Comments

Blacklisted
    Show Search Options
    post #184189
    83 100 3 Q
    post #183694
    95 161 4 E
    post #184176
    56 94 2 E
    post #184348
    89 57 27 S

    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...

  • |
  • 11
  • post #184348
    89 57 27 S

    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
    89 57 27 S

    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
    89 57 27 S

    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(

  • |
  • 14
  • 46 3 2 Q
    post #184348
    89 57 27 S
    post #184348
    89 57 27 S
    post #184348
    89 57 27 S
    post #184348
    89 57 27 S
    34 35 9 Q
    post #184274
    46 53 3 S

    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
    185 246 6 E
    post #184347
    185 246 6 E
    post #182021
    54 76 2 Q
    post #184167
    203 311 7 E

    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.

  • |
  • 2
  • post #184340
    160 236 2 E
    post #184331
    81 97 2 Q
    post #184290
    76 111 8 E
    post #184327
    219 349 3 E
    post #184324
    85 115 1 Q
    post #184300
    43 67 2 Q

    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
    249 386 3 E
    post #184314
    92 177 2 E

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

  • |
  • 1
  • post #184303
    123 176 1 E
    post #184274
    46 53 3 S

    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
    106 168 2 E

    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 35 9 Q
    post #184314
    92 177 2 E
    post #184219
    36 42 1 E
    post #184343
    134 195 2 E
    post #184167
    203 311 7 E

    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
    142 204 1 E
    post #184318
    249 386 3 E
    post #184322
    178 270 6 E
    post #184327
    219 349 3 E
    post #183675
    143 149 9 S

    turtonturakon11 said:
    My first impression of them being extremelly cold, aloof, distant. I thought befriending with them is borderline impossible.

    Yeah, course correction, I may have overdone it in the earlier art. There is some of that, but ultimately, individuality still allows for all types.

  • |
  • 1
  • post #182817
    158 262 4 E
    post #183867
    105 119 11 E
    12 16 1 Q
    post #184288
    96 134 2 E
    post #184289
    85 113 3 E
    post #184061
    20 22 1 S
    88 0 6 E
    34 35 9 Q
    post #183990
    178 249 2 E
    post #184028
    106 168 2 E
    post #184027
    114 109 5 Q

    She'd give the best hugs bar none.

    She definitely looks more feline. What species did you have in mind?

  • |
  • 3
  • post #183890
    31 22 5 S
    post #184024
    100 117 2 E
    post #184112
    338 576 3 E
    post #184109
    342 542 7 E
    post #184180
    109 156 2 E
    post #184202
    97 165 3 E
    post #184234
    243 411 2 E
    post #184285
    71 124 1 E
    post #184287
    147 196 5 E
    post #184288
    96 134 2 E
    88 0 6 E
    34 35 9 Q
    post #184286
    39 63 2 E
    34 35 9 Q
    post #184222
    190 286 1 E
    post #184233
    227 368 5 E
    post #184176
    56 94 2 E
    post #184269
    85 123 10 E
    46 3 2 Q
    post #183646
    1 12 1 E
    34 35 9 Q
    post #184070
    43 55 1 E
    34 35 9 Q
    34 35 9 Q
    post #184269
    85 123 10 E

    n_n said:
    Very sweet action 🥰 I can't wait to see what he has in store :P

    Gotta show her a good time! The night is still young! 😉

  • |
  • 3