Comments

Blacklisted
    Show Search Options
    post #90823
    395 720 5 E
    post #89186
    132 230 2 E
    post #90807
    52 89 1 E
    post #90761
    103 182 6 E
    154 262 1 E
    post #90519
    220 384 6 E

    Um...2 questions....
    Where are those sexy teats of hers?
    Where did those beautiful pink love buds go?
    Not that I'm complaining mind you.

  • |
  • 0
  • 45 68 5 E
    post #90761
    103 182 6 E
    post #90513
    137 227 1 E
    post #75206
    73 115 2 E
    post #90765
    177 265 2 Q

    I like this but it's SO very dark. Had to add some brightness, contrast, gamma, and a bit of saturation just to see her in her glory.

    Edit: Really guys? It's a lovely image. But it's a DARK, visually washed out image. Can't help that you disagree.

    Updated

  • |
  • 0
  • post #90813
    96 135 3 Q
    post #90780
    247 395 5 E
    post #90638
    211 351 3 E
    45 68 5 E

    phantom_tire_buyer said:
    Hell yeah! Thank you!

    I know you mentioned getting their bodies to play nice for the gen was a PITA but maybe some time her mouth can get a little closer to his uh... Zeenis. XD

  • |
  • 2
  • 45 68 5 E
    post #60689
    93 227 3 E
    post #60680
    100 218 1 E
    post #90785
    112 198 2 E

    phantom_tire_buyer said:
    Can you do a version where they are both totally nude? It's already got a bit of a fun Furronika vibe!

    I'll do it for you. I also like Furronica and Doctordj. Both draw without paints. I don't know about the vibe of Furronica and me, but his bear is good

  • |
  • 3
  • post #90635
    165 251 3 E
    post #90770
    101 165 1 E
    post #90761
    103 182 6 E
    5 7 1 S
    post #90754
    268 452 20 E

    Even though I still have my eyes and aren't build as good as this dude, I still wanna swap places with him.
    I could smex Glaceon 24/7.

  • |
  • 1
  • post #90771
    44 60 1 E
    26 25 1 E
    post #90791
    187 295 4 E
    post #90783
    222 393 2 E
    post #90763
    110 176 12 E

    shanti said:
    More versatile? It seems to me that they are: Intentional generation errors.
    So because of some small error (an extra finger or lack thereof) we delete an image, but an image where the eyes are SPECIALLY removed, no!

    I intentionally removed the eyes through prompts "faceless man". I wanted it to be universal.

  • |
  • 5
  • post #90780
    247 395 5 E
    post #90791
    187 295 4 E
    post #90781
    244 421 2 E
    post #90686
    341 633 3 E
    post #90546
    14 10 1 S
    23 32 2 E
    post #90687
    234 420 2 E
    post #90791
    187 295 4 E
    post #90792
    198 332 1 E
    post #90743
    138 227 1 E
    32 51 1 E
    post #90724
    234 398 10 E

    This is by far the best representation of anatomically correct cow rear (udder included) I have ever seen on an anthro. Superb. Will be following your future work.

  • |
  • 5
  • post #90785
    112 198 2 E

    Can you do a version where they are both totally nude? It's already got a bit of a fun Furronika vibe!

  • |
  • 1
  • post #90777
    201 287 3 E
    post #90737
    110 185 1 E
    post #90783
    222 393 2 E
    post #90761
    103 182 6 E

    That must be one big bird considering the smol bird next to it, love it.

    Plus she has a cute face. :3

  • |
  • 3
  • post #90763
    110 176 12 E
    post #90724
    234 398 10 E
    post #90678
    330 644 2 E
    post #90583
    223 335 1 E
    post #90754
    268 452 20 E
    post #90774
    33 53 2 E
    post #90795
    50 83 1 Q
    post #90603
    147 206 3 Q

    corsetlover69 said:
    Oooo I love this! As my name implies I really like corsets :)

    Thank you, love them too :D especially in steampunk style.
    Your works are amazing too btw!

  • |
  • 1
  • post #90733
    37 72 1 E
    post #90780
    247 395 5 E
    post #90511
    283 477 5 E
    post #90515
    170 253 7 E

    shanti said:
    It's stupid. The prettier images, with the extra finger (or lack thereof) removed... This one doesn't.

    I mean, you are welcome to just flat out call something 'stupid' but it doesn't affect the truth that a faceless male can be stylised without eyes as a means of the viewers self insertion into the image.
    It has been done plenty of times on both the AI Site and Main E6 site drawn by artists for that very reason.

    Want to make something with extra fingers, go for it, no one is stopping you. As long as it is actually part of the character, and not a temper tantrum over the rules, you are free to do what you want.

    Just remember that doing something just to be petty probably wont reflect well.

    Remember, personal growth also comes by sometime taking the L and moving on with the day
    e6 wiki page for anon, for your reading pleasure https://e621.net/wiki_pages/8336

    Updated

  • |
  • 4
  • post #90754
    268 452 20 E

    shanti said:
    What's stopping me from making an extra finger for a character? Or remove it.

    It's stupid to remove the eyes.

    Please don't leave comments like this.

  • |
  • 5
  • post #85943
    95 136 2 E
    post #90754
    268 452 20 E
    post #90763
    110 176 12 E

    shanti said:
    More versatile? It seems to me that they are: Intentional generation errors.
    So because of some small error (an extra finger or lack thereof) we delete an image, but an image where the eyes are SPECIALLY removed, no!

    No, DeNatural is correct. The eyes are removed intentionally. It's an extremely common practice. I don't like the finger rule either, but our dear janny is spot on here.

    https://e621.net/posts/4791136?q=anon+order%3Ascore+-animated
    https://e621.net/posts/4364024?q=anon+order%3Ascore+-animated
    https://e621.net/posts/4170110?q=anon+order%3Ascore+-animated

  • |
  • 7
  • 6 3 1 S
    post #90754
    268 452 20 E

    shanti said:
    What's stopping me from making an extra finger for a character? Or remove it.

    It's stupid to remove the eyes.

    Choose a different hill to die on. This is common.

  • |
  • 11
  • 2 1 1 E
    post #88299
    507 947 7 E
    post #90724
    234 398 10 E
    post #90515
    170 253 7 E

    majinbreed said:
    cannot see why this was flagged.
    nothing out of the ordinary here.
    if flagged for male eyes then that is wrong due to using an 'eyeless' male to depict the 'anon' character, without a green head.

    It's stupid. The prettier images, with the extra finger (or lack thereof) removed... This one doesn't.

  • |
  • -9
  • post #90763
    110 176 12 E

    DeNatural

    Former Staff

    shanti said:
    Where are the eyes?!

    its in minimalist self-insertion style. You remove facial details, especially eyes, to make characters more universally relatable.

  • |
  • 7
  • post #90702
    269 511 2 E
    post #90696
    195 359 3 E
    post #90515
    170 253 7 E

    cannot see why this was flagged.
    nothing out of the ordinary here.
    if flagged for male eyes then that is wrong due to using an 'eyeless' male to depict the 'anon' character, without a green head.

  • |
  • 3
  • post #90754
    268 452 20 E

    shanti said:
    Where are the eyes?!

    a way to display a faceless, or anonymous, male is to leave out the eyes
    this isnt uncommon

  • |
  • 13
  • post #90543
    164 293 3 E
    post #90515
    170 253 7 E