vivoleko01 said:
Part of it is probably lack of interest in Gochiusa among the available approvers...
Posted under General
vivoleko01 said:
Part of it is probably lack of interest in Gochiusa among the available approvers...
@andalus
The first post has very tiny arms and the eyes are misplaced. They are too far away from each other and in my opinion also a bit too high.
The second post has overexaggerated eyes. Too much white spots (don't know how too call that in English) and a very weird black line below the eyes.
-> Both posts have pretty weird looking faces.
Proportions and form holds true, the flag stated that these look like 3d models, which they aren't as Paintool SAI does not have a 3d modeling environment. Considering that it was able to give the impression of a 3d model, it means the artist successfully used the blocking-in technique to give the sense of form. The blocking-in itself is pretty tight as well, in addition to being precise, it has small details from thrusters and vents, to railing marks on the shield booster and transparency depth in the head camera (blue crest on the 3 on the right).
Being a sketch the saturated colors are part of the blocking-in process and help to better distinguish the various surfaces along with being the colors of the according Gundam. Lastly, just as an opinion, I think it's pretty neat how the artist didn't just be obvious and slap on the classic Gundam v-fin and instead used the gold as a trim to the kepi hat instead.
T!ramisu said:
Proportions and form holds true, the flag stated that these look like 3d models, which they aren't as Paintool SAI does not have a 3d modeling environment. Considering that it was able to give the impression of a 3d model, it means the artist successfully used the blocking-in technique to give the sense of form. The blocking-in itself is pretty tight as well, in addition to being precise, it has small details from thrusters and vents, to railing marks on the shield booster and transparency depth in the head camera (blue crest on the 3 on the right).
Being a sketch the saturated colors are part of the blocking-in process and help to better distinguish the various surfaces along with being the colors of the according Gundam. Lastly, just as an opinion, I think it's pretty neat how the artist didn't just be obvious and slap on the classic Gundam v-fin and instead used the gold as a trim to the kepi hat instead.
Well, they look as 3D models means that it doesn't look good on 2D art (-> never mentioned that they ARE 3d modeld). Such 3d models tend to have really bad lines which makes this post nearly not viewable and this is exactly what's the case here and why I made this comparison.
Enlarge the image and you see that it isn't clear drawn. The rest is probably fine, yes. But when something as important as lines are not good, the whole character looks messed up.
Provence said:
Well, they look as 3D models means that it doesn't look good on 2D art (-> never mentioned that they ARE 3d modeld). Such 3d models tend to have really bad lines which makes this post nearly not viewable and this is exactly what's the case here and why I made this comparison.
Enlarge the image and you see that it isn't clear drawn. The rest is probably fine, yes. But when something as important as lines are not good, the whole character looks messed up.
Lines aren't a necessity in art, painting generally uses the blocking-in technique to fill shapes rather than blanks (paint between the lines). There are many brushes that you can use to various textures, and if the artist made the edges sharp and smooth, it'd for sure look more like a 3d model which in my opinion, would have been less appealing ([anti-]aliased edges vs the edge of opaque paint on a canvas). The roughness offers something different from the ubiquitous sharp and precise lines that dominate much of the anime-styled art scene. The loose sketch and rougher strokes are completely appropriate in this case for the conceptualizing of the various personified forms of the Hazel Gundam.
Provence said:
There is a reason though why sharp and precise lines are more common: They actually are better. It's not nice to look at an image that has such wonky lines.
I wouldn't necessarily say "better", different qualities are better for different scenarios, hjl for example sometimes uses very loose brush strokes with no outline to good effect.
An example of loose lines compared to loose strokes can be compared in post #1284174 and post #2376922, in my opinion, it's not that one is better than the other, it's that they just have different visual qualities that work for the overall piece.
