How do I stop my art from becoming "deviantart tier"? What are things da front page artists do all the time, like making the work too shiny and making uncanny valley doll faces, that I should avoid?
>>2479207
>hey guys, can I be part of your group now?
>>2479207
over-rendering
i mean if you can be deviant art tier then you are fucking set for the most part, its honestly not that bad a goal to aim towards if you want to be a mechanical perfectionist. people like to rag on them but its not like they are inherent bad drawings, just uncreative and pandering
>>2479207
Remove the fetish part of your art.
>>2479207
Don't make your subject matter dragons and spacemarines
>>2479246
This. People like saki and rosstran and whatever have good good fundamentals. They are much better than you are. Its just theyve decided to use their creative license for bullshit.
>>2479277
I wonder if after earning enough money Saki will abandon her nick and retire to making her own art.
hows this /ic/ ?
and how do you have that line on the armpits
>>2479293
>>2479293
Saki's pic is correct.. the upper breast fat is bulging out over the arm from her cleavage and dress pressing on it.
>>2479308
thanks anon
I think i've figured out why Sakimichan's stuff does so well. She's got 3 main things. High contrast, high saturation, and what i like to call sparkles.
Look at her pics and try to notice how much just random sparks of light there are...star shaped, heart shaped, lucky charms...whatever...they are just all over the pic. I think people love that shit and they don't know why. Every time i see her pics it makes me think of that movie Office Space and the scene where Jennifer Aniston's character is working the guy tells her she needs more "Flair" on her vest or whatever. Saki's pics are vests with lots of Flair.
If you have some taste and work on your fundamentals then you have nothing to worry about. Study old masters to develop good taste.
>>2479207
Be subtle and keep it simple. High contrasts, sharp details, intense colours, clashing colours, pure blacks or whites, intense highlights and so on should all be placed where they are needed to aid the composition or painting. But here they're just all over the place, and as densely packed as possible. It feels like sakimichan paints something, adds a layer of "fluff", then another, and another, to the point where all focus is lost.
I messed around toning that painting down a bit, just for the sake of it. There's the basis for quite a nice painting somewhere under all of that visual mess.
>>2479393
Take out those stupid horns too, please.
>>2479395
>>2479409
SO MUCH BETTER
>>2479409
you need loomis family
the fuck did you do to her head
>>2479424
Cut him some slack, he obviously did it fast.
I think it's supposed to be some astrology goddess or something...Taurus or Capricorn or something.
>>2479409
Now it's just generic-pretty-girl... not that that's horrible either, but the pic is part of a horoscope series.
>>2479445
whatever you say, horn-fucker
>>2479455
That was a new one...
>>2479445
I'll trust you on this one. But that shows how much garbage was thrown all over the place. I had no idea what was even supposed to be behind it.
Hopefully we get a girl wearing green clothes at some point, we'd have a proper Christmas tree.
>>2479434
It's Aries you fucking plebe
>>2479455
>not wanting a qt horned gf for handlebars during sex
i guess people on /ic/ are literal homosexuals
>>2479291
She has already earned "enough" money. She gets around 30k every 2 weeks.
There is no such thing as enough money tho.
>>2479207
Top artists on deviantart arent what people are refeering to as "Deviant-art tier".
><
Deviant-art tier is stuff like this
If youre refeering to sakimi as "Deviant art tier" then youre a retard, that grill is a fucking genius when it comes to exploiting the stupidity of fandoms, and a "not bad" artist herself, except she prefers to get paid truckloads of money by making her "style" easy to appreciate wet eyecandy for the ignoramus.
>>2479548
^ what this anon said
>>2479277
>sakimichan
>fundamentals
Hah
>>2479548
Yeah. Sakimichan definitely isnt what you mean when you say "da tier"
>>2479548
That's a lot better than DA tier desu
DA tier is basically ponies
>>2479548
This shit's tumblr tier senpai, a different kind of evil, but evil nonetheless.
>>2479644
I dunno, I can see a bit of both in there
this is deviant art tier
>>2479678
And everyone in the thread jerks him off because they want to feel pro too
>>2479673
I was looking for that picture, thanks.
>filename
Ayyy!
>>2479678
>>2479679
Correcting it doesn't magically mean you think you're a better artist. The main thing he did was tone down the retarded saturation and needless detail to make it a bit less of an eyefuck, which I think he succeeded at. Personally I think his version is a lot less straining to look at (though the hair looks a little silly).
Obviously, though, that also makes it less eye catching for deviantautists.
>>2479691
Literally the definition of trying to correct an established pros work.
>>2479705
What?
