Comments

Blacklisted
    (help)
    Show Search Options
    post #184325
    74 100 2 Q
    post #184088
    120 186 1 E
    post #184068
    189 278 3 E

    Corsetlover

    Member

    Amazing. Love the outfit, the pose, and the character design. Hope to see more of them in the future!

  • |
  • 1
    •
    post #184348
    78 45 27 S

    LoR7n

    Janitor

    foxlover78982 said:
    I totally get where you're coming from. Recently, one of my images was removed, and one of the reasons given was that the character was missing a left ear. But the ear was actually there—it just blended in a bit with the color of the hair.
    But I'm too lazy to even argue about these things anymore.

    I admit this was my mistake. I didn’t look carefully enough, and I only noticed it after the post had already been deleted. I apologize for that. However, the finger count mismatch is indeed an obvious issue. Though perhaps I shouldn’t be discussing deletion decisions here. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  • |
  • 1
    •
    post #184358
    61 46 3 S

    Skillyzee

    Member

    You've perfectly captured the canine in all it's natural grace and wonder.

    Excellent job! ^^

  • |
  • 4
    •
    post #184183
    163 245 8 E
    post #184290
    52 71 6 E
    post #184356
    121 161 1 E
    post #181956
    110 162 3 E
    post #184322
    123 169 6 E

    some234

    Member

    o/~ yiff, exiting and new / come aboard, we're expecting you

  • |
  • 2
    •
    post #184348
    78 45 27 S

    foxlover78982

    Member

    flafster said:
    Oh, I’ve tried to publish a post so many times, but the moderators rejected it every time for one reason or another; even the slightest bit of sloppiness can be grounds for removing the image—it’s disheartening. A blurry pot in the background, eyes that aren't quite right, stray scales, or anything like that can lead to removal(

    I totally get where you're coming from. Recently, one of my images was removed, and one of the reasons given was that the character was missing a left ear. But the ear was actually there—it just blended in a bit with the color of the hair.
    But I'm too lazy to even argue about these things anymore.

  • |
  • 3
    •
    post #184358
    61 46 3 S
    post #182556
    65 87 1 Q
    post #184331
    60 74 2 Q
    post #184318
    200 314 3 E

    WhereWolf

    Member

    Why spend the energy chasing your prey when all you need to do is lay there looking gorgeous and delicious?

  • |
  • 2
    •
    post #184269
    62 91 10 E

    DuckSiri

    Member

    n_n said:
    All appreciated :P

    As are all the comments, compliments and inspirations from you and everyone who’s been keeping up with the comic so far! Cannot thank you enough! ❤️

  • |
  • 4
    •
    post #184290
    52 71 6 E
    post #184312
    129 193 1 E
    post #184289
    67 87 3 E

    WhereWolf

    Member

    I think she's sending us a message. Definitely received... (Cute image!)

  • |
  • 2
    •
    post #184269
    62 91 10 E

    n n

    Member

    ducksiri said:
    I may be drawing it out, but I wanna make up for all the story and lore I put in the beginning!

    All appreciated :P

  • |
  • 2
    •
    post #184354
    118 188 3 E
    post #184195
    148 230 1 E
    post #184347
    151 197 6 E
    post #184348
    78 45 27 S

    DRLa

    Developer

    lizzyroo said:
    I think we need something like e6ai2 where quality guidelines are bit more well relaxed, well thats just me.
    IE if eye is slightly messed up, thats fine, if bit blurry, thats fine.
    Where images aren't 100% perfect like it needs to be on e6ai.
    This is where e6ai2 comes in, where images aren't 100% perfect, but people want to post them. perhaps others can comment on it and give tips and helpful suggestion

    *this is also my bad apparently I did a Report and did Not read I was doing a Report. I am Truly Sorry.

    You should checkout the Discord then. We have a gen sharing channel where we don't enforce quality guidelines. We also have channels for getting feedback on WIPs and asking for help. Some users post more often-or even exclusively-on Discord.

  • |
  • 7
    •
    post #184348
    78 45 27 S
    post #184348
    78 45 27 S

    tobbe

    Member

    I appreciate the high quality standards, even if they are frustrating at times. I've had my fair share of submissions deleted, some several times for new errors one after another.
    See this image above and other cartoony images can be sloppy, aside from apparent anatomical anomalies. It's part of being cartoony. But in more realistic images, as I and many others try to make, a little slop is much more apparent and ruins the image. I don't know, it's a difficult line to draw. Maybe drop the demands by about 10%, then again maybe it's good with demands of perfection the way it is, even if it is frustrating.

  • |
  • 1
    •
    post #184348
    78 45 27 S

    Technical-Grid

    Janitor

    lizzyroo said:
    ok lets get the Magnifying glass out and see if it is a Pass.

