flesh ribbon with planes to ... a big amorphous slug.

Etc ....

Basically you can't break down planes in your ref (which is super duper clear) so your shapes suffer and the drawing looks sloppy. Practice more.

>>4486274
>And if you can't tell the spaghetti is just a placeholder for something coomer, you are also a literal fucking retard
It is? I assumed it was a sitophilia pic

>>4486295
Schizo post

>>4486295
Total schizo post

>>4486302
Practice more :)

>>4486302
Are you the dude going in every thread shitposting with the schizo thing?

>>4486319
nope first time I've said it

>>4486302
It's okay man, first step is acceptance. Maybe you'll improve your shit drawings some day

>>4486295
>Big amorphous slug
This is my fetish

>>4486286
OP here. Not butthurt or samefagging.
Still discarding most of these critiques tho

>>4486197
and
>>4484886
based

>>4486295
cringe

>>4486349
Give me back my 2 minutes dude

>>4486364
You're the one who chose to red line sperg out.
And "you didn't draw this the way I would've drawn it"
Is not a useful critique anyways. You might as well be talking to yourself.

>>4486371
not the same guy, but no offense OP, but his critique was most constructive imho and he demonstrated it.

>>4486409
Hi other anon. It's good that you think "fOrEhEaD fLaT, I DrAw RoUnD" is constructive. You must be easily pleased.

this kinda belongs in /vent/ innit also it doesn't look traced since there's somewhat of a line weight but good tracers can get away w it by not being obvious,
some ppl go as far to adding the sketched guide lines on top of the traced lines to make it look like they built it up :) I don't think that the majority will think that your art is appealing but it's awesome that you draw for yourself first and foremost

>>4486421
well thats not what i read, i saw
>You lose the interesting shape when the brow crosses the bridge of the nose
>sense of volume
> amorphous blob with no sense of up and down.
> clearly defined sort of flesh ribbon with planes
>shapes suffer

easy to follow imo.

>>4485915

I dont care how much arbitrary pressure you apply to a line, it still looks traced because there is no evidence of the effort that went into building The drawing up. Its the difference between seeing the pencils vs the inks (scanned and cleaned up) from virtually any comic sheet.

>>4486144
women who do this are repulsive.

>>4486295
>nice redline for a shit bait thread
there are starving /beg/s out there

>>4486654
Hey tell you what, i'll commit some actual time in /beg/ next time.

>>4483996

>>4486714
Much more appealing to me than the original.
Can someone who is good at drawing explain why, though?

>>4486856
better silhouette since the anon who drew that completely changed the angle of the figure since he didnt intend on helping at all and just wanted to flex on OP

>>4486858
I feel like you’re shitting on this guy more than explaining, but ok.

>>4486856
More of the body drawn so the spine can emphasise the gesture, doesn't have the perspective mistakes the OP's nose does, massive titties.

>>4486868
so then ignore my answer and stay stupid nobody said i had to be nice

>>4486873
>massive titties
I knew you were onto something.
>>4486875
I didn’t find it that helpful, but ok.

"My work is inferior to OP's but more "appealing": the thread

>>4486900
Lol it is starting to look like cope

>>4486430
>>4486421
Op i also hope you realize that regardless of style or preference, you at least do have some objective flaws, mainly with the right eye.

First of all if you go by your reference, even if the woman had triple length eyelashes, you wouldnt see it in that photo. Your features arent exaggerated so much that it would make sense to see them. And the shape really doesnt seem to represent any anatomy i understand.

The position of that eyelash is wrong, because you poorly analyzed the perspective, or completely ignored. I hope related image can help you get a rough idea where the issue is.

>>4486856
guy who you replied to here. idk, the drawing makes it seem like op was more occupied in ´copying´ the reference than making a appealing drawing. like repeating the contours he saw instead of analyzing their structure and abstracting them onto his drawing, thats why it looks ´traced´ i guess

>>4487082
Now it's REALLY starting to look like cope.

>>4486900
>t. OP

>>4486907
>>4487107
hi OP

>>4487177
OP here. Nope. Haven't been on /ic/ for the past few hours. Been actually doing art. Why are you trolling /ic/ instead of practicing your craft, anon?

>>4487200
Why do you get assmad over critique?

>>4487274
If you're getting laughed at and told to fuck off, you're critique was probably useless and stupid.

If you got no response, or a positive response from me, your critique was acknowledged and appreciated.

Pretty easy to figure out, anon.

>>4487200
Bruh how do you make a thread for a sketch and then come back and go "AHAH WHY ARE YOU GUYS POSTING IN MY THREAD XD you all should be drawing right now!!"

>>4487324
extremely weak post

>>4487328
Weak, like your knowledge of anatomy and lips, get back to studying boy.

>>4487331
cringe

>>4487331
At least give someone actual critique instead of just shit flinging, all of you retards in this thread are petty.

>>4487340
I gave critique, had no reply >>4487082

>>4487350
OP here.
>>4487340
is not OP. He's just pointing out the obvious.
Also, your critique was in fact stupid, useless, petty and retarded. Thanks for following up. I hope this was helpful.

