*Squint!* Uh... Hang on...
-Walks out of the room and gets a telescope-
*SuperSquint!* Aha!
Through tough investigation, I have found an ERROR!
*Dum Da Dummmmmmm*
Yes, my friends... That hat is a bit to the right, the witch's left, if you're technical!
*Dramatic music*
Cut that out...
Anyways, the hat is shifted to her left. Short n' simple.
Thank you. It's simply amazing that I missed that.
*runs off to shift the hat*
It's amazing what a half-asleep guy can notice after spilling coffee on his pants 
( Before I saw the picture )
Hmm. It looks lke a solid piece to me so far, except her face looks a little flat... But since it's a work-in-progress, maybe shading will fix that aspect of it. That's just my initial opinion based on it so far. Other then that, and the hat problem pointed out, it looks fine to me.
Though it -is- a little light... But, so's the crud I usually draw, so I can't really say anything about that, can I? >.> <.<
Sidenote: On closer examination, it may be the fact the nose is lacking a bit of definition. Or, it's too light that I can barely make it out.
I still wonder why that drawing's so firmilliar... *Shrug*
Went back and darkened the lines up. Just click on the link in the OP. I looks even worse with the jagged underlines still there, but may give a better idea.
Another thing about the hat? The hat's brim seems a bit too wide in relation to its own conical height.
I had first thought it was a subject with Dumbo-ears till it hit me that Nymie would never draw such subjects. Then the light from the screen settled down (or my eyes adjusted to it) and I could see the problem up-close. The hat also seems to ride 'above' her scalp-line, instead of sitting nestled on her head. More witch-magic? 
On a different note, the subject's Right eye (camera-left) and brow, seems placed a tiny bit off-center horizontally... from the proper proportion to the rest of her face. You may wish to consider reigning it in a little, so the left-right symetry is more balanced and there is a tiny bit less nose-bridge spacing. This small problem may be contributing to the notion that the face seems a bit 'flat.' But any human-head that is drawn near or exactly perpendicular to the camera-lens faces the same challenge.
PS. I have no problem with the double-leather choker around her neck contributing to the fullness of the look. I am sure after some coloring, it will become clear as to what that choker (same material used as accessories on the hat, wrists and ankles) does in relation to the neck's width overall. It also sends the long-standing traditional message about a witch's devotion to life: "Forever bound by Nature, free of Her constraints."
Well done.
I really like that Nymie <^_^> Especially the socks, the hat, and the pose.
I do have one thing I notice though >.> Her face - as some have mentioned; is a bit flat; but her neck feels a bit fat in the upper section above the collar too.
Other than that, this could be really cool colored <^_^>m
Yeah I can barely see it, but from what I can see, it looks FANTASTIC!
Nymie, I've done as you've asked and looked at the picture with a critical eye. I believe that I have found something "off". This picture is reminiscient of the poster from the movie "Striptease", and I think it's a good concept. However, I think that you've made the girl's torso too long just so you could show her breasts. If she had a wider torso, in relation to the length of it, it would work. It just appears that she does not have enough mass to her to wrap around her leg to grab her other ankle, not without seriously hunching her body further and blocking her breasts.
Take a look at this picture from the movie and see my point, I hope. example
That's just my two cents, take it to heart or don't. But overall, this is a very nice piece. Keep up the good work.
Jim
The Neverending Battle Continues; Be Heroes!!
Stuff I've Drawn
My Deviant Art Page
[ QUOTE ]
Nymie, I've done as you've asked and looked at the picture with a critical eye. I believe that I have found something "off". This picture is reminiscient of the poster from the movie "Striptease", and I think it's a good concept. However, I think that you've made the girl's torso too long just so you could show her breasts. If she had a wider torso, in relation to the length of it, it would work. It just appears that she does not have enough mass to her to wrap around her leg to grab her other ankle, not without seriously hunching her body further and blocking her breasts.
Take a look at this picture from the movie and see my point, I hope. example
That's just my two cents, take it to heart or don't. But overall, this is a very nice piece. Keep up the good work.
Jim
[/ QUOTE ]
And WHY would you compare CoX art with something you saw on PPV?
Nym I feel really bad. I ended up seeing the WIP on the SG site through the random image feature we have running. I couldn't for the life of me find where you had actually posted it. Likely I am just going mental.
Anyways, definitely the hat is a little out of wack, and I think her upper arms are kind of large compared to the rest of her.
Anyways. *pounces and Huggles*
It's looking awesome!! (now I have to go do the Katie Hannon TF on her so that I can make a costume with the Witch hat)
�Alas, regardless of their doom, the little victims play!� - Thomas Gray
Hmm, let's see...if you want constructive criticism, I can do that. Please keep in mind that I really like your picture!
