Comments: 9
TCPolecat7 [2011-02-23 03:54:39 +0000 UTC]
It's a nice attempt at a bust shot my friend. As for the Critique, here we go:
Let's start with the most obvious elements. The far character will need a chiropractor, her head is turned too far around for the angle. She's most of the way facing the viewer, and the most she'd be able to manage (judging from her shoulders) would be 3/4s of the way towards us, and even that is uncomfortable to maintain. Thus her neck is over-rotated. For the closer character (Christyne?) the way you tucked the boobs down under the rope makes them look like Pectoral muscles, thus making her look like a guy.
From a style critique, you'll need to be careful how you're doing the faces with the cheek ruff so far forward. It makes them look like people with shaggy hair who just stuck a snout/nose on their face with faux fur attached to the base of it coming off in a "wing" like manner. Also practice doing the cheek on the side away from the viewer, having it stick out too far (especially on species with a longer snout) makes the angle you're seeing the head from look more "head-on" then it should be (Like they're face is more directed towards the viewer then you intended).
Either way, you're learning my friend. Keep plugging away at it.
- Polecat
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
BondoFox In reply to TCPolecat7 [2011-02-23 14:22:52 +0000 UTC]
I had my doubts on the far character, Christyne, and I'm (sort of) glad to see my thoughts were right. I wasn't 100% sure though, probably because my brain got used to seeing it that certain way.
As for the foreground character, actually that's dA user "Extremevision", he IS a guy T'was a gift sketch for him.
Damn, I was really kind of happy with the way those ruffs came out, for me they're such a pain to get right. Long time ago on Scorch, Dynotaku make a suggestion on how to have them angled back more so they follow the cheekline/faceline and sometimes I think I get it and sometimes, well, I don't. The farground cheeks, that was an experiment, wasn't sure if it'd work or not. When I work in 3/4 angle (which I prefer) I try to work one head out toward the viewer and 1/2 head going away.
Thank you once again!
Now, if your head hasn't exploded from it, I'd love to hear your critique on my pic of Cottonlop and Christyne, I know there's probably a world of sin there ... art-wise, too
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
TCPolecat7 In reply to BondoFox [2011-02-23 22:07:43 +0000 UTC]
Ah, okay, that would explain some of the confusion. As a note tho, the far character looks more like a cat or a skunk then a vixen... O.o
As for the head angle, I'd personally recommend for a pose like that you set the face in profile. It's just as effective and would alleviate the angle problems.
As for Cheek ruffs, the best way to describe them that I've found is that essentially they follow the jaw=line, but all the way back along it. The jawline itself is smooth, but if you looked at the skull (Is important to remember, ALL parts of what you draw are effected by the skeleton beneath) there's a long lower jawline. But to connect to the skull the jawline has to angle upwards at the joint (Like our own non-furry jaws do). That upward angle is where the cheek ruff is, and it would start at or slightly above where that part of the jaw would connect to the skull, and end roughly where the jaw starts it's forward angle. The jaw itself is a sort of "L" shape, and only the vertical part of the "L" has the cheek ruff on it, the horizontal part is flat.
- Polecat
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Vansom134 [2011-02-21 16:16:43 +0000 UTC]
This is rather nice. Who know. You could something cool with aren.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
BondoFox In reply to Vansom134 [2011-02-23 14:24:00 +0000 UTC]
Thanks!
Well remember what I said on the FA version, don't get used to seeing male bondage from me. Has its place I'm sure, but not really my bag.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Vansom134 In reply to BondoFox [2011-02-23 21:39:06 +0000 UTC]
I didn't s ay bondage with him. He could be somewhere in the background. Plus Aren has no distinct gender. Remember. He's a shape shifter. You can do anything you want.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
BondoFox In reply to Vansom134 [2011-02-25 03:03:57 +0000 UTC]
My bad (whatever that means). I was getting the impression that's what you were after.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Vansom134 In reply to BondoFox [2011-02-25 12:00:10 +0000 UTC]
Yeah, I know,tis alright man.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Extremevision [2011-02-21 02:04:41 +0000 UTC]
whouw, thanks!!! we look well tied up.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0