Is this near professional yet?

>>2849056

I think this is better than the sketch you put up earlier. You should only put up finished work if you want an accurate opinion on this kind of question. Otherwise you're question should have been is my sketch as good as a professional's sketch. Apples and oranges.

File: dalfjkldas.png (673KB, 940x755px) Image search: [Google]

673KB, 940x755px

you could probably earn $5 per hour by drawing pictures of kids books on payperhour etc. if you're desperate. But I think you have to whore yourself out to the max if you want more.

If you have dignity or want to improve,
I recommend you look at the sticky and lurk
your picture looks like those bad "how to draw anime" books westerners make

>>2849056
What's your goal OP
Are you going to do comics

>>2849109

Is it just the style you don't like? (Not pure anime) or do you mean the quality is not well drawn? If so, how can I improve this?

>>2849111
>>>2849109
Is it just the style you don't like? (Not pure anime) or do you mean the quality is not well drawn? If so, how can I improve this?

File: °＿°.png (619KB, 1007x699px) Image search: [Google]

619KB, 1007x699px

is this a new meem

>>2849117
Your style makes it seem like you don't understand color and appeal.

>>2849111
Sorry I accidently tagged you in the last post.

My goal? I am leaning towards doing comics yes, I'm also interested in animation/cartooning, things like character design, storyboarding, perhaps even illustration though my drawing here isn't the best example of that.

>>2849126

I admit, I'm terrible with colors. I normally draw in black and white. However, how can I improve my appeal? What parts are making this unappealing, any suggestions?

>>2849117
Obscene amounts of stylization standing on very weak fundamentals, sticky and don't make a thread just for yourself next time

>>2849131
The hot thing nowadays is super well done rendering that uses very saturated colors to catch your eyes as well as a lot of shine. Also, your anatomy of the hands are killing me. So is the design of whatever he hell she's in.

>>2849134

Can you be specific about where the fundamentals are falling short on the picture? Any real criticism would be greatly appreciated.

>>2849056
Stop making your own threads and just post in the Alternative Art/Stylization thread

>>2849142

So what i'm hearing here is that you really don't like the style. The hands are cartoony, rather than anatomical etc.

My original post was more to ask if people thought I was approaching near professional levels at drawing.

Sorry you don't like my style but thanks for your input.

>>2849157

I've only made two, this one and the last one. This one because I messed up the last one, and I didn't know there was a specific protocol for this.

I post on 4chan maybe once every few years, so I doubt my small mistake is much of a problem.

Thanks for your concern.

>>2849150
It flat out makes no sense, lighting is non-existant, the colors look really bad and they desaturate as they desaturate equally as they change in value, stiff line art, many things look vectored, equal rendering (In this case none) creates a bad composition since the focal points are not being promoted by the rest of the drawing, no design at all in whatever she is in, if things aren't being promoted or promoting something else they shouldn't be there, the leftmost nail near the button was screwed like shit, or maybe it's just out of perspective, the style is an abomination between western and 90's anime, things in the background are much more busy than the ones in the foreground, overall it looks uncany.

>>2849176
>they desaturate as they desaturate equally as they change in value,

"They desaturate equally as they change in value"

OP, you need to learn critical thinking, we're not going to hold your hand all the way to whatever goal you're trying to achieve. There's been plenty of advice in these 2 threads.

Not a single person answered your post lol.

I would say yah, it looks like it was done by a pro. The left of her head is a little bare though I'd cover that up with some bangs or something.

>>2849134 has no idea what they're talking about with regards to fundamentals. You have them here, you have perspective, overlap, composition, the background doesn't make exact sense and is kinda sparse, but it's still well composed, even the contrasts and having the focal point pointed to by the perspective and the circular frame, all well done. I see no lack of fundamentals.

As for appeal? this is fairly appealing, I think the eyes could be more than just two small pupils, it detracts from the story of the scene.

The expression etc. does tell a story, and it makes you wonder what is happening.

>>2849184
Post your work

>>2849192
He's clearly being retarded on purpose.

>>2849176
Thanks for clarifying, that was much more helpful. I didn't noticed the screw being out of perspective thanks!

There is no lighting on the background, and yet there is on her face and the button, that's a very good point. Thanks for pointing that out.

Not having good lighting is a fundamental, but it doesn't justify saying 'very weak fundamentals', as some of the fundamentals are not weak and are present. But, I guess I have to accept it as your opinion.

And I appreciate that you pointed out specific things I would fix or do to improve my drawing.

Thank you very much.

>>2849182
Actually, I've gained lots of usable advice and help by asking, so I don't regret it at all.

It's not hand-holding, it's that to get helpful answers sometimes you have to ask questions until you get a usable answer.

So when people answer me with vague responses like, 'the perspectve is bad', as a rational person I know that my perspective can't be entirely bad (because I use perspective guides), so there must be something specific that I'm not seeing, a part of the picture I need to notice or etc.

Eventually if you ask the right questions, the person will tell you exactly what part of the drawing is wrong, and how it can be improved.

That's a real answer, and it's super useful, and well worth the time.

So it's really just an unhelpful comment to call me a 'handholder' or to say that I have no critical thinking.

All the same, thank you for your input.

>>2849192
Post your work?

File: 1486434290869.png (705KB, 1119x776px) Image search: [Google]

705KB, 1119x776px

>>2849227

>>2849056
>pretending to be OP of the last thread

>>2849244
Very good rendering/shading, but other than that your fundamentals aren't any less or better than the OP's. Both show decent perspective, etc. all the stuff I mentioned.

I think you just wanted to feel like you're better than someone else. And to be honest, the OP had better composition, their stuff pointed to a focal point, yours is just a stand up in the center of the frame.

Maybe you just don't care for cartoons.

File: 1466116537644.jpg (28KB, 489x394px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 489x394px

>>2849259

>>2849244
Also, OP shows more of a story, and in my taste, because I like cartoons and comics, I find their art more appealing too.

Yours is definitely better rendered, and you did a great job painting, rendering the tones, and lighting, your picture is definitely better there.

>>2849261
The original post by that guy said that the OP had weak fundamentals, meaning 'all fundamentals' not just rendering. Yah, this guy's picture has better rendering, but to any artist looking they can see the other fundamentals aren't weak or missing from the OP, the difference in levels of 'finished' and rendering make you think 'Woah this guy is way better' but to someone who's an artist you can see past that.

Take Jeff smith's Bone for example, you could look at a Bone drawing and think it's 'not as good' as that guys rendered drawing, but it still doesn't have 'weak fundamentals' just because cartoons are missing realistic rendering or decent lighting. They can still have silhouette, action, form, perspective, focal points, etc.

Now if the OP was weak on a lot of those things, then I could understand.

>>2849259
>>2849266
>>2849270
There is no way you're a real human being, kudos you got me

>>2849273

Dude's right. Go look at cartoons. Bugs bunny has great fundamentals but if you stand him next to a fully rendered painting it's no comparison.

Only difference is level of detail, guys is spot on, the coloring is better, and the drawing is more complex, but the no other fundamentals are better than OP.

>>2849259
>>2849273

This is the new go to response for marine posting

Every time there's a thread like this I take the time to write all the advice I can think of, I try to be welcoming to what I assume is a newfag but every single time it turns out to be some samefagging idiot who's having a chuckle and the whole thread inevitably degenerates into merc_wip and shitflinging.

Really tired of this shit