Comments

Blacklisted
    (help)
    Show Search Options
    post #184360
    13 11 1 S
    post #183769
    228 359 3 E

    deadcookie

    Member

    the wrinkles of cloth the moist fat red cock, and the strings of precum as lubricant... oh my god this is peak.

  • |
  • 0
    •
    post #183785
    22 12 2 S
    post #184362
    74 100 2 Q
    post #184362
    74 100 2 Q
    post #184357
    55 82 1 Q
    post #184358
    40 37 3 S

    n n

    Member

    Awww that has to be the gen that has given me the biggest smile of the day. so wonderfully cute 🥰

  • |
  • 3
    •
    post #184348
    54 33 24 S

    foxlover78982

    Member

    lor7n said:
    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)_/¯

    It's no big deal; I'm not offended.

  • |
  • 0
    •
    post #100728
    107 297 2 E
    post #184183
    138 200 6 E
    post #184325
    61 79 2 Q
    post #184088
    109 167 1 E
    post #184068
    170 241 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
    54 33 24 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
    40 37 3 S
    post #184183
    138 200 6 E
    post #184290
    42 50 6 E
    post #184356
    91 108 1 E
    post #181956
    108 160 3 E
    post #184322
    92 115 4 E
    post #184348
    54 33 24 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.

  • |
  • 1
    •
    post #184358
    40 37 3 S
    post #182556
    63 84 1 Q
    post #184331
    45 58 2 Q
    post #184318
    159 240 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
    50 72 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! ❤️

  • |
  • 2
    •
    post #184290
    42 50 6 E
    post #184312
    105 150 1 E
    post #184289
    58 71 3 E
    post #184269
    50 72 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

  • |
  • 1
    •
    post #184354
    77 116 1 E
    post #184195
    121 184 1 E
    post #184347
    107 127 6 E
    post #184348
    54 33 24 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.

  • |
  • 8
    •
    post #184348
    54 33 24 S
    post #184348
    54 33 24 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.

  • |
  • 0
    •
    post #184348
    54 33 24 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
    69 80 1 E
    post #184326
    51 66 1 E
    post #184348
    54 33 24 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.

  • |
  • 5
    •
    post #184300
    24 34 2 Q
    post #184348
    54 33 24 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
    79 113 5 Q
    post #184269
    50 72 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!

  • |
  • 2
    •
    post #184202
    53 89 3 E
    post #184348
    54 33 24 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

  • |
  • 7
    •
    post #184185
    80 124 1 E
    post #184189
    48 64 3 Q
    post #183694
    75 126 4 E
    post #184176
    32 48 2 E
    post #184348
    54 33 24 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...

  • |
  • 9
    •
    post #184348
    54 33 24 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!

  • |
  • 4
    •
    post #184348
    54 33 24 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
    54 33 24 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(

  • |
  • 12
    •
    48 3 2 Q
    post #184348
    54 33 24 S
    post #184348
    54 33 24 S
    post #184348
    54 33 24 S
    post #184348
    54 33 24 S
    34 36 9 Q
    post #184274
    25 30 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
    107 127 6 E
    post #184347
    107 127 6 E
    post #182021
    46 64 2 Q
    post #184167
    111 183 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
    83 123 2 E
    post #184331
    45 58 2 Q
    post #184290
    42 50 6 E
    post #184327
    116 184 3 E
    post #184324
    56 71 1 Q
    post #184300
    24 34 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
    159 240 3 E
    post #184314
    40 82 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
    72 113 1 E
    post #184274
    25 30 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
    •