Comments

Blacklisted
    Show Search Options
    post #90823
    389 709 5 E
    48 51 2 E

    badwolf1 said:
    So, what's the issue. I don't see anything messed up.

    Only thing I really saw are the hands are a bit disjointed, especially when you look at them at full res. Maybe the spear head, but the whole aesthetic of these tends to be raggedy, so I don’t mind it. I rather like this style

  • |
  • 2
  • post #90823
    389 709 5 E
    post #89186
    128 228 2 E
    post #90807
    51 87 1 E
    post #90761
    102 181 6 E
    154 263 1 E
    post #90519
    218 380 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
    102 181 6 E
    post #90513
    132 223 1 E
    post #75206
    72 114 2 E
    post #90765
    172 257 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
    95 134 3 Q
    post #90780
    238 372 5 E
    post #90638
    209 350 3 E
    45 68 5 E
    45 68 5 E
    post #60689
    91 223 3 E
    post #60680
    97 213 1 E
    post #90785
    110 197 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
    165 250 3 E
    post #90770
    99 161 1 E
    post #90761
    102 181 6 E
    5 7 1 S
    post #90754
    265 447 19 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
    182 288 4 E
    post #90783
    217 389 2 E
    post #90763
    107 169 11 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
    238 372 5 E
    post #90791
    182 288 4 E
    post #90781
    238 415 2 E
    post #90686
    336 622 3 E
    post #90546
    14 10 1 S
    23 32 2 E
    post #90687
    230 410 2 E
    post #90791
    182 288 4 E
    post #90792
    195 329 1 E
    post #90743
    136 226 1 E
    32 51 1 E
    post #90724
    228 389 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
    110 197 2 E
    post #90777
    198 282 3 E
    post #90737
    108 182 1 E
    post #90783
    217 389 2 E
    post #90761
    102 181 6 E

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

    Plus she has a cute face. :3

  • |
  • 2
  • post #90763
    107 169 11 E
    post #90724
    228 389 10 E
    post #90678
    324 627 2 E
    post #90583
    220 332 1 E
    post #90754
    265 447 19 E
    post #90774
    33 53 2 E
    post #90795
    49 82 1 Q
    post #90603
    144 202 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
    36 72 1 E
    post #90780
    238 372 5 E
    post #90511
    281 476 5 E
    post #90515
    168 251 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
    265 447 19 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
    265 447 19 E
    post #90763
    107 169 11 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
    265 447 19 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
    501 932 7 E
    post #90724
    228 389 10 E
    post #90515
    168 251 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
    107 169 11 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
    263 500 2 E
    post #90696
    192 353 3 E
    post #90515
    168 251 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
    265 447 19 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