>they're established pros so everything they do is flawless and any change you would make is worthless!
Don't be stupid. If Sakimichan wants to saturate the everloving shit out of her work, and her fans like it, that's good for them. Desaturating it, simplifying it, and making it a little less of an eye-strain is still an improvement to a lot of people. You can go ahead and disagree, but don't be a brainless retard about it.
>>2479714
Not him, but it's pretty clear that you just want to be a smartass and have no real understanding of what you are trying to fix. If Sakimichan had painted the image exactly like in your "corrected" version, I bet that some faggot, probably even you, would make fun of how desaturated it all looks, how Sakimichan needs to calibrate her monitor, then blow out the contrast and saturation through level adjustment and act as if that's the solution to fixing the image.
Stop drawing animes
>>2479721
Except probably not, making the saturation more subtle doesn't automatically make things muddy. Fixer anon didn't make the drawing a masterpiece, could have fixed the spotlight lighting and added more light/shadow but it's more pleasant to look at from a thumbnail.
If she just painted more of how actual life is colored ic would love her. And she can, she knows how shit works and she's gotten gud, she just chooses not to. Why?
>>2479721
I didn't do the correction, retard, and I don't tend to hop on the Sakimi hate bandwagon either. She can keep doing what she's doing for all I care, but the statement that her drawings are really fucking noisy and saturated is valid and you need to be intentionally obtuse to act like they aren't. It's subjective, absolutely, you might like noisy and highly saturated art, and she can do all the noisy, highly saturated art she wants. I'm simply saying the changes he made weren't arbitrary and Sakimichan being a professional does not make her above jack shit.
>>2479714
If you want to support the idea that a professionals work should be modified when they already are highly renown, you're not an individual worth talking to.
The fact of the matter here is that you are wrong in thinking that her works are over saturated and eye-straining, because that's what the market wants.
Perhaps you have an opinion, but it is a worthless opinion since Sakimi is making over 200,000$ dollars a year and you are not.
>>2479714
> an improvement to a lot of people
probably not as much as the people who likes the saturation and contrast though
>>2479721
This exactly desu actually
Anon just wants to be on a power trip
>>2479782
Why do you treat Sakimichan as if she's a godly old master that can never be touched? She isn't perfect.
>>2479787
>>2479782
>If you want to support the idea that a professionals work should be modified when they already are highly renown, you're not an individual worth talking to.
Then fuck off.
I'm not saying Sakimichan has to change what she's doing, I'm not even saying "She's doing it wrong", and I even emphasized that she can carry on doing whatever the fuck she and her fanbase likes.
I'm saying the change done by the guy isn't some sacrilege. He just removed some of the needless saturation and noise, and you got your clit in a bunch over it, whipped yourself into a fury, and you're acting like anyone who adjusts a piece of art is trying to make a statement about how much better they are.
I reiterate - pros works are not untouchable. They are not above criticism because they're famous and rich. That's like saying you can't bitch about a big mac being high in calories and sodium just because mcdonalds sells millions of big macs every day, "so they obviously know more about how to make a burger than you."
Sakimichan's stuff is vibrant high contrast and noisy. There's a lot of shit going on and it all pops out at you. That's a fact, it's objective. Whether you like that is your damn prerogative, plenty of people do, but you don't need to be a little bitch about it when someone changes it to be less noisy and saturated because they think it looks better that way.
>>2479721
This, fucking this x100
>>2479803
She isn't perfect but fixer faggot literally invented problems to validate his 2 inch dysfunctional ego.
>>2479393
>>2479691
All of you saying it looks better saturated are fucking retarded. The whole point of the painting being so shiny and saturated is because the chick is supposed to be some hot head god of fire shit (hint: fire is bright). I am not a saki fan but you literally just destroyed the painting by removing a large chunk of the personality and story it is trying to convey. Now it looks like a half-completed ass smudge, and here you chimps are jumping up and down in glee because you think you just schooled a pro.
>>2479822
You can include fire in a picture without it being a mess with like 6 eye-catching high contrast focal points, you know. Have you seen any of her other art? Don't pretend like the high contrast isn't a common theme.
>>2479822
The flames not giving off light despite being a light source bothers me desu. Literally shadows where the fire is touching her skin.
Honestly if weebs paid me $30K/month for drawing shiny waifus I wouldn't give a shit about creative freedom.
Are there any popular da artists that are bad in technical skill? Humon comes to mind.
>>2479744
She is a pro
End
can mods just start banning threads that start off with a fucking Sakimichan piece
Can we just not like something without having to shit on people who do or vice-versa?
