Comments

Blacklisted
    (help)
    Show Search Options
    post #184185
    70 110 1 E
    post #184189
    43 55 3 Q
    post #183694
    74 124 4 E
    post #184176
    29 44 2 E
    post #184348
    37 22 21 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...

  • |
  • 7
    •
    post #184348
    37 22 21 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!

  • |
  • 3
    •
    post #184348
    37 22 21 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
    37 22 21 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(

  • |
  • 10
    •
    post #184270
    44 3 2 Q
    post #184348
    37 22 21 S
    post #184348
    37 22 21 S
    post #184348
    37 22 21 S
    post #184348
    37 22 21 S
    post #184282
    32 31 8 Q

    n n

    Member

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

  • |
  • 0
    •
    post #184274
    20 25 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
    69 78 4 E
    post #184347
    69 78 4 E
    post #182021
    46 64 2 Q
    post #184167
    101 161 6 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.

  • |
  • 0
    •
    post #184340
    59 81 1 E
    post #184331
    34 42 2 Q
    post #184290
    31 41 3 E
    post #184327
    80 106 2 E
    post #184324
    45 45 1 Q
    post #184300
    23 24 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.

  • |
  • 0
    •
    post #184318
    101 137 3 E
    post #184314
    28 59 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
    51 73 1 E
    post #184274
    20 25 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.

  • |
  • 1
    •
    post #184028
    68 113 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

  • |
  • 0
    •
    post #184282
    32 31 8 Q
    post #184314
    28 59 2 E
    post #184219
    22 25 1 E
    post #184343
    55 65 1 E
    post #184167
    101 161 6 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.

  • |
  • 0
    •
    post #184315
    48 63 1 E
    post #184318
    101 137 3 E
    post #184322
    64 71 2 E
    post #184327
    80 106 2 E
    post #183675
    87 85 9 S

    TerraRaptor

    Privileged

    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.

  • |
  • 0
    •
    post #182817
    117 191 3 E
    post #183867
    63 60 10 E
    post #184292
    6 12 1 Q
    post #184288
    51 70 2 E
    post #184289
    46 55 2 E
    post #184061
    13 10 1 S
    88 0 6 E
    post #184282
    32 31 8 Q
    post #183990
    133 195 2 E
    post #184028
    68 113 2 E
    post #184027
    72 63 4 Q

    ZhenEric

    Member

    She'd give the best hugs bar none.

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

  • |
  • 1
    •
    post #183890
    24 15 5 S
    post #184024
    58 66 2 E
    post #184112
    126 193 3 E
    post #184109
    208 314 6 E
    post #184180
    64 81 1 E
    post #184202
    46 74 3 E
    post #184234
    94 151 2 E
    post #184285
    35 54 1 E
    post #184287
    70 82 1 E
    post #184288
    51 70 2 E
    88 0 6 E
    post #184282
    32 31 8 Q
    post #184286
    22 25 1 E
    post #184282
    32 31 8 Q
    post #184222
    89 139 1 E
    post #184233
    80 131 3 E
    post #184176
    29 44 2 E
    post #184269
    35 54 6 E
    post #184270
    44 3 2 Q
    post #183646
    2 4 1 E
    post #184282
    32 31 8 Q
    post #184070
    21 29 1 E
    post #184282
    32 31 8 Q
    post #184282
    32 31 8 Q