>>7605879
> is it something with the values? the textures?.
the texture is pretty flat but that's not detrimental, IMO the issue is that the values at the very edges flatten it out and don't imply curved forms, meaning her arms for example end up looking like cardboard cutouts (there's a strong shadow behind them, but the very rims are in light without a backlight). i'm looking at it again and yeah i'd say low/int, you need to work on those edge values more because they make your work look digital (derogatory). picrel my not sober enough attempt at fixing up the edge values.
the top right and bottom left paintings are also kind of muddy, which can be fixed by more value contrast and higher saturation in the shadows (those greys on the shelf in the top right make it look very "murky" for lack of a better word) but that's not necessarily awful if you want to make it look a bit chalky

> the feet of the chinese child is wrapping over a flat vertical surface. i just copied it. they were ugly before the drawing
definitely should've simplified or edited them, it looks jarring like this. the photo probably looks better because it has many more values (not to mention probably colour) that you don't have, so the excessive lines between the toes draw attention too much while they look flat.

>>7605243
mid/beg/, it's time to start actually learning how to build up a figure rather than just slapping on symbols and hoping it works out. that forearm on the right is basically symbol-drawn and too short, making the arm look stumpy. if it was an attempt at foreshortening, you gotta learn perspective first for that. sovlfvl vvork nonetheless