>>4487359
How was anything i said wrong petty or stupid? I respectfully pointed out objective flaw in your drawing and all you can say "No its useless, petty, retarded" ? You ok? It should be very useful for you understanding the issue, open the image attached.

>>4487311
>>4487359
>>4487337
>>4487328
Holy shit lmao

>>4486295
Oh God, what a view. I want to violate that bitch's mouth and throat so badly!

>>4486295
DONT GO TO BEG, DONT DO IT people there are worse than the OP of this thread.

jk do it, but be prepared

>>4487611
most begs actually listen and can admit mistakes and are willing to work on them.

>>4486078
blew op up, fuck everyone else here

>>4485915
idk anon, pretty sure i could ink in ms paint, same brush width and make it look decent.
Draw more pls

>>4486540
So you have no idea what a trace looks like? Good for you.
>>4488151
pyw

>>4483996
Technically, you're tracing your sketches.

>>4488146
Top tier shitpost. I kekked

>>4486078
Problem here is that these are two completely different styles.

OP here.

>>4486144
so I gave her "lip filler"
>>4486295
but the lips have no "sense of volume"

^^^why I'm not taking most of these seriously.

Also FYI: the moment you use the word "unappealing", your critique is discarded by default.

Just trying to help.

>>4488266
^correct

>>4488277
You are lazily discarding things for convenience, you are not seriously thinking about anything being said and not acknowledging any flaw in your drawing.

Image in this >>4487082 post demonstrates to you an objective flaw. It's not petty, it's not useless, it's not minor. You could either admit it, or demonstrate how somehow that makes sense.

If you understand perspective of the reference, then the eye is simply not where you think it is, it cant be.

Instead of trying to understand where critique comes from you look for reasons to dismiss it, like words being used, it's almost childish.

Just trying to help.

>>4488277
>lip filler
>no sense of volume
just because you tried making something fuller doesn't mean you were successful at it you absolute buffoon

>>4488277
>>4488277
>gave lip filler [...] but the lips have no "sense of volume"
The sense of volume has nothing to do with them being inflated or not, it's because they are not very well defined.

People can't make the shape of the lips (in space) by their contour. What part is the top ? What part curves back into the mouth ? Where is the cupid bow ?

>>4488327
>>4488342

It's sketch line art with construction lines still on it, dipshits. The inference of volume will have have to come later when the color and shading are done. That's why I don't take it seriously that you even brought it up.

>>4488327
>>4488342
You're literally trying to critique a 1/4 finished drawing like it's supposed to be finished. That's why what you're saying doesn't matter

>>4488360
>>4488364
Not an excuse, it takes 10 fucking seconds to imply volume with a couple of lines, and we can only critique what we see. What we see is a drawing that lacks volume where there should be volume, so we're pointing that out. I hope the advice helps you, after all we're all learning.

can i get a quick rundown of this thread? is the op a /beg/ tracer?

>>4488441
just a normal beg in denial and thinks you dont need fundies.

>>4486295
Don't bother - most who reply to youir post with negative-attitude arethe ones who can't figure out the form in everything they draw :)

Something is super off about OP's drawing

>>4483996
too much loomis without any consideration to style or shape appeal. even though sargent closely imitated life, he could still get an appealing interpretation of reality.

>>4488480
>>4488495

"off" "appeal" "loomis"

Are all buzzwords for not knowing wtf you're talking about. At least the guy who pointed out lip volume and forehead angle attempted to describe something meaningful.

It makes sense that an artist would debate with critics on behalf of his art. The real question is: Why would critics be so butthurt about it?

>>4488495
there is 0 loomis, loomis draws faces in perspective

>>4488531
He saw a circle and instantly thought Loomis. Perfectly /ic/

>>4488525
>appeal
>buzzword
Eventually you're going to learn that word is in fact super important. It may not be today, but the need to draw in appealing shapes (even in ugly subject matter) is inescapable in the medium.

>>4483996
keep it up and you'll be as good as joshua luna

>>4485688
It's like asukafag tried to draw a muscle man lmaoing @ you

>>4490634
don't bully asukahomo he's actually improving

>>4488525
OP looking at the pictures you drew it is clear to see that there are flaws in your work. The fact that you are so defensive about it shows you are passionate about it. However, you should look at the critique with a more open mind.
Your art looks flat in areas, like the lips. For your op drawing, you use a reference without understanding the intresting lines and shapes in it. For example the ear looks boring as there isn't any interesting shapes in it. For this picture the colours are interesting, as yellow and purple complement each other, but the stark contrast plus the use of black makes it look like there's a hole in her neck.
All these factors make your drawings look "off", or better put your flaws are noticeable. If your style was less realistic that would be ok. Your semi-realistic style makes your flaws worse and puts you in an "uncanny valley" as your art is real enough that you can tell it's a human but not real enough to look fake. This makes it look ugly, thus "unappealing", thus you don't make art that a lot of people want to pay the big bucks.