    Better not or you'll the the jpg artifacts 💀
    (Which is easily fixable by 1:1 upscaling it and then saving it as a png)

  • |
  • 3
    •
    post #184335
    82 99 1 E
    post #184326
    62 80 1 E
    post #184348
    78 45 27 S

    Tamara

    Member

    flafster said:
    Oh, I’ve tried to publish a post so many times, but the moderators rejected it every time for one reason or another; even the slightest bit of sloppiness can be grounds for removing the image—it’s disheartening. A blurry pot in the background, eyes that aren't quite right, stray scales, or anything like that can lead to removal(

    Inpainting is your friend. All these little sloppy bits can be easily corrected with a bit of inpainting. And, in my experience, the janitors are quite forgiving with backgrounds, because the ai is still not there yet. Unless it's a glaring problem like the horizon line not matching up on both sides of a character, which happened to me, and I fixed in about 10 minutes with some quick inpainting and the picture was validated.

  • |
  • 4
    •
    post #184300
    29 38 2 Q
    post #184348
    78 45 27 S

    Lizzyroo

    Member

    drla said:
    Posts approved before the current quality guidelined are allowed to stay. Otherwise we'd have to pretty much delete everything from the first two years of the site...

    I think we need something like e6ai2 where quality guidelines are bit more well relaxed, well thats just me.
    IE if eye is slightly messed up, thats fine, if bit blurry, thats fine.
    Where images aren't 100% perfect like it needs to be on e6ai.
    This is where e6ai2 comes in, where images aren't 100% perfect, but people want to post them. perhaps others can comment on it and give tips and helpful suggestion

    *this is also my bad apparently I did a Report and did Not read I was doing a Report. I am Truly Sorry.

  • |
  • 2
    •
    post #184205
    104 152 5 Q
    post #184269
    62 91 10 E

    DuckSiri

    Member

    n_n said:
    Too true

    I may be drawing it out, but I wanna make up for all the story and lore I put in the beginning!

  • |
  • 3
    •
    post #184202
    71 122 3 E
    post #184348
    78 45 27 S

    LoR7n

    Janitor

    n_n said:
    I find it odd that looking at MANY older posts on the site they are still there but have all the faults and more that new ones get blasted for.
    Maybe some "less ultra quality" gens are still using older gen tools instead? or maybe older posts all need to constantly be updated to the latest available tool quality? who can say? :P

    Whether people are using local models or not, the quality of gens has been improving pretty significantly over time. We’d also like to see people make use of those improvements to create better and more creative work.

    A lot of those older posts were approved because they represented the level of quality that was achievable at the time. Standards change as the tools improve. If we applied today’s standards to everything that was posted two years ago, I imagine going back and deleting all of it would be quite a massive undertaking

  • |
  • 8
    •
    post #184185
    99 145 2 E
    post #184189
    61 77 3 Q
    post #183694
    82 134 4 E
    post #184176
    37 55 2 E
    post #184348
    78 45 27 S

    DRLa

    Developer

    n_n said:
    I find it odd that looking at MANY older posts on the site they are still there but have all the faults and more that new ones get blasted for.
    Maybe some "less ultra quality" gens are still using older gen tools instead? or maybe older posts all need to constantly be updated to the latest available tool quality? who can say? :P

    Posts approved before the current quality guidelined are allowed to stay. Otherwise we'd have to pretty much delete everything from the first two years of the site...

  • |
  • 10
    •
    post #184348
    78 45 27 S

    unnatural order

    Member

    That tooth line is a bit thick on the front... could be dental abnormality. And that dot between the tail and body, possible artifact!

  • |
  • 5
    •
    post #184348
    78 45 27 S

    n n

    Member

    flafster said:
    Oh, I’ve tried to publish a post so many times, but the moderators rejected it every time for one reason or another; even the slightest bit of sloppiness can be grounds for removing the image—it’s disheartening. A blurry pot in the background, eyes that aren't quite right, stray scales, or anything like that can lead to removal(

    I find it odd that looking at MANY older posts on the site they are still there but have all the faults and more that new ones get blasted for.
    Maybe some "less ultra quality" gens are still using older gen tools instead? or maybe older posts all need to constantly be updated to the latest available tool quality? who can say? :P

  • |
  • 0
    •
    post #184348
    78 45 27 S

    FlaFsteR

    Member

    Oh, I’ve tried to publish a post so many times, but the moderators rejected it every time for one reason or another; even the slightest bit of sloppiness can be grounds for removing the image—it’s disheartening. A blurry pot in the background, eyes that aren't quite right, stray scales, or anything like that can lead to removal(

  • |
  • 13
    •
    48 3 2 Q
    post #184348
    78 45 27 S
    post #184348
    78 45 27 S

    Lizzyroo

    Member

    ok lets get the Magnifying glass out and see if it is a Pass.

