![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lantairvleaOkay then! I've had my first critique for my seventh Yerf application. While I know I probably shouldn't get in considering the pieces I put in the critique makes me laugh. A lot.
I've no comments to make on the critique slathered on the image of Lantair save for that the lighting is pretty consistant from where I'm standing.
On the second the reviewer pointed out that I left the background cloudy and uninked. I have my reasons for this. I don't like having everything in stark focus, it can often be overly distracting and can eliminate any sense of depth. I don't see not having the background inked as being intensely evil primarily because the background in question is well behind the character and really, in my opinion, should be left slightly out of focus. The head too long? Possibly, but I think it's more the muzzle is a bit short for a tiger and I think the width of the face is perfectly fine. One must also note that not every tiger is a Bangel or Siberian.
The last must have been the best. The reviewer noted that the legs were rather wrong to be trotting. Well, yes, if her movement were forward I would entirely agree, but considering that the equine in question is actually moving laterally the legs are perfectly fine, well, save for maybe the back left which should actually be out away from the body more. The shoulder should actually be rather well as it is, especially considering that the elbow is forced outwards slightly as the horse is moving towards its right. I admit I should have pushed the planes a bit more as the chest/fore part of the shoulder isn't as separated from the side as it should be when it comes to shading. Her forelegs are perfectly fine in proportion. I chose a more extreme perspective than most people are used to seeing a horse at so the back legs do appear to be shorter than the fore, but, if she were drawn head on rather than from a slightly aerial view the legs would match in size (well, hoof to whithers and hoof to croup, not necessarily hoof to elbow and hoof to knee). Arabs ahve short heads, not all Arabs have insanely dished faces (Kash being one of them), but I must note that the one in the drawing DOES have a dished face. And now I'll note that I used a glob of references, namely three DIFFERENT modle horses (two Arabs, the third was a show horse for the leg positioning and basic perspective) and at least three photographs.
I am very much not afraid to use references, don't accuse me as such because you think that my anatomy is slighty off, which it might well be. *Laughs.* Ah yes, getting an anatomy book! How many of those do I have now? Six if you're only counting the ones reffering to Human anatomy exclusively. I also have some ten books on horses that contain images (if you count the ones that don't contain images it's something like 15). Yes it is possible for someone to use a plethora of references and STILL get some of the finer points of anatomy wrong. I would like to think it obvious that I used some form of reference on the last drawing.
As Amarok put it, I have been slapped on the wrist.
I've no comments to make on the critique slathered on the image of Lantair save for that the lighting is pretty consistant from where I'm standing.
On the second the reviewer pointed out that I left the background cloudy and uninked. I have my reasons for this. I don't like having everything in stark focus, it can often be overly distracting and can eliminate any sense of depth. I don't see not having the background inked as being intensely evil primarily because the background in question is well behind the character and really, in my opinion, should be left slightly out of focus. The head too long? Possibly, but I think it's more the muzzle is a bit short for a tiger and I think the width of the face is perfectly fine. One must also note that not every tiger is a Bangel or Siberian.
The last must have been the best. The reviewer noted that the legs were rather wrong to be trotting. Well, yes, if her movement were forward I would entirely agree, but considering that the equine in question is actually moving laterally the legs are perfectly fine, well, save for maybe the back left which should actually be out away from the body more. The shoulder should actually be rather well as it is, especially considering that the elbow is forced outwards slightly as the horse is moving towards its right. I admit I should have pushed the planes a bit more as the chest/fore part of the shoulder isn't as separated from the side as it should be when it comes to shading. Her forelegs are perfectly fine in proportion. I chose a more extreme perspective than most people are used to seeing a horse at so the back legs do appear to be shorter than the fore, but, if she were drawn head on rather than from a slightly aerial view the legs would match in size (well, hoof to whithers and hoof to croup, not necessarily hoof to elbow and hoof to knee). Arabs ahve short heads, not all Arabs have insanely dished faces (Kash being one of them), but I must note that the one in the drawing DOES have a dished face. And now I'll note that I used a glob of references, namely three DIFFERENT modle horses (two Arabs, the third was a show horse for the leg positioning and basic perspective) and at least three photographs.
I am very much not afraid to use references, don't accuse me as such because you think that my anatomy is slighty off, which it might well be. *Laughs.* Ah yes, getting an anatomy book! How many of those do I have now? Six if you're only counting the ones reffering to Human anatomy exclusively. I also have some ten books on horses that contain images (if you count the ones that don't contain images it's something like 15). Yes it is possible for someone to use a plethora of references and STILL get some of the finer points of anatomy wrong. I would like to think it obvious that I used some form of reference on the last drawing.
As Amarok put it, I have been slapped on the wrist.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-04-27 12:01 pm (UTC)Also, the only thing that that reviewer draws at ALL is horses. *looked at her gallery* So I guess maybe she feels entitled to be overly picky.
I thought that your 3rd piece was AWESOME, and I think that a lot of the "errors" she found with it were, well... Not really errors.
no subject
Date: 2004-04-27 11:12 pm (UTC)I know I tend to pick at people who, say, apply at TAA with horse pieces, but I'd like to think that I don't go overboard and critique mistakes that aren't there or automatically assume that I know all and the artist who did it knows nothing. I actually just sent her a PM concerning her "corrections" and also in passing mentioned some rather glaring mistakes that she looked over.