Is this drawn from imagination?

>>2973304
Maybe?

No, the artist had a real three-headed dog to pose for him. I should know, I am the dog.

>>2973328
I think those are three dogs. Three headed dogs don't exist

>>2973332
yes but the dogs were amputees and their torsos were tied together
>>2973304
yes it was probably not a hundred percent though

>>2973322
>?
No, definitely maybe.

>>2973332
>Never seen a 3 headed dog before

You should get off of /ic/ and actually step outside, anon.

>>2973304
woof woof :3

why not a 3 headed bird?

I will never produce an image like that

>>2973304
Doesn't matter. If it wasn't , then he might have looked at references of dog heads, caves, maybe armor, etc. If it was that means that the artist had studied those things at some point in the past.

Either way, you can't draw something that exists convincingly if you've never studied what it looks like before.

>>2973448
Good post

>>2973304
Dog on the right is most likely heavily referenced considering it looks completely past the figure

Individually things looks pretty decent, but if you look the whole picture it looks fallen apart, so things are probably referenced.

I still think it's a three-headed dog. The legs in the background belong to some other dog which tale we can see on the left.
Also >>2973443
don't worry, 90% of this board won't.

>>2973448
>Either way, you can't draw something that exists convincingly if you've never studied what it looks like before.
>Either way, you can't draw something that exists convincingly if you've never studied what it looks like before.
>Either way, you can't draw something that exists convincingly if you've never studied what it looks like before.

Fuck - I wished more people here realized this.

>>2973304
It annoys me that the knight character is lit like he is in a bright overcast day but everything else is lit in that slightly dim green cave light. He looks so out of place this artist needs to brush up on their color theory

>>2973460
Man in armor also heavily referenced considering it looks completely past the dogs.

>>2973556
>Fuck - I wished more people here realized this.
It makes perfect sense, why wouldn't people realize this?

>>2973304
What exactly are the dogs looking at? I don't understand. The painting itself is nice, though.

>>2973941
The storytelling in this painting is pretty unclear. The knight isn't even looking directly at the cerberus dog and only one of the dog heads is looking at him. Also, the dude looks relatively calm for someone who had some of his allies assumedly just slain in front of him. Unless they were his enemies and cerberus dog is his ally? Nothing about their designs indicate any sort of connection though.

>>2973941
dogs: "Meow, fucking chains. Cut them. Please"
knight: "A'right, on it. Just wait a second."

>>2973304
i hate this cliche fantasy garbage with a tiny man with a tiny useless weapon facing a fucking gigantic monster. this is so generic i bet an underage /b/tard could paint it with a wet cum rag

>>2975003
>tiny man with a tiny useless weapon
Implying an oversized, unwieldy weapon is better or less cliche.

>>2975003

> this is so generic i bet an underage /b/tard could paint it with a wet cum rag

Let's see you do it.

The concept is generic, that doesn't mean anyone can draw the concept, it just means most idiots can think of it.

>>2973438

>Not knowing about Cerberus


Wow, kiddo.

>>2975213
that'd be even worse

>>2975288
granted, i should've insulted the idea and not the painter's technical skill

>photobashed ground
>artist has the tendency to cheat so the rest is prob photobashed and painted over as well

>>2975897
The technical skill is garbage too. Nothing about that image is good