Warriors Wiki talk:Charart/Accepted 142

Flashnose (w) - CBA
ayyy 04:23, September 1, 2015 (UTC)

Could you lighten the overall shading a few ticks? 05:30, September 1, 2015 (UTC)

The green/blue tint is sort of throwing off the colour...perhaps try a darker, completely blue colour on multiply or a red tiny. This is really, really nice though... wb legGy 09:23 Tue Sep 1

Define the ear-pink. 21:55, September 1, 2015 (UTC)

Reuploaded. I played with some redder tones for the shading instead of having the gray-blue color. thx berRy 01:01, September 2, 2015 (UTC)

I'm having trouble making out the earpink. Could you define it? 21:16, September 2, 2015 (UTC)

With how the ear is shaped and where my light is coming from, the whole inner ear is in shadow, and I also have tufts of fur over the pink, so I'm a little hesitant to mess with it more to bring out that color. 23:17, September 2, 2015 (UTC)

I think it should still be defined. 03:54, September 3, 2015 (UTC)

Where did this idea that earpink has to be super defined even come from? I mean it goes back to before I even joined wwiki, but it makes no sense really. On the vast majority of cats, the ear isn't even an especially different color, either due to the fur color being similar, or the amount of fur covering the ear. The earpink on this is significantly more visible than in most photos of real cats, especially ginger ones, so defining it would not be realistic at all.

Earpink should still be visible. And in this case I think it should be defined so I'm asking. However, if you think its fine even with others saying not so then okay. 22:20, September 3, 2015 (UTC)

i do agree that it could be defined a tad. 23:00 Thu Sep 3

tbh, I agree w/ Paleclaw. Earpink isn't always super visible on cats and it's not even /that/ important regarding to the image quality. the main things that should be focused on are the patterns, shading etc. As long as you can tell there's ear pink it's fine :/ 12:54, September 4, 2015 (UTC)

I've been using this kind of as my guide for coloration. Without shading, the earpink and ear area looks the same, but with my angle of light and the shape of the ear, all of my earpink/ear fur is in shadow, so it would be inconsistent if I lightened it further. 17:57, September 4, 2015 (UTC)

But I can't tell there's earpink and thats the problem. 20:02, September 4, 2015 (UTC)

im agreeing with icy. define it, it wont kill you to. HotTeacher69 (talk) 07:54, September 5, 2015 (UTC)

I can see the earpink very easily on this, at least on my computer. It's not hard to see at all. However I will say that it's nearly invisible on my phone screen, but then so is the shading on nearly every black cat on here. So it may be your guys' screen? But regardless of that, I still stand by what I said about earpink not needing to be extremely defined. I can't barely see the earpink on these either. Why should it have to be more visible than that on this image? (though it actually already is plenty more visible on my screen, just apparently not all yours)

Exactly- You can barely /see/ the ear pink on most cats, and plus I can see the earpink fine on this one. 08:21, September 5, 2015 (UTC)

i dont care about realism? i really dont, stop trying to force it. and im sticking with it being defined, and thats all im saying on this. i REALLY can barely see it. HotTeacher69 (talk) 08:22, September 5, 2015 (UTC)

Realism is not mandatory in PCA. So four of us happen to have the same color calibration issue? I think that's highly unlikely. It's not too hard to just tweak it ever so slightly. Just because it's visible on some, does not mean it's visible on all screens. I also think Leggy should tweak it, even if it's not too much. Just enough so the four of us can make it out from the pelt color.

I just suggested that it might be the monitors that were the issue, since that was the only reason I could think of that some people could see it easily and some couldn't see it at all.

I'm not saying realism is mandatory. I'm not even advising it in this topic honestly. Right now I'm indifferent on whether any other images have earpink that's super defined, or earpink that's invisible. I'm indifferent on whether leggy makes the choice to change it or leave it. I'm not asking for things to be realistic. What I am trying to do is point out that you're forcing unrealism by continually asking her to change it when it actually is realistic and she has already stated why she doesn't want to define it. It's not even that the earpink isn't aesthetically pleasing, and that's why you guys think it should be changed. It's not offensive in any way, it's simply not visible to you guys. You're enforcing a standard that has no basis whatsoever. I can't think of a single good reason why the myth that earpink has to be defined even started, nevermind why people are still trying to force it. Why should it be a requirement on any image? Right now not one good reason has been given to define the earpink that isn't simply following the myth that earpink has to be super visible on every single image even if it looks bad or is unrealistic or is offensive on the eyes. That's my problem with the situation.