Here we go, in no particular order:
1) The leading foot. The angle of the shoe doesn't seem quit right. A heel like that will have a stiff sole. The curvature of the shoe at the toes should be more on the other side...where the big toe would be. Also, the squaring on the heal makes the foot appear to be angled more then the rest is drawn.
2) I am not sure what is going on back on her right (our left) hip/butt-cheek. Is that a split skirt? If so, maybe that does work.
3) The mouth and the eyes both need...a little something. The eyes might just need one more line above half of the eye to show that she has eyelids. I am not sure if you were trying to show that she had her tongue touching her upper lip? I just can't tell what is going on with the mouth.
4) The hat. Hmm, I really like the hat. But it seems to me to be sitting a tiny bit to high. Since you probably want to keep the face visible you could try and show that the curvature of front brim is actually hiding the lowest portion of the top of the hat from the viewer. That would make it look like the hat itself was sitting a bit lower.
Overall, I really like it. All of these are minor issues for me. But since you said you wanted some feedback and weren't getting it. There you go!
I hope you post more stuff Nymie!
Well this is what I came up with: Hex Girl suggestions
I took your original, copied it, and fixed the most obvious inconsistency, the other side of the hat. Since the face is from a frontal view, then the hat should be the same. I think the other side was more from a 3/4 view.
Second thing I touched up was the mouth. I wasn't sure of the lines you had on the inside of the mouth. And like my post says, these are just suggestions, to make you think, not for you to copy or redraw as... Anyway I redrew the mouth with the tongue showing, and the fangs more prominent. If you weren't even trying to draw fangs, then whoops, my bad, nevermind...
Next I took out that area above the foot and below the curve of the butt. Seemed like a nice curve getting lost, and as you can see it stand out more. Again wasn't sure what that section was, in color it might stand out more, but I don't think you need it.
Personally I have problems with 2 large areas, the width of her shoulders and the size of the front foot. Here's my case for changing it AND my case for leaving it.
First things first, this is a really tall person. Her forearms are about a hand and a half longer compared to her shoulders and biceps. However there are some lanky people out there, so maybe she is 6'7", whatever the case, I really like the lines you've put down here.
The shoulders are nice and soft, but a little small, making the head look huge, and the torso a little smaller also. These are negligible though because the piece has a very nice fluid style.
I don't think you're piece is like the Demi Moore shot, because she is hunched over more so as to cover her boobs, because let's face it they'd never release that in theaters if they showed.
Secondly her front leg is positioned differently because again they're going for maximum cover.
Now as to your legs, the back leg is longer than the front one. I know this because where the calve ends, both hands fit around the shin, instead of the arch of the foot. The front shin stops almost at the top of the shoe that makes the illusion there is more shin, but this is where you lost me.
That shoe is turned in 3 different directions. First let me say the style of it is great, it's perfect and you shouldn't loose that. But if we follow where the bone of the knee goes down to the ankle, and you can rub that on your own leg to see what I'm talking about. The shoe suddenly changes direction at the top, the perspective gives the illusion that it twists so we can see the top of the shoe.
But you wouldn't see that because the leg would have to be turned in the same way. Then next the lace holes do this curve, that the other shoe doesn't do by the way, so again, the arch is exaggerated nicely, but almost too much, because you ran out of shin, and now the foot appears enormous. Lastly, that leg is also slight skinnier than the back leg.
Now again, you don't have to change any of this, because the long slender body is pretty stylish, and that's hard to convey on a perfect proportioned body. This is the main reason that fashion illustrators draw so loosely and tall and thin. To give the illusion of those girls that well frankly need to eat something.
You could widen the shoulders, but it would change your dynamic. My overall suggestion is this, fix the hat, fix the mouth, loose that area by the butt, and actually elongate the shin just a touch.
And if I haven't conveyed this properly, it's a great piece.
[ QUOTE ]
2) I am not sure what is going on back on her right (our left) hip/butt-cheek. Is that a split skirt? If so, maybe that does work.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yep. That was intended to be a split skirt. I'm glad it was half-way recognizable.
Here is a new picture taking some things into consideration. I had indeed stretched her quite a bit. My intent wasn't to show her chest, but it just happened in the transfering from the thumbnail I did playing around with poses. She's not as bent over as the poster you showed, but she was still too stretched none the less. In this picture I have shortened her torso and arms as well as the leg that sticks out to the side.
I like the idea of tipping the hat up. The bucckle won't be showing, but since she has them on her kneck, wrists, and ankles it may be a bit much anyways. I will grab the foot later.
I darkened it quite a bit since the pencils are pretty light
Thanks everyone for your feedback. Continued feedback would be appreciated.
whoops forgot to mention, I added a nose ridge on one side, cheek bone lines, and made the eyebrows darker in tone.
LJ
I'm looking at it now LadyJudgement, and I love your changes so far. Everyone is right about that foot. It will definitely be the next thing fixed.