>>2479555
Fun fact: she's MUCH better than kron, which is something a lot of shitweebs are struggling to admit.
Her DESIGN AND STYLISTIC CHOICES may be distasteful, but her work is not technically wrong.
>>2479860
I think you're confusing a piece of art being stylized with bad technical skill. At least in the example you gave.
>>2479822
>The whole point of the painting being so shiny and saturated is because the chick is supposed to be some hot head god of fire shit (hint: fire is bright). I am not a saki fan but you literally just destroyed the painting by removing a large chunk of the personality and story it is trying to convey. Now it looks like a half-completed ass smudge, and here you chimps are jumping up and down in glee because you think you just schooled a pro.
Pic related is how a competent artist can include fire all over the place without causing epileptic seizures in people. That's because when you start a painting you have to make some choices. If you want to make fire one of the main elements of the painting, you have your own light source and you don't need to include some sunlight over it. Sakimichan didn't even make fire a light source, she just painted it over the rest without making interact with anything.
Also, I never claimed to make a better painting, I claimed to remove all of the visual mess and see what's underneath, just because I thought it might be interesting. What was interesting, as stated previously, is that there isn't much left behind it. Sakimichan obviously does this intentionally, but it doesn't change the fact that her art is a visual mess.
But really, if you were a competent artist the problem with that fire would have jumped you right in the face from the moment you laid your eyes on her painting, just like those pure white spots that draw attention all over the place. I bet you're one of those guys who tells you to "make a better one then" if you dare say anything bad about anything.
![Peter_Paul_Rubens_Massacre_of_the_Innocents[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/YUzNa3x.jpg "Peter_Paul_Rubens_Massacre_of_the_Innocents[1].jpg")
>>2480528
>If you want to make fire one of the main elements of the painting, you have your own light source and you don't need to include some sunlight over it
the fuck? Ruan Jia literally used both sun light and fire light in this painting. Posting Ruan Jia because he is some obscure Asian art deity/idol of /ic/ that automatically makes you some authority right?
G8 essay though, faggot. You are clearly delusional. Have you tried seeing past your own asshole and considered that maybe saki intended the fires to be THE main interest? The reason why it looks bland after you spilled your genius over it is because YOU stripped the rendering and blocked out the interesting bits. You reduced the contrast and has the audacity to claim it is bland? Really nigger? YOU made it bland. This is like me wiping my ass with your painting and calling it shit to start with.
Look at pic related, there are multiple points of focus and a light source conflicting with sunlight. Why don't you do your thing and desaturate this painting, block out everything and claim that it is bland?
> Sakimichan didn't even make fire a light source, she just painted it over the rest without making interact with anything.
First of all, nice red herring. But If you look closely, the fire in saki's painting actually does interact with some places. They are not significant because, I don't know if you have ever seen a fire outside, the sunlight pretty much whites out all of the fire light. I hate saki for pandering to shit but have some humility and admit that she is right. The saki bashing on this board is getting so autistic sometimes
>>2479815
all im saying is that the unsaturated version is no more correct than the saturated one.
However you implied that it was better by saying "its an improvement to a lot of people" so i made a rebuttal since sakimi's success was due to that particular style with heavy saturation thus it is potentially the better style to the masses
I didn't disapprove of the guys edit at all, I don't care for it and its obvious a display of his artistic licensing, I simply disagreed with the notion that it was some how better than the original.
I don't know why my comment was so triggering to you
>>2480556
What's funny is how you shitposters are absolutely incapable of reading anything correctly, and just interpret whatever bullshit in other comments just for the sake of being offended.
>the fuck? Ruan Jia literally used both sun light and fire light in this painting. Posting Ruan Jia because he is some obscure Asian art deity/idol of /ic/ that automatically makes you some authority right?
I never claimed Ruan Jia didn't include sunlight, I said that you don't need to include sunlight, and that Ruan Jia managed to include fire in a painting without making it a visual mess. Read the comment before getting butthurt.
>G8 essay though, faggot. You are clearly delusional. Have you tried seeing past your own asshole and considered that maybe saki intended the fires to be THE main interest? The reason why it looks bland after you spilled your genius over it is because YOU stripped the rendering and blocked out the interesting bits. You reduced the contrast and has the audacity to claim it is bland? Really nigger? YOU made it bland. This is like me wiping my ass with your painting and calling it shit to start with.
Well if the first thing you see about a painting is the worst aspect, that's not exactly a success. I removed the over saturated visual mess and claimed it was the BASIS for a good painting, not actually claimed it was better. Again, work on your reading skills.