I fail to understand how four different people, in different parts of the world, with different computers not being able to see the ear pink isn't a valid enough reason? We're not forcing unrealism, and in fact, the same counterargument could be said by saying it's fine- you're promoting realism- if four different people can't see it, tweaking it would not hurt. It's not that I don't find it pleasing. I actually didn't even know the image had ear pink until Leggy brought it to my attention on Skype when she asked me what she should do with the image.

I'm not sure you're quite understand what I'm trying to say here, so I'm gonna try and word it differently. You said realism isn't mandatory right? Well unrealism isn't either as far as I'm aware. Which means it's artist's choice. And the artist made her choice to make it realistic, and gave good reasoning for it.

I'm not saying tweaking it would hurt. I'm not doubting that four people are struggling to see it. I'm asking what reasoning you have for it needing to be super visible? It doesn't matter how many people can't see it if none of them have a reason for it needing to be easily seen. If it's not anything related to realism or unrealism, and it's not to do with aesthetics, and it's not to do with any official guidelines on the topic, what's your reasoning? The only one I can see so far is the need to blindly follow a myth started by a few people, probably years and years ago, without any backing. I'm asking what the reason is that four people think an artist should be denied her artistic choice on something that isn't and has never been addressed in the official rules (at least to my knowledge). If you can give a good reason, sure go ahead, but so far I haven't heard one. Four people can't see it? Alright. But why do they need to? That's a question that hasn't been answered once in this whole discussion.

I'm no enforcing realism by saying it's fine. It being "fine" isn't my point or my reason for arguing this. I'm not saying it'd be wrong if it were defined. I'm saying that unless further reasoning is given, it's artist's choice, and that isn't being respected right now.

DISCLAIMER: This comment was written with the intention of resolving this argument. I am not angry, and I tried to show it in my comment. Please calm down. Paleclaw, we're not trying to force unrealism, just a standard we heard was the way it is. Snowed, Paleclaw's point is that the earpink doesn't need to be visible, not that it is. They're saying earpink should be the artist's choice, not that is has to be realistic. PCA is supposed to be fun, right? Let's keep it fun. 14:33, September 5, 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if just Paleclaw can see it. Four other people can't. Rainlegs, I'm asking you kindly to define the earpink. 16:28, September 5, 2015 (UTC)

ok. we all know earpink is part of the chararts- it has to be there, and artists choice is a thing, yeah. but when multiple people have an issue with it, something has to be done. i dont even notice the earpink at first glance, and we're not saying it has to be super defined??? just enough that we can actually SEE the damn thing. frankly if youre just not gonna listen to what people are saying then why bother putting up an image at all? realism doesnt have to be followed either- it doesnt count for much. hell, even remove some of the shadow from the ear and see if it does anything for definition. HotTeacher69 (talk) 18:36, September 5, 2015 (UTC)

Alright, this is starting an unnecessary argument. From here on out, all comments are to refrain from mentioning the ear pink, attacking users, or even calling their comments not valid enough. If you're going to comment, make sure it has a valid reason for being commented. This is turning into a train wreck of comments causing anxiety and stress for everyone involved. I will start to decline images for those who continue to bring up the issue of ear pink.

however, comments are being ignored. The changes should be made if the majority rules. See prior images. Anyways, define the shading on the paws. 03:53, September 6, 2015 (UTC)

Reuploaded. 03:17, September 7, 2015 (UTC)

Gorgeous. CBA? 06:57, September 8, 2015 (UTC)

Approved.

Splinter (Ro) - CBA
I love black-and-white cats.

I watched this in action. Can you smudge the patch on his butt a little more? Like the one at the edge of his back but not the tail thingy. The butt patch. I am a child. 05:27, September 5, 2015 (UTC) Can you please define nose pink just a tad? It's looking too paleish white to me. --Dewsplash (talk) 05:29, September 5, 2015 (UTC)Dewsplash 05:29, September, 5, 2015

Re-uploaded. Butt patch. Heh. Also, Dew, I actually had forgotten about the nose pink, so thanks for pointing that out.

i keep thinking of splinter from tmnt...but define the shading on the white. HotTeacher69 (talk) 07:18, September 5, 2015 (UTC)

Re-uploaded.

CBA? 06:56, September 8, 2015 (UTC)

Define the light source on the head? (either that or it's my monitor)  What Do You Mean?

I think it's fine. 22:06, September 8, 2015 (UTC)

Approved.