Thread 7680313

How do you goated artists not rely on zoom? Even if I stop myself I always have trouble seeing and ending up with these issues of lines not connecting at the end of the day. Am I just using the wrong dimensions for the image? 3000x4000 with 600 resolution

>>7680313 (OP)
Pros deal with it too. As long as it reads zoomed out I think it's fine. Color fill issues can be dealt with a lasso fill. If you want no gaps though you have to be more deliberate with your strokes and make them longer.

>How do you not rely on zoom
>I have issues with lines not connecting
Don't zoom in and focus on connecting your lines

>>7656893

>>7680317
is it actually just common for artists to have gaps in their lines? When i see finished pieces they look really smooth in general even for rough styles.
>>7680324
thanks

>>7680313 (OP)
That is what hyper Lines is for.

>>7680349
>is it actually just common for artists to have gaps in their lines?

Yes. It's preferred for things with even just a slightly sketchy style. Poorly connecting lines pretty much always looks worse than just not connecting them at all.

It's also an intentional thing. When you're drawing lines you really need to stop thinking about it as an outline, it's not. It's a form abstraction. Form has depth, form gets lost. There's not always going to be a perfectly enclosed bucket-fillable area to work with.

Ultra clean pixel perfect lineart is kind of a meme, and there aren't many serious artists who actually do it who didn't get beg-trapped into it. It looks really, really bad and artificial unless you have some exceptional representation abilities.

https://asgg.notion.site/week-1-786a95c67c694bb294c4f15eec4fa17a
krenz calls it auto complete

>>7680313 (OP)
huh? I use zoom constantly . why would you not use it?

>>7680354
You are a tracing faggot. Your opinion has 0 value.

>>7680358
>It's a form abstraction.
Kek. This is why westoids cannot draw anime.

>>7680313 (OP)
Are you sure they're just not using a different setting in OBS that doesn't capture their zooming in/out?

>>7680313 (OP)
>3000x4000 with 600 resolution
Dpi has nothing to do with pixel resolution. You can have 3k x 4k witn any dpi setting (600, 300, 72, 1, whatever) and you'll get the same canvas size.
DPI is tied to paper sizes when it comes to physical RL prints.
There, free education for you.

they don't zoom in because zooming in slows you down and many of those details won't be seen once the image is resized down to post online

>>7680643
ACCSHYOOALLIE, pixel resolution is PPI, you're actually referring to image size, not image resolution.
There, free education for you

>>7680805
Pixels Per Inch is the same as Dots Per Inch.
They both refer to dimensions for printing and have nothing to do with resolution when we are talking strictly about digital canvas size.
You didn't tell me anything I don't know already.

Pixels Per Inch is the same as Dots Per Inch. One refers to print resolution, the other to screen resolution. The number is always the same.
When you tell somebody what the digital size of your canvas is in pixels you don't need to point out the DPI/PPI as it's irrelevant.
You didn't tell me anything I don't know already.

>>7680805
Pixels Per Inch is the same as Dots Per Inch. One refers to print resolution, the other to screen resolution. The number is always the same.
When you tell somebody what the digital size of your canvas is in pixels you don't need to point out the DPI/PPI as it's irrelevant.
You told me nothing I didn't know already, samrtass wannabe.

>>7681085
You're so close to understanding, but you just fell short.
>One refers to print resolution, the other to screen resolution
Correct, because a resolution is a measurement of recorded information in a given space. 800x600 isn't a resolution, it's either a size or a measure of definition.
>3k x 4k witn any dpi setting (600, 300, 72, 1, whatever)
are one size and multiple resolutions.
There, free education for you.

>>7680805
For being such a basic concept, it's amusing how much DPI brings out dunnykru retards.

>>7681085
>The number is always the same
no it isn't, your PPI is determined by the size of your monitor and the size of the image, changing the DPI has no effect whatsoever on the PPI of the image

>>7681107
The I in PPI doesn't refer to your monitor size you bonehead.

>>7681115
it does, you're just conflating DPI with PPI like most DKs
PPI is exclusively used in digitally displayed images, a theoretical physical size of the digital image is irrelevant or you'd be using DPI

>>7680354
buy an ad

You need to draw traditionally. Pencil on paper and then ink it, no matter how shit it looks. Do about 50,000 drawings that way. Trust me, youll never get stuck zooming and ctrl+zing again.

>>7681098
>are one size and multiple resolutions
Semantics. You're full of BS.
Again, you didn't explain nothing I didn't already know.
Wanna try one last time, smartass wannabe? Maybe try gardening.

Nobody is analyzing your work this closely. Literally just don't do it. Whether or not your work will look good to other people is not determined by the intricacies of your line work, in fact I'd say that 80%+ of the appeal of your work is determined long before you ever start putting down ink lines. That's not to say that you shouldn't finish pieces or only post sketches (colored works have more appeal to the general public than sketches), but as long as the lines are there and roughly conform to the idea you sketched, they're fine. Arguably the only time a crappy drawing can be saved is through impressive, striking rendering, but again, not the intricacies of your inking. Maybe some other artists or genuine art critics will note haphazard or otherwise careless line work, but not your typical viewer.
The overall composition, whether or not your work reads as what you're trying to depict, and most importantly natural appeal are far more important than turdpolishing your lines, same thing with fundiemaxxer artists who pick apart justdraw appealmaxxers by saying "b-but her forearm is too long!" or "th-that hand is backward!!" when the reality is that almost nobody cares, and even a work with shitty anatomy and blatant errors can be FAR more appealing than the works of a studymaxxer artist who gets everything "right" but still lacks the natural appeal to make anybody give a shit.
So yeah. tl;dr nitpicking your work is a waste of time and is absolutely not the difference between a turd and a winner