Another example (in which someone went ahead in the comments and even commented that it was a nice piece) is post #92724, again, better/worse is up to opinion, but by exempting the lines, the overall composition is consistent and gives the impression that the individual is more connected with her environment (a shadow so to speak, shadows generally don't have lines). With lines, the contrast would have made the individual stand out more, the lines themselves separating her from the environment and thus would give more emphasis to her instead.
If you really want to push it, you could just pull a Rembrandt.
Case and point is line/block isn't a comparison of better/worse, different marks have different effects. How this comes back to refute your argument of poor line quality is that post #1773063 doesn't use strong lines because it doesn't need to, it uses blocked colors/values to emphasize the overall form of the subject.
I would hardly say the picture is half-assed as well, the artist made multiple permutations for each of the Hazel Gundam's equipment with straight edges (no bent surfaces), forms follow perspective, and very limited bleeding of colors. Overall, the piece is neatly done (machinery usually requires precision).
Updated by Mascarpone
Then this blocking in doesn't look good. Like I said: Name it what you will, the main negative part still stays even though it might not be lineart. That is the reason why it is flagged:
The parts were in contrasts on the background is just not smooth. And the last version looks like it has one grey tone over the character's face. What's that supposed to be? I can hardly tell...
Provence said:
Then this blocking in doesn't look good. Like I said: Name it what you will, the main negative part still stays even though it might not be lineart. That is the reason why it is flagged:
The parts were in contrasts on the background is just not smooth. And the last version looks like it has one grey tone over the character's face. What's that supposed to be? I can hardly tell...
Blocking-in is a technique commonly used in painting to get the overall forms and values down. Whether one likes the blocking-in technique or not should not be a decision making factor because that is merely based on opinion, which in my last post demonstrates that different techniques simply have different effects and are not necessarily "better" than another.
The light roughness helps emphasize the fact that it's a concept (sketch) which is completely appropriate in this case, and in my opinion, gives a more hand touched feel rather than a machine optimized line.
It's a visor.
In summary, I find that from a technical and quality perspective, this picture should be approved as it cleanly applies painting techniques with no significant errors in proportion, perspective and form while still providing finer details that help to flesh the character out as to not have it just be shapes tacked onto a figure.
T!ramisu said:
In summary, I find that from a technical and quality perspective, this picture should be approved as it cleanly applies painting techniques with no significant errors in proportion, perspective and form while still providing finer details that help to flesh the character out as to not have it just be shapes tacked onto a figure.
Could it be that this is more about you wanting to keep a perfect upload score (zero deleted posts)? :P
The picture in question (post #1773063) is not what I'd call quality art. Some "blocks" of color are even completely off target and look like random artifacts. By contrast, the lineart in post #1773062 looks pretty clean.
reiyasona said:
Could it be that this is more about you wanting to keep a perfect upload score (zero deleted posts)? :P
The picture in question (post #1773063) is not what I'd call quality art. Some "blocks" of color are even completely off target and look like random artifacts. By contrast, the lineart in post #1773062 looks pretty clean.
The reason why I did not flag the parent version (and assumed that the other version was also a "lineart"). But blockin-in..never heard of that :3. Well, you learn everytime something^^.
reiyasona said:
Could it be that this is more about you wanting to keep a perfect upload score (zero deleted posts)? :P
The picture in question (post #1773063) is not what I'd call quality art. Some "blocks" of color are even completely off target and look like random artifacts. By contrast, the lineart in post #1773062 looks pretty clean.
Provence said:
The reason why I did not flag the parent version (and assumed that the other version was also a "lineart"). But blockin-in..never heard of that :3. Well, you learn everytime something^^.
Yes, that is part of it lol, but this picture is something that I have genuine belief/reasoning as to why it's good.
Our eyes and brains are admittedly different, but to me at least, the forms read well to me and I have a solid understanding of how the equipment is shaped. Part of this, may have to do with familiarity of the mecha depicted.