>Look at pic related, there are multiple points of focus and a light source conflicting with sunlight. Why don't you do your thing and desaturate this painting, block out everything and claim that it is bland?
Because it doesn't have the problems of that Sakimichan piece you massive retard. The point isn't about realistic lighting, it's about questioning her stylistic choices. Again, read my comments.
Of course, you came on this thread hoping to lash out on anyone who dares criticize Sakimichan and just read a few sentences and started shitposting.
>>2479393
you made it worse
Sakimichan is a mediocre hack making already tacky subject matter excessively flashy in order to appeal to the hordes of technicolor eating plebs who are infesting every single corner of the internet.
She is basically the Michael Bay of internet art. And as such, I hate her and everything she stands for.
>>2480556
well it would be helpful then if you would distinguish between bashing and constructive critique before getting allergic about it and start bashing yourself..
>>2480692
Get over yourself, Sakimichan is pretty good.
She's good, she's fucking good, and she makes 60k/mo drawing on her style and selling tutorials, NSFW stuff and her psds only.
I would be her if I could, getting that money and living on the sunny California, and therefore her art makes her a designer. Her stuff have purpose, it's made for selling to the fandom, pleasing this public, getting into this niche. If you brag about your "art" bullshit, then die holding your canvas, your tr00 bullshit, die an "artist".
If she wants to draw fire that don't produce light/interaction, she can fucking do it. Anything can happen in drawing, after all. You guys rely too much on motherfuckers that died 60 years ago with their vintage stuff and realism as the ultimate goal for the artist, and you guys forget about the word "industry". Cartoonists makes shitload of money with their style.
Decide once for all, are you going to be the free artist (muh artness) or are you going to think anything but what you like? When the public you're drawing to comes in the equation? Do you think you can made as the gallery artist?
tl;dr; she's good. Prob your values are underrated.
>>2479207
Learn from Andrew Wyeth.
>>2479733
>And she can, she knows how shit works and she's gotten gud, she just chooses not to. Why?
Because she actually wants to make money
>>2479393
Yeah except there's still no focal point. You literally just downplayed everything to the same degree and made a worse version of the original that reads exactly the same.
>>2481590
wow this is beautiful
>>2481615
Andrew Wyeth was great. I used to be obsessed with him when I was younger. Nowadays I go for a much more... intense color palette, but I still greatly admire his work.
>>2479733
>And she can
Doubtful. Just because she knows how stuff works in theory (she probably does know, for instance, that the way she handles saturation isn't exactly subtle) that doesn't mean she magically knows how to actually render more realistic and/or subtle stuff. "ic would love her" my ass, people here can't even agree that Mullins or Ruanjia are good.
>>2480209
Kron likes to save alot of time and energy just by drawing headshots of characters.
>>2479521
ironically it's male animals that tend to have horns lol
>>2480217
i get what you're saying but humon is definitely a shit for a lot of reasons
>>2479207
It's literally impossible for this work to have too much "flair" because it's displayed on a computer monitor. Go watch a real life fireworks display or laser show and see some real high saturation and dynamic range. This "retina burning" image is only 8bit sRGB!
>>2482318
Are you seriously trying to say it's impossible to create a jarring and oversaturated image digitally, because monitors don't have the same range as our eyes? Are you retarded or something?
I miss the days when Saki hate threads were pruned early.
>>2481448
>>2482298
Kron can't design worth a shit or draw bodies and faces completely from imagination, unlike Saki. She isn't spectacular but is still much less of a comfort zoner.
>>2482811
If he drew tits more often, he'd probably get more money.
Also why'd you have to post that nasty shit.
>>2481448
>. If you brag about your "art" bullshit, then die holding your canvas, your tr00 bullshit, die an "artist".
Or just earn actual money from whatever any other thing you do that should be more profitable and dont have to water down your "art" with normie appealing shit.
What I get from your post is that he might be or not a terrible artist, but HE ONLY MAKES terrible art in order to make higher amounts of money.
So I guess he is pretty good at making money, but how does that make him a better artist?
Don't create digital crap or anime fan art and you wont be deviant art tier.
>>2483485
Fail. Art, just like your worth as a person, is only measured in money.
>>2479548
>Creates digital weeb shit
>not deviant art tier
She is like the queen of the deviant art crap.
>>2483511
Art is measured by the number of people who appreciate your work.
Money is only one way of showing appreciation.
>>2483521
Bullshit. It's the absolute only thing that matters. People who press a "like" button don't appreciate you.
>>2483525
Appreciation translates into money.
You won't get the money without people clicking the like button.
Likes and shares are free advertisements and the people who buy are those who like.
