10 | 20 | 40 | 60 | 80 | 100 per page
Oldest First | Newest First

I'd rather not be rejected again, so....

I was hoping for some feedback before applying again. I seem to be having issues figuring out what to submit in order to be successfully admitted to the site, so I am hoping for some pointers on whether or not some pieces would be good for my submission portfolio.

Two of my better, current pieces were somewhat scanner-mangled, so please let me know if the scanner ghosting on this one would prevent it from being good for my portfolio.

This one was also a bit mangled by my scanner. It lost a lot of the lighter shading details, particularly on the white part of the dress. I am also concerned that it doesn't have enough sense of place, since the ground shading also got munched.

I /love/ your black and white piece and I think that would be a shoe-in but personally I'm not too fond of that second piece you posted. The eyes are too far apart and create a wall-eyed look, not to mention the head is /very/ large in comparison to the rest of the body.

Also, the character blends in too much with the background, particularly on the sleeve where its hard to discern where she begins and the paper eds. Its very nice details, but a lot of that is lost by not letting the character stand out enough from the paper.

Thanks for the feedback, Thornwolf.

Much of what you mention about the second piece are things I was concerned about as well. Most of the shading on the sleeve, dress, and face were lost in the scan, so I agree that she blends into the paper too much in the digital copy. Part of the wall-eyed look is also due to loss of shading, but she still does have some of that on the original. That's the one part of the drawing that truly bothers me, and I wish had come out better.

Thanks for pointing out that the head is too large. I've been having a horribly hard time getting the head size right in comparison to the body. Usually it's too small, but either way I have a hard time telling for myself if the size is right.

I'm glad you like the first piece. I'm very proud of that one, and it's one of my personal favorites that I have drawn so far.

Just a note...

It's generally a waste of time, and not esthetically pleasing, to place large watermarks over your images. Watermarks are easily removed with 10 minutes on Photoshop with the clone stamp tool, and you'll notice that most big-name artists don't bother with them, and if anyone, they're the ones to be worried about art being stolen! :D Putting art on the internet is always a gamble, but watermarking it won't save it from stealing, and it's hard for us to compliment that gorgeous drapery in the second image when it's covered in an embossed name.

Mauricia said: Just a note...

It's generally a waste of time, and not esthetically pleasing, to place large watermarks over your images. Watermarks are easily removed with 10 minutes on Photoshop with the clone stamp tool, and you'll notice that most big-name artists don't bother with them, and if anyone, they're the ones to be worried about art being stolen! :D Putting art on the internet is always a gamble, but watermarking it won't save it from stealing, and it's hard for us to compliment that gorgeous drapery in the second image when it's covered in an embossed name.

This is an interesting subject for debate, and I think most people have differing opinions on the subject. I am not going to stop watermarking my images, and in this case I put my name across it embossed because the usual watermark (the acorns) was too distracting. With very realistic art, it isn't a simple matter of using the clone tool to obliterate the watermark. If someone is skilled enough with Photoshop to completely remove watermarks from very detailed, textured art, then they are most likely good enough to be able to make their own art. Your average art thief online (I believe) is not so skilled. I have actually had people tell me about thefts, based in part on poorly obliterated watermark, where it was obvious that the poster had removed some sort of watermark.

I am not under the delusion that the watermark will eliminate art theft. When I started posting my art online, I did it with the assumption that dumb-asses could and would steal the art and repost it as their own. No matter how good or bad a piece of art is, it can be stolen very easily, and I have seen artists with rather unskilled art complain of theft.

I view watermarks as a deterrent, and they are one I will continue to use. It is not a difficult thing to look at the digital and be able to say whether or not the drapery is well done, even if there is a watermark over it. If you choose not to fave something because of the watermark, that is your choice. If someone would rather look at this piece (and many others) without the watermark, they can purchase the original or a print. I may not be a big name, but I put a lot of time and effort into my art. If a watermark prevents just one theft, or identifies the piece if it is reposted (often the watermark isn't even removed), then I consider it worthwhile.

Just my opinion. :)