TL;DR, you are ok to slightly good and should listen to the thread to improve, rather than stagnate by being arrogant.

>>4486295
it's like you selectively trace and redraw some parts while doing the most half-assed construction of a head. the left is resized smaller and rotated, right i went in to parts and rotated/scaled them. the only part that doesn't match up is your fetish lips which barely look anything like the original and is your actual drawing level. the lines you draw for planes make no sense like on the nose and elsewhere. it's reminiscent of "trace over something but add sketch marks later to pretend you drew it from scratch".

>>4483996
do you know the funniest part? there is already a draw like your draw out there, and that's the funniest shit because no matter how hard you work, there will always be a draw just like you because there is almost an infinite number of drawings made in the whole world

>>4494846
Yep it's really obvious. I used to do the same thing in highschool. I would trace on paper on my monitor set to max brightness so the proportions and placement was perfect but I had no idea about anatomy, form, overlap, planes etc so the line choices were basically just contours and guessing.

>>4494866
>there is already a draw like your draw
>there will always be a draw just like you

could you ESLs kindly fuck off and learn to write before posting

>>4494846
OP BTFO
are you going to say that stock image stole from you to like that one dude with the jap

>>4494870
But he's right, no matter how much you'll try to make something unique, at this point, everything was made, for example, if you try to design or create a cyberpunk city everyone will say BLADE RUNNER TRACED TRACED AKIRA TRACED if you want to create a mecha everyone will say GUNDAM TRACED EVA TRACED PACIFIC RIM TRACED EW TRACED

>>4494888
maybe so but i just get triggered whenever i see a drawing being called a "draw"

>>4494888
Bullshit. If you are unique enought it will stand out. That being unique is super-hard and demans tons of work is not relevant. Cyberpunk existed before bladerunner and the look was new. Your argument is dumb

>>4494846
>complains about being accused of tracing
>is literally doing it
never change /ic;

>>4483996
Some people just confuse tracing with over referencing a photo.

>>4486349
>>4486371
>>4486421
You are just like your drawing skills. Awful.

>>4487090
Yup. Pretty much this. OP has no idea how to construct a face, so he relies on the reference too much.

tl;dr OP's pic is not traced but definitely over referenced.

>>4487200
Same as the pic you posted in the opening. Over referenced face.

>>4488282
Dude, you don't even have a style.

>>4494724
Hello best anon, OP here.

You critique was received, understood and appreciated. Your points have value and I'm working them into practice. Good critiques get lost in the shit storm of trolling and crabbing, but yours stood out and was noted. Thank you based anon-kun

>>4495144
If you are really OP, just know that you clearly suffer from acute Dunning Kruger Syndrome.

>>4495148
>made a joke about getting accused of tracing
>got accused of tracing in the thread

Nah I'd say I've got an accurate idea of where I"m at. Trying to creep from /beg/ to /int/.
The "critiques" on this board, on the other hand, are overwhelmingly fucked up and unhelpful, delivered in the stupidest, most bad faith way possible, and you're surprised when artists kick it back at you?

I'm still getting productive critique from anons like >>4494724

Also:
>>4495120
I freehanded that face. Your problem is since you don't like the look of western style faces with semi-believable proportions you wrongly assume tracing.

It's almost like... that's the thing I started the thread about.

What, did you think I found a stock photo of a woman with a horn and worm tail on her head? You think the 5000 lb. worm is a stock photo too??

>>4495185
If you can't take "fucked up" critiques you're very thinned skinned and should probably fuck off from 4chan in general.

From your responses and typing style you sound like a whiny assmad chick, so prepare your anus for further criticism.

And no shit heavily referencing to the point it looks almost identical will get you accused of tracing.

>>4495222
cringe.

>>4495248
>t. OP

>>4495249
OP here.
>>4495222
cringe.

>>4495252
>>4495248
>>4487337
Why is this all you can say? ESLfag?

>>4495257
cringe and discriminatory.

>>4495263
>he's a moralfag too
lmao Have fun becoming the next gains goblin, except with injected botox thots.

>>4495266
rude cringe and unfunny

>>4495282
Cry more. Bye nigger.

>>4495291
cringe, edgy boi and virgin

>>4495296
Where do you think you are?

>>4495318
cringe, 4chan oldfag poser, lovely human

>>4495342
wut? you can't even form coherent sentences anymore.

>>4495318
OP here.
That's not me.
Ignoring this thread now

>>4495348
Good, don't come back.

Hey guys op here, just recently took HRT after reading your mean replies :((
Ps: deleting my 4chan account and cancelling my 4chan gold subscription in the process as we speak.

>>4495185
>I freehanded that face. Your problem is since you don't like the look of western style faces with semi-believable proportions you wrongly assume tracing.
Where the fuck did you see me mention tracing?
I have no problems with western style stuff and I said you over reference shit. This means you are too literally copying the reference. I'm not saying you are tracing, dunning kruger.