Comments

Blacklisted
    (help)
    Show Search Options
    post #184348
    76 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
    76 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
    78 94 1 E
    post #184326
    60 77 1 E
    post #184348
    76 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
    26 37 2 Q
    post #184348
    76 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
    98 145 5 Q
    post #184269
    59 85 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
    68 119 3 E
    post #184348
    76 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
    94 142 2 E
    post #184189
    56 74 3 Q
    post #183694
    79 129 4 E
    post #184176
    33 53 2 E
    post #184348
    76 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
    76 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
    76 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
    76 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
    76 45 27 S
    post #184348
    76 45 27 S

    Lizzyroo

    Member

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

  • |
  • 7
    •
    post #184348
    76 45 27 S
    post #184348
    76 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
    32 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
    145 185 6 E
    post #184347
    145 185 6 E

    n n

    Member

    I think the only thing dropped here was pants XD

  • |
  • 5
    •
    post #182021
    46 64 2 Q
    post #184167
    130 209 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
    112 167 2 E

    n n

    Member

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

  • |
  • 2
    •
    post #184331
    58 73 2 Q
    post #184290
    51 65 6 E
    post #184327
    151 240 3 E
    post #184324
    65 86 1 Q
    post #184300
    26 37 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
    188 296 3 E
    post #184314
    55 115 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
    83 131 1 E

    n n

    Member

    Treat the lovely lady to some molerat kebabs ❤️

  • |
  • 2
    •
    post #184274
    32 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
    84 130 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
    55 115 2 E
    post #184219
    29 32 1 E
    post #184343
    98 138 2 E
    post #184167
    130 209 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
    94 131 1 E
    post #184318
    188 296 3 E
    post #184322
    119 160 6 E
    post #184327
    151 240 3 E
    post #183675
    95 95 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.

  • |
  • 1
    •
    post #182817
    121 196 3 E
    post #183867
    69 70 10 E
    post #184292
    11 16 1 Q
    post #184288
    68 99 2 E
    post #184289
    65 86 3 E

    n n

    Member

    Well deserved 🥰 & bonus ear scratches

  • |
  • 2
    •
    post #184061
    13 11 1 S
    87 0 6 E
    34 36 9 Q
    post #183990
    142 205 2 E

    ZhenEric

    Member

    Because she always says yes (and is probably a great lover too)

  • |
  • 1
    •
    post #184028
    84 130 2 E

    ZhenEric

    Member

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

  • |
  • 0
    •
    post #184027
    86 78 4 Q

    ZhenEric

    Member

    She'd give the best hugs bar none.

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

  • |
  • 2
    •
    post #183890
    26 17 5 S
    post #184024
    68 75 2 E
    post #184112
    167 269 3 E
    post #184109
    252 391 7 E
    post #184180
    86 121 2 E
    post #184202
    68 119 3 E
    post #184234
    141 231 2 E
    post #184285
    51 82 1 E
    post #184287
    107 140 4 E
    post #184288
    68 99 2 E
    87 0 6 E
    34 36 9 Q
    post #184286
    29 38 2 E