Can someone tell me how the hell someone who draws this, has

>>2633849

Studies usually always look better than personal work.

>browsing furaffinity
Embarrassing.

>>2633856
>usually always

falling for the badly traced photo meme
this is why earth needs to be destroyed

I dunno m8 why are you in that shithole of a site to begin with?

>>2633849
Ask them yourself, you retard. It's not us that are browsing some fucking furry site.

>>2633849

Yeah dude this is no mystery, painting from a photo reference is a something you can do with only a basic understanding of the fundamentals. You don't need to understand composition, (unless you're taking the photo) you don't need to understand form, you don't need to understand colour theory, the palette is already there, you don't need to understand gesture, or perspective, the photo takes care of all of that for you. anatomy isn't necessary, All you have to do is make sure all your proportions are correct (could use a grid) and be able to pick the correct colours and you're good to go. This is exactly why most artists are bored with straight up photo realism, because contrary to what normies believe it's actually one of the easiest artforms to learn.

>>2633849
>painting on top of photographs

u a retard son

Because you've wasted your whole life learning to be a human photocopier.

>>2633860
>>2633882
>>2633884
Haha nice meme dudes xD

>>2633887
>be able to pick the correct colours
If you aren't picking the colors like most digital painters do this is extremely difficult and unachievable if you don't know color theory tho

Pic clearly is a paintover anyways

>>2634062

Depends on how broad you want your definition of colour theory to be, for a painting like the one in the OP if you're using real paint then you just have to know how to mix the colours you want, and digitally you just need to know how to use the HSB sliders, I would consider that rudimentary knowledge and that's only scratching the surface of colour theory.

File: copie 060.jpg (226KB, 828x660px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 828x660px

>>2634062
I don't know shit about "color theory" or painting without reference and I've done decent colors in the past

>Do you have a liking for a bit of gambling? Do you dare to join a game of cards?
You are willing to take a risk, I see. But when you lose - If you lose, you better pay cash.

pshh nothing fursonell kid

>>2633849
Anything drawn/painted by mediocre artists is going to look a lot better when it's directly reffed from a photo, this is something you should know if you actually draw! If you are suggesting that it's a photo-manipulation/over-paint... it doesn't look like that. Could be that she traced the features, but the actual painting looks perfectly legit.

>>2633873
It's hardly a trace dumbass. Just a decent portrait study. It's not that crazy even.

>>2634547
It's not a trace >>2633873, proportions are off

>>2634233
Yeah, that's obvious, but the quality of even the colouring is so much better than the art they're drawing themselves.

>>2633882
Why aren't you?
It's a goldmine.

>>2635049
Ikr, you just have to know how to mine 2634418

>>2635056
>>>2634418