Warriors Wiki talk:Charart/Accepted 111

Alder (Ki) ~ Approved
hi changes are here and I'll do stuff when I get home from work.

Smudge the gray some more? 20:44, December 7, 2013 (UTC)

Re-uploaded. I don't want to smudge it too terribly much, I hope you don't mind.

Mind defining the shading on the paws a little more? I like this a lot. c:  22:16, December 8, 2013 (UTC)

I think it's fine for now, but if others agree with you, I'll go ahead and do it.

Just a little more. 0:10 Mon Dec 9

Re-uploaded. i redid it again because my layers merged ;-; plus I like this

Define the shading? This is sooo cute o.o 18:54, December 9, 2013 (UTC)

Re-uploaded. Hmm

Mind telling me which direction the light source is coming from? 20:49, December 9, 2013 (UTC)

Looks like to me it's coming from the upper right ouo. Could you define the tail shading, perhaps? I have to squint to see it. 20:53, December 9, 2013 (UTC)

Ah! That would make more sense. Thanks, Beebs. cx Cloudy, may you define the tail shading please? 20:58, December 9, 2013 (UTC)

I know white pattern realism isn't something that's enforced, so it's your choice, but I'd still strongly recommend using a more realistic white pattern. This one's fairly unrealistic, and I think the image would look better as a whole with a more plausible pattern. But as I said, it's up to you since it's not an enforced rule or requirement.

Darkfrost, please don't repeat Beebs' comment. Also, Paleh, I'll go ahead and fix it up a bit since I'm really not in the mood to have the image nominated or a dozen comments telling me to change it.

The only reason I repeated, is because I thought you'd say that the tail shading was fine, when it definitely wasn't. So, my apologizes. 13:08, December 10, 2013 (UTC)

Okay can you try and not be offensive, please? Perhaps next time, you could phrase it a little nicer? ._. Anyways, re-uploaded and I basically just went back to the other pattern I had with a few fixes.

I wasn't being offensive? I'm sorry if it sounded like that, but it really wasn't. 23:56, December 10, 2013 (UTC)

"...because I thought you'd say that the tail shading was fine, when it {definitely wasn't}." brackets inserted by me seems a little offensive imho, just for future reference. Moving on, smudge the markings a teensy tiny bit more? This is cute! OuO 01:54 Wed Dec 11

I'd rather not smudge them but if someone else agrees then I guess I'll do it?

Smudge the white marking a little more, because she's in a long-haired blank and her fur would be a touch more crazy. x3 05:14, December 12, 2013 (UTC)

Re-uploaded. Beep.

Sorry if I sound rude, but the way you smudged the patches doesn't flow with the fur. Like, at the top (I guess the white is kind of shaped like a cross, so) under the extended parts at the sides, it's smudged downwards, but at the lower part, its smudged side-to-side. Either have the majority of it side to side (with a little curve when necessary) or Down (which is probably more realistic)? I'm sorry if I sound offensive. 09:07 Thu Dec 12

White placement isn't an enforced part of the whole "realism thing", which I still think we're getting far too out of hand with that , and I'd think smudging would apply to that. Honestly, I think it's fine, and it's not that bad...

I think it should be smudged a little more, as she's long-haired and a kitten. It'd look a bit scrappy, and trust me, you won't be over-smudging it right now. 00:10, December 13, 2013 (UTC)

Re-uploaded. Oversmudged to one person isn't the same to another.

Darken the shading a touch more? 04:49, December 17, 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather not, actually. It clashes too much with the white, and makes the gray look really bad.

Then shall we go CBA? 23:35, December 17, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt, but the shading should be on the other side of the face. 02:18 Thu Dec 19

I've shaded like this on other images before, and I've been told it's fine. I'd rather another opinion before I change it.


 * Kelpsey's right, and the shading should be switched on the tail, too. Or you could leave those the same and switch what side of the body its on. Your choice, but the first option would be easiest ouo 04:24, December 19, 2013 (UTC)

cackles and I redid the pattern again. Re-uploaded.

The smudging on the chest seems a bit too clumpy. See how smooth the transition is on the tail-tip? Aim for that, to an extent. 22:44, December 21, 2013 (UTC)

Re-uploaded.

CBA? 04:20, December 25, 2013 (UTC)

Approved.

Ferncloud (Alt Q) ~ Approved
Comments? 19:24, December 8, 2013 (UTC)

Nice work! I would say define the shading on the tail, it's a bit hard to see. 22:03, Dec. 9, 2013 (UTC)

I think it's fine, unless someone else disagrees ouo 19:14, December 9, 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it needs defined..maybe add more depth to it? Looks pretty, Beebs. c:  19:15, December 9, 2013 (UTC)

The depth itself is fine, I think. Although since she is dark gray, would you object to adding a little bit of light in the non-shaded areas so it doesn't appear to be all in shading? If you add the lighter parts (but not all that light), that might make it seem a little more... "depth-y" for lack of a better word?

re-up 19:26, December 9, 2013 (UTC)

The face's highlights, particularly on her left cheek, seem a bit bright for the light coming behind her. The head would block most light, especially on that side of the face, causing no shading. Hawk Swoop is an example of what I'm trying to describe..her light is coming form behind her and a little to her right, so you'd get thin, narrow highlights on one side of her face. 05:10, December 12, 2013 (UTC)

re-up I removed that highlight but that's it - I don't think her face highlights aren't that bright, imo ouo  20:18, December 12, 2013 (UTC)

Remember that your light is coming from behind her rear- her forehead, that is, if she has one, will block most of the light. You're working with a 3D shape, therefore, there will be parts covered entirely by things that block the light from reaching that point. Trust me on this. 00:09, December 13, 2013 (UTC)

re-up mkay 00:24, December 13, 2013 (UTC)

Define the light on the face 04:18, December 16, 2013 (UTC)

I think it's fine, unless someone disagrees, since it shouldn't be too bright for this light source 19:21, December 16, 2013 (UTC)

The highlight should be stretched out along the side of her right cheek, as the light is coming from behind. There would also be a small highlight on her right lip, and up the side of that ear. Does she have earpink? 01:33, December 17, 2013 (UTC)

re-up whoops, I forgot it 02:12, December 17, 2013 (UTC)

CBA? 04:51, December 17, 2013 (UTC)

Stretch out that highlight summore- it should be running up and down, right along the lineart of her cheek. 01:55, December 18, 2013 (UTC)

re-up  01:59, December 18, 2013 (UTC)

Are the changes showing? 04:25, December 19, 2013 (UTC)

Yup, they are, for me. 19:16, December 19, 2013 (UTC)

Define the light a bit more on the face. 16:47, December 20, 2013 (UTC)

Again, I think it's fine, since it shouldn't be too bright - or else I'd be told to dull it. 19:35, December 20, 2013 (UTC)

The cheek highlight should be running up and down, not in a circle. Think of a line, parallel to her cheek lineart, but smushed up right along the edge. Would an example to a diagram be helpful? 22:42, December 21, 2013 (UTC)

Yup, that'd be helpful ouo 20:09, December 22, 2013 (UTC)

re-up thanks man 14:58, December 23, 2013 (UTC)

CBA? 04:21, December 25, 2013 (UTC)

Approved.