[ QUOTE ]
whoops forgot to mention, I added a nose ridge on one side, cheek bone lines, and made the eyebrows darker in tone.
LJ
[/ QUOTE ]
I actually don't like the change. The softer features are something I'm fond of, the way I draw myself. The lines to me make her look rather boney in the face and mean.
�Alas, regardless of their doom, the little victims play!� - Thomas Gray
No you're right, the nose ridge is a bit much... as for the mouth, that was just me, cause I didn't understand the lines. But after looking at the body sketch, I can say this... loose that small line in between the inner side of the front leg, and the otuside of the arm.
While technically you might see it, and now I totally get the anime body type you are going for... it really makes the hips look thin. My case for loosing it, is that the figure will appear wider at the thips without it. Again that's up to you...
The cheek bones could also be suggested in color if you don't want them that prominent. You'd still retain that soft outer edge.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nymie, I've done as you've asked and looked at the picture with a critical eye. I believe that I have found something "off". This picture is reminiscient of the poster from the movie "Striptease", and I think it's a good concept. However, I think that you've made the girl's torso too long just so you could show her breasts. If she had a wider torso, in relation to the length of it, it would work. It just appears that she does not have enough mass to her to wrap around her leg to grab her other ankle, not without seriously hunching her body further and blocking her breasts.
Take a look at this picture from the movie and see my point, I hope. example
That's just my two cents, take it to heart or don't. But overall, this is a very nice piece. Keep up the good work.
Jim
[/ QUOTE ]
And WHY would you compare CoX art with something you saw on PPV?
[/ QUOTE ]
Because its an accurate pose comparison? <o.O> I mean it *is* just about the same pose; not identical; but very close - and given the lack of clothing in the pic, it keeps the attention focused on anatomical detail. Thus - it makes perfect sense ^^
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nymie, I've done as you've asked and looked at the picture with a critical eye. I believe that I have found something "off". This picture is reminiscient of the poster from the movie "Striptease", and I think it's a good concept. However, I think that you've made the girl's torso too long just so you could show her breasts. If she had a wider torso, in relation to the length of it, it would work. It just appears that she does not have enough mass to her to wrap around her leg to grab her other ankle, not without seriously hunching her body further and blocking her breasts.
Take a look at this picture from the movie and see my point, I hope. example
That's just my two cents, take it to heart or don't. But overall, this is a very nice piece. Keep up the good work.
Jim
[/ QUOTE ]
And WHY would you compare CoX art with something you saw on PPV?
[/ QUOTE ]
Because its an accurate pose comparison? <o.O> I mean it *is* just about the same pose; not identical; but very close - and given the lack of clothing in the pic, it keeps the attention focused on anatomical detail. Thus - it makes perfect sense ^^
[/ QUOTE ]
I always found comparing a real persons dimentions and size to something comic booky to be rather pointless. But that's just me.
�Alas, regardless of their doom, the little victims play!� - Thomas Gray
Actually barring the find of the exact same shoe, that poster illustrates my point. The arch on Demi's front foot curves into the toes, the drawing has the arch kind of ballooning a bit outward. Might happen if she was wearing 4 pairs of socks, but I think we can say that's not gonna happen.
Can't wait to see this colored...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nymie, I've done as you've asked and looked at the picture with a critical eye. I believe that I have found something "off". This picture is reminiscient of the poster from the movie "Striptease", and I think it's a good concept. However, I think that you've made the girl's torso too long just so you could show her breasts. If she had a wider torso, in relation to the length of it, it would work. It just appears that she does not have enough mass to her to wrap around her leg to grab her other ankle, not without seriously hunching her body further and blocking her breasts.
Take a look at this picture from the movie and see my point, I hope. example
That's just my two cents, take it to heart or don't. But overall, this is a very nice piece. Keep up the good work.
Jim
[/ QUOTE ]
And WHY would you compare CoX art with something you saw on PPV?
[/ QUOTE ]
Because its an accurate pose comparison? <o.O> I mean it *is* just about the same pose; not identical; but very close - and given the lack of clothing in the pic, it keeps the attention focused on anatomical detail. Thus - it makes perfect sense ^^
[/ QUOTE ]
I always found comparing a real persons dimentions and size to something comic booky to be rather pointless. But that's just me.
[/ QUOTE ]
Plus she is all hunched over in that poster. I can bend you over if you like though.
I started work on a picture for a friend. I put the WIP up on the supergroup website and got "Nice work', and the typical "Can I have your baby?" responses. There are some things bothering me about the piece so far. I require help in tearing it apart and finding the problems. I know a few, but some of those I'm not even sure how I'm going to fix yet. Feel free to mark on the picture or just describe the problems you are seeing. Thank you for taking the time to help me out.
WIP - Pencils