im trying to render noelle from deltarune what do yall think

cute but the placement of the nose and right eye could be changed slightly. the iris is wonky and the right eye feels too big for the angle.

Why do even the shitties beg scribbles here have infinitely more soul than my works

>>7634589
what do you mean, skilled people often have the least soul

>>7634483 (OP)
the colors are cool but your values are kinda muddy. you should make your highlights lighter and your shadows way darker so they contrast better. the shadows are also inconsistent (shadows on the left side of her horns but left side of her hair is fully lit up). i like your style though and i tried to replicate is as best as possible! hopefully it still looks somewhat like you intended

>>7635103
Slopified

>>7635103
prefer the original style of rendering honestly, your take on it makes it feel a lot more generic if anything

>>7635103
bad

>>7635103
REEEEEE WHITEWASHING!!!!!

>>7635312
do the values/shadows look fine at least? that's the main part of the critique anyways. unfortunately i had to butcher the style to get the message across

>>7635103
blog? I prefer yours

>>7635103
Yeah, you butchered this

>>7635310
>>7635314
>>7635341
genuinely i'm wondering why lol. i think it looks bad and way too smooth but not awful enough to elicit this reaction

>>7635356
It's less that it's bad. It's that it deleted all the SOVL for porn blending.

Also, that brightness-saturation step is comically bad just technically speaking.

>>7635103
Soul status: removed

>>7635360
>It's less that it's bad. It's that it deleted all the SOVL
hey, that's good enough for me. it's a critique, not a standalone art piece, so if it doesn't appeal to everyone then i don't really care. as long as OP learns something, i'm happy, and if they don't, i'm sure someone better than me will be able to point them in the right direction. maybe someone like you, anon...?

>for porn blending.
cmon dude. this is basic bitch hrb rendering. what is NOT porn blending to you?

>Also, that brightness-saturation step is comically bad just technically speaking.
yeah i didn't really explain that part. i just used it show how you can achieve a lowish-contrast look (since that's what i assumed OP was going for) without sacrificing the value too much by upping the saturation, since the color contrasts enough in absence of the contrast in value. not a necessary step, just a stylistic one. but i'm willing to take the L there

>>7635329
oh yeah. for sure, its fine on a technical level. im not trying to clown on you or anything here, i just think it detracts from OP's style which had a more distinct rendering method at work. excuse me for getting non-technical for a second but OP's drawing feels less machined in some respects, like with the lower canvas resolution and the lack of layers/blending/post-processing. it just feels a bit more intimate in that regard. sure, it may appear a bit scuffed in that way but honestly it gives it a lot of character

>>7634483 (OP)
very trans coded art

This thread so full of crabs like holly shit

>>7635396
yeah i getcha, i personally love working on low res canvases too. it gives off soul in the same way drawing in mspaint does. unfortunately OP's image is scaled up to 2x the resolution and i didn't notice until I already did my crit. it is what it is i guess

>>7635417
frankly i'm surprised. i give crit like this in normal draw threads and no one bats an eye

>>7635420
Nigga you made values worse than original in 3rd step and removed unique face rendering replacing it with bog standard generic blending. Just look at the pic, OPs values were good and you made them flat. You have some serious case of Dunning Kruger to imply your edit is better.
>>7635417
You are the crab.

>>7635433
Agreed, bro took out all the contrast. I think the hair shadows are placed much better, and the horns actually have shadow, but that's pretty much all the improvements made. Everything else is fucking it up.
>unique face rendering
Lmao what are you even talking about here

>>7635103
It's amazing how you had it by the middle drawing but decided to ruin it with another iteration

I guess the takeaway here is being stylish and distinct >>> being "correct".

>>7635433
>made values worse than original in 3rd step
i already explained it here >>7635394. the point was even though the VALUES are less contrasted, it's fine because the contrast in COLOR is good enough. if you're critiquing my critique, i assume you already know about chroma and that kinda stuff. MOST IMPORTANTLY, the crit functionally ends at step 2, the 3rd step is NOT necessary!! OP's image already kinda did this, and i wanted to get close to the original values while still having contrast and shadows in the right places. however, i didn't bother to explain ANY of that in the first place so again, it's my bad.
again, though, the values in the final step aren't even that different from the original, intentionally so. i originally said "your values are kinda muddy" and i retract that statement because i myself was not looking at the color contrast.

>removed unique face rendering replacing it with bog standard generic blending
not sure what to say to this because any kind of critique would have made it worse lmao. there's no way for me to draw in another person's style better than they can, especially off of just one pic. crits always run the risk of being counter to the artist's original vision and there's not much you can do about it. it's less of a problem in real life compared to a slow message board though since you can adjust after feedback from the original artist

>>7635534
ultimately i agree. i never said the original looked bad, just wrong in a few places. it stands out and its flaws don't get in the way of its charm. taking shortcuts for the sake of style will always be the better choice.

...though it never hurts to be stylish AND correct...

>>7636164
You're contrasting red with pink
That is not color contrast
That is the opposite of color contrast

>>7636164
Brother you ruined it by step 2 and mads it worse at 3
Talk about dunning kruger

>>7634483 (OP)
i drew her better than you faggit

>>7636644
>on model
nice work anon

>>7635103

>>7635103
That nose position is killing me. She looks like fucking Elmo with antlers.
Cute drawing otherwise.

>>7634483 (OP)
Can you draw her getting raped (CANON) next?

>>7636164
You are comparing random pixels, when you should be comparing darkest darks and lightest lights. Your fix looks flat, because the eye area, nose shadow, neck shadow and the darkest shadow on hairs got way lighter.

>>7635103
Looks better to me, your form is better especially on the nose bridge (?) area, though I prefer the contrast on the pupils and the red shadows on the original. But they both look good. Dunno why people are shitting on you so hard, I've seen worse edits get praised.

>>7635103
>I washed out the values and removed the sovl
lol, kys

DELTARAPED