As an appeal to the technique used, blocking-in is by no means something easy as it requires a very strong understanding of how to translate a 3d shape into a 2d one with minimal detail (unlike techniques like foreshortening and shading, which have a more procedural way of executing), so I'd give this piece some merit on the actual skill the work demonstrates. Linework on the other hand is basically just drawing the outline of the object with line weight to emphasize form. Drawing vs painting a cube for example, with drawing, you can simply follow the vanishing points to achieve a cube. Painting a cube by its surfaces on the other hand, requires you to understand how shapes change in perspective, a square surface at an angle may actually be a trapezoid in 2d.
The lineart version, to my eyes at least, at a quick glance, seems flatter than the blocked-in version, it takes a bit longer for me to filter through the lines to determine the relative place of all the pieces. Compared to the other, the contrast between surfaces makes it a lot easier and quicker to understand what angles the surfaces are relative each other (my eyes, ymmv).
So the main part that seems to be the issue is how "rough" the picture looks, which makes this bleed into the field of sketches. In my opinion, the edges are not rough to the point where you can't read the forms by any means, if anything these edges are cleaner than some of the multiple overlaid lines you see in some line sketches. Additionally, they're straight, not bent to the point where it seems that the part itself seems bent. With lines its a lot easier to give the illusion of form because you don't necessarily have to draw the exact contour, instead you could overlay a bunch of lines and hope that the line you're looking for is somewhere in there, let the brain do the rest.
Another point I'd like to make is that this approach to drawing is different that laying down lines so you shouldn't necessarily compare it to the attributes of a line drawing, apples and oranges.
Alas once again a post of mine has been deleted which is a duplicate of one more preferably sourced but nonetheless posted later. Since I don't know whether its parent would have made it through the mod queue but don't wish to risk a flag on it this time, I will post ITT.
tapnek said:
Generally, the higher quality version is the one that will be accepted and approved rather than the lower quality version, which, in your case, is your Twitter upload.
While the quality difference generally isn't very obvious, most especially at higher resolutions, it was the only obvious outcome when it was uploaded on the same day as the pixiv version, unfortunately. If it hadn't, it most likely would have been approved.
Well it's certainly aggravating to find a piece of art on Twitter and not Pixiv (I always check saucenao) and to upload it, finding that seven hours later someone has uploaded a version just posted on Pixiv, having plucked your tagging and skipped the mod queue altogether while your post is doomed for deletion. And the posts are identical besides file size. Perhaps with some software capable of comparison you can find some but to the naked eye there is no difference. Why is there a bias for Pixiv for identical images?
chodorov said:
Well it's certainly aggravating to find a piece of art on Twitter and not Pixiv (I always check saucenao) and to upload it, finding that seven hours later someone has uploaded a version just posted on Pixiv, having plucked your tagging and skipped the mod queue altogether while your post is doomed for deletion. And the posts are identical besides file size. Perhaps with some software capable of comparison you can find some but to the naked eye there is no difference. Why is there a bias for Pixiv for identical images?
It's true that for the most part, the images are almost identical, with twitter images usually having some jpg artifacting when you zoom in anywhere between 100-200% zoom. The reason pixiv posts are prioritized over twitter is because of this recompression. Pixiv is said to be lossless, though I've only heard this secondhand but I just take them at their word. The sticky point with pixiv is what happens between pixiv and tumblr images, sometimes people parent the pixiv, sometimes they parent the tumblr. The file sizes between the two are usually in the difference of like 10kb, so I really don't know. I don't dig in the back end for whatever recompression each website uses on an image.
All that said, twitter images aren't immediately deleted when a less compressed version is uploaded because it would incite user backlash, not to mention not all artists upload all their twitter art to pixiv, or to pixiv at all. Sometimes artists will post vastly higher resolution versions to twitter before downsizing to a more manageable resolution to pixiv (like 700x1000 vs 2800x4000). It's all just very complicated.
post #2467007. I'm not appealing this one yet, as I'd like to find out if there's actually anything wrong with it first. From what I can see, there's not really much wrong with it past some slightly neglectful tagging, though I'd like a more trained eye to look it over.