>>2479277
>good fundamentals
>dat op image and bad anatomy covered up by colour and shiny shit
dafug. Are we looking at the same drawing? That anatomy is fucked.
>>2479264
What about a dragon space marine?
>>2479673
this dude is so whack, hogarths work is shit, i mean look at these terrible shitty studies ive done
>>2483546
Shares have some value. Likes have none.
Deviantart threads should be banned.
>>2485685
BAN EVERTIN
so is fanart frowned upon by /ic/? I draw almost exclusively fanart. Not cause I'm pandering to the fandoms, but because I'm inspired by stuff.
>>2483546
>>2485515
Well, I'm the guy quoted in the first place. If likes or money or views shows appreciation, guess she got all of those.
Fucking Christ it's simple math. She draw, people love it and still she can make money.
Just like fucking cartoons, Garfield, Calvin and Hobbes. Mein Christ what you guys can't understand is that some of you just see everything with one lens.
>zomg it's not like loomis taught
>>2483512
>like the most world of war craft, noah bradley, magic the gathering kinda crap possible.
>>2479207
This arm makes no goddamn sense.
>>2480528
But in that picture, the light is not only inconsistent in how it affects the figure, but it's too dark.Just because Ruan Jia made it doesn't = correct, senpai.
Don't get me wrong, Iove his work and he is better than me, but I can see how some of his lighting effects are technically incorrect.
most plebs here should study physics instead of art.
ITT: plebs
>>2485760
Art is mostly physics (behaviour of light)
>>2483546
>Like button literally sends money
I don't think so.
You get money by applying for a job. Many people who do that are practically anonymous and invisible on the internet.
>>2485765
Please at least try to put in the minimal amount of effort if you're going to try and troll me.
>>2485718
I think whatever ref Saki used had the model leaning over on something putting her weight on the left elbow and right hand. I suppose it would be weird to have a couch in space.
People actually think this is good.
>>2479207
>like making the work too shiny
So less highlights? I don't really get what's troubling you.
>>2485875
what's wrong with it
>>2485875
actually it does look good, animestyle/RL shading
>>2485875
It's pretty damn good for something that probably took 1-2 hours.
>>2485928
The perspective and her arms make no sense.
The proportions are completely off.
Her shoulders are also off.
She looks anatomically disconnected like the head doesn't belong to that pose.
>>2485765
If you're popular, you can make extra money on patreon though, just for existing.
And even if you are an in-house artist who was laying fairly low on the internet for most of their career, many of these artists still make use of patreon or kickstarter these days to try to fund their own project and many fail at it or their kickstarter underperforms because they don't have a large enough fanbase that knows about them. That's yet another case where popularity is tremendously helpful.
>>2485969
it's not just for existing, you have to offer shit to your patreons. I guess maybe some people will throw a $1 pledge at you just to be nice, but the successful ones have to offer some kind of enticement
>>2485975
A lot of those reward tiers from successful patreon artists is stuff like access to sketches, high rez versions of their paintings and PSD files, early access to webcomic pages etc. At the very most it's a cheap recording of their painting process or a tutorial. None of that stuff except for the last 2 is any real extra work.
>>2485968
there is a reason for them being popular. because they are good and you are not
>but i can see things that aren't /correct/
doesn't mean shit. if they can make a picture that looks good and attracts attention, that's all that matters. if you want to be a technician of drawing, making things that only appeal to others like you, that's fine, but most people don't get into drawing for 'muh accuracy', they want to create things that appeal to them and others
>there are people here who unironically like Sakimichan's work
Stay pleb /ic/
>>2486011
Being popular doesn't equal good.
Are we still in grades school here?
And Yes I don't want to be the Mcdonalds of art.
>>2486120
what is 'good' if people don't like it?
>>2486120
>And Yes I don't want to be the Mcdonalds of art.
Here's the thing though, Sakimichan and co might very well be the "McDonalds of art", but that sure as hell doesn't make you a fine dining restaurant by comparison. You are the equivalent of an angry, starved hobo searching for food inside a trash can while Sakimichan is the CEO of McDonalds.
>>2486120
>the Mcdonalds of art.
kek
But really, I think that one should think about the public and their likes. Not just the other artists, but the people that can't hold a pencil, that will like fanart, will like characters they can relate. You don't see artists sharing props and concept of doors on their pages, for example.
It's just my humble opinion.
>>2486709
because she draws porn
>>2479246
this desu
>>2485875
more like
>people pay money for this
>>2479207
There really is no "deviantart tier", Just because of how inconsistent the quality is on there.