  • |
  • 7
    •
    post #184348
    78 45 27 S
    post #184348
    78 45 27 S
    34 36 9 Q

    n n

    Member

    Can't stop showing this to friends lol. This is just my kinda fun

  • |
  • 0
    •
    post #184274
    33 34 3 S

    n n

    Member

    grove_ellar said:
    I wish the depth of field wasn't so potent (for purely selfish reasons) but she does have gracefully enchanting eyes.

    I get ya 😉
    Luckily there are more great gens in the gallery to watch that aren't dof'd

  • |
  • 1
    •
    post #184347
    151 197 6 E
    post #184347
    151 197 6 E

    n n

    Member

    I think the only thing dropped here was pants XD

  • |
  • 5
    •
    post #182021
    47 66 2 Q
    post #184167
    141 220 7 E

    IlIllIlIllI

    Member

    medicineball said:
    I'm no expert in making these sort of things, but I do consume plenty. To my non-novice eye, there appears to be nothing wrong with what you have done here. Maybe I'm missing something, but the other comments seem to have my back on this. As for getting a score of only 82 (at the time of this posting), it's very likely down to taste, as most are not used to seeing mammaries in the location they are in here on an anthro. I appreciate your striving for great product, but give yourself some credit too. This is awesome!

    I'm a sucker for these romantic pieces.

    That's great to hear, thank you. Regarding the question, I mean that some things I generate work perfectly, without any inpainting or regeneration, but others, like this one, take a very long time to render. Most models probably aren't trained to do this, which is why the whole picture falls apart, even with a detailed sketch for Scribble. Idk, just trying to explain this to myself.

  • |
  • 1
    •
    post #184340
    118 172 2 E

    n n

    Member

    Haven't seen such a sexy red squirrel in a while now :D

  • |
  • 2
    •
    post #184331
    60 74 2 Q
    post #184290
    52 71 6 E
    post #184327
    162 257 3 E
    post #184324
    66 86 1 Q
    post #184300
    29 38 2 Q

    waywardneutrino

    Member

    A lot of Zoc's gens have this kind of subtle hint of fur texture that I absolutely adore: it gives just enough to impart a look of fuzzy softness without crossing into the territory of over-rendered, long rough fur. I must learn how to reproduce a similar effect by hand in Krita- it's so damn nice.

  • |
  • 1
    •
    post #184318
    200 314 3 E
    post #184314
    64 125 2 E

    n n

    Member

    XD Ain't furry logic just the best? Girthy snake-balls and juicy peen complete with foreskin :P

  • |
  • 1
    •
    post #184303
    90 137 1 E

    n n

    Member

    Treat the lovely lady to some molerat kebabs ❤️

  • |
  • 2
    •
    post #184274
    33 34 3 S

    Grove Ellar

    Member

    n_n said:
    These closeups of precious kobold faces are such a treat ❤️

    I wish the depth of field wasn't so potent (for purely selfish reasons) but she does have gracefully enchanting eyes.

  • |
  • 2
    •
    post #184028
    85 133 2 E

    Hammapajamma

    Member

    zheneric said:
    I might just "accidentally" trip and fall while appearing to steal some copper.

    Oh don't worry, I'm sure they'll help you get back up (after you get down), they're not bad sports.

    Only issue is that the law usually arrives before they get the chance to. Turns out a knot at each end is a pretty effective way of keeping a person detained. (°ー°〃)

    Updated

  • |
  • 1
    •
    34 36 9 Q
    post #184314
    64 125 2 E
    post #184219
    30 32 1 E
    post #184343
    104 145 2 E
    post #184167
    141 220 7 E

    medicineball

    Member

    ilillililli said:
    Btw... By looking at some works on the site I am feeling like I am using some sort of orchish technics. Some others having a more clean results. I've tried to switch between models, experimented with upscalers/without them... Still the result is much worse. What am I doing wrong?!

    I'm no expert in making these sort of things, but I do consume plenty. To my non-novice eye, there appears to be nothing wrong with what you have done here. Maybe I'm missing something, but the other comments seem to have my back on this. As for getting a score of only 82 (at the time of this posting), it's very likely down to taste, as most are not used to seeing mammaries in the location they are in here on an anthro. I appreciate your striving for great product, but give yourself some credit too. This is awesome!

    I'm a sucker for these romantic pieces.

  • |
  • 1
    •
    post #184315
    99 139 1 E
    post #184318
    200 314 3 E
    post #184322
    123 169 6 E
    post #184327
    162 257 3 E