It's not visually depicted, which I suppose could be an argument in your favor. But it certainly implies massive disfigurement to the internal organs. That's what I meant.
Posted under General
This topic has been locked.
ultima said:
I didn't notice the jpeg artifacts, in that case you can just delete it. Though I don't see what makes it anymore "bland CG" than say, post #538385 or post #530006; the two other most recent images by the same artist.
And your assumption I like them any more or consider them any less bland comes from where exactly?
Speaking of which, the artist is female, so I'm not sure how valid your "never seen real boobs before" argument is. And as another person with a pair, I don't see anything particularly physics-defying about them, either.
The author of post #513117 is also very unlikely to be double amputee or born without feet, yet these depicted are nothing like the real thing. As for their physic-defying properties, the left one is way larger than the right one, and both are just sort of tacked onto her chest like balloons; there's no way boobs this big would be pointing perpendicular to the chest.
Edit: for future reference, post #322820. It's rather silly I need to tell that to a girl, but that just goes to show that familiarity doesn't necessarily equal knowledge and/or competence. At least it's less wrong than Artistotle's claim that women have fewer teeth than men, because that's how it works with horses.
Please don't take this the wrong way, I know you guys work hard to uphold quality standards and I respect you a LOT for it. I just don't see why you felt the need to be so hostile.
The only reason is the completely unnecessary "I know bla bla" assertion, which has absolutely nothing to do with reality, yet implies we're unable to approve shit unless it's a character we've seen N times before. Yes, I know about the sheer exposure effect, but it doesn't mean I can't recognise a good quality original work if I see it.
Updated
Please refer to post #540575 for another of this artist's works.
Fred1515 said:
post #406139
Colored version of post #87664.
That's why I left it out, we generally don't tend to approve non-official modifications.
葉月 said:
That's why I left it out, we generally don't tend to approve non-official modifications.
It's official, IIRC it's from some limited edition prints that Samura had for sale or smth (sorry I don't have a link, but it's been more than a year since I found it)
Compare how well-colored the skin and hair are as opposed to post #98494.
Oh, and one more I'd like to appeal: post #538860 (official modification :)
Thanks for your time.
Fred1515 said:
It's official, IIRC it's from some limited edition prints that Samura had for sale or smth (sorry I don't have a link, but it's been more than a year since I found it)
Compare how well-colored the skin and hair are as opposed to post #98494.
Hokay then.
Please reconsider post #539980, since is a rare example of official art. Thanks in advance...
Kronnang_Dunn said:
Please reconsider post #539980, since is a rare example of official art.
Those notes are hideous. We don't usually mark characters on pictures other than absolutely_everyone ones. But if you want to do that, please make sure the notes are minimal, and don't obscure the whole picture.
葉月 said:
Those notes are hideous. We don't usually mark characters on pictures other than absolutely_everyone ones. But if you want to do that, please make sure the notes are minimal, and don't obscure the whole picture.
I've resized the notes in post #539980 to a more acceptable size.
葉月 said:
Those notes are hideous. We don't usually mark characters on pictures other than absolutely_everyone ones. But if you want to do that, please make sure the notes are minimal, and don't obscure the whole picture.
Sorry. I didn't realise it before. I will make the necessary corrections in all images I've tagged before based in your feedback. Thanks for the clarification.
Btw, I discovered that post #145645 and post #134410 are images that are exactly the same, not variations of each other. Perhaps one of them should be deleted? I tagged one of them with character notes. Maybe that one could be left and the other erased.
I also think post #540629 is a nice example of fan art depicting a character that hasn't been shown here before in greater detail. Could it be re-considered for approval? Thank you in advance...
Updated
post #541202 (by hoshikawa_tsukimi and is related to post #540847)
Kronnang_Dunn said:
Btw, I discovered that post #145645 and post #134410 are images that are exactly the same, not variations of each other. Perhaps one of them should be deleted? I tagged one of them with character notes. Maybe that one could be left and the other erased.
We don't generally delete already approved dupes, for various practical reasons. As long as they're properly parented, there is no problem.
Updated
post #541057 higher res parent of post #484859