# How am I doing?



## lunos219 (Apr 27, 2010)

So, I have a request that takes me here... anyhow...

The requestor wants me to give him "something that dissapears" and has skunk atributes... so I came up with this:

http://i568.photobucket.com/albums/ss122/Lunos219/proto.jpg

It's a mix between the cheshire cat (yes, the one form alice in wonderland) and, of course a skunk, as requested.

So far, I just want to know how the proportions look... and we can go form there, if we must. 

EDIT: I know that the arms look scrawny, and I will fix that.


----------



## Saracide (Apr 29, 2010)

I think you should make a whole body reference for it.


----------



## Bir (Apr 29, 2010)

Honestly, there's not enough there to judge.


----------



## Sebwin (Apr 30, 2010)

There isn't much here to judge and I'm not sure if you're having the character face forward or if this is a back view, so I went with a front view.  the lower body is off balance and the neck is a bit wide.







I hope this helps.


----------



## lunos219 (May 2, 2010)

um, it's from the back....

sorry, haven't been able to check the forum lately. No privacy in my house.

No offense to the fandom, but i can't be seen IRL on theis forum without SOME social reporcussions. I don't hate the fandom, I'm not for it, but others are definately apposed, and, thus the reporcussions. Just making that clear.

back on topic:

I know that he's a bit off, I was just doing a check on the rough outline of his figure. I was trying to compensate for his only-one-third-human body. Mabe I overcompensated.


----------



## Taralack (May 3, 2010)

inb4 lol you don't have to come out as a furry...


----------



## lunos219 (May 3, 2010)

Toraneko said:


> inb4 lol you don't have to come out as a furry...


Perhaps you misunderstand. I am here for checking the accuracy of my art. No more. I simply want to ensure accuracy by going to the people who know what they're doing a lot better than I do.

There has also been some past confusion as to my opinion. This is a result of someone getting a hold of my password and masquerading as me. I have taken care of it for the most part.

Any other accuastions or inquiries? Or can we get back to the drawing?


----------



## Zydala (May 3, 2010)

lunos219 said:


> Perhaps you misunderstand. I am here for checking the accuracy of my art. No more. I simply want to ensure accuracy by going to the people who know what they're doing a lot better than I do.
> 
> There has also been some past confusion as to my opinion. This is a result of someone getting a hold of my password and masquerading as me. I have taken care of it for the most part.
> 
> Any other accuastions or inquiries? Or can we get back to the drawing?



I think he means that you don't have to defend yourself at all because we pretty much don't care. It's fine if you're here for another opinion. We don't need to know about what you're doing here. We're all human, lol :>

If I could give my 2 cents in on the piece, I'd say that, for one, except for the vertical line, the markings aren't really skunk-like. I'd keep the horizontal tiger-like splaying to a minimum, though I know you're going for the cheshire-cat look, too, and maybe adding more verticalness. Try looking at a skunk's back for ideas.

Also, do you use structual lines? This piece seems like you did most of it freehand without really considering forms. It's a lot easier to get anatomy right when you shape out the form, etc first. :>


----------



## lunos219 (May 3, 2010)

Zydala said:


> I think he means that you don't have to defend yourself at all because we pretty much don't care. It's fine if you're here for another opinion. We don't need to know about what you're doing here. We're all human, lol :>
> 
> If I could give my 2 cents in on the piece, I'd say that, for one, except for the vertical line, the markings aren't really skunk-like. I'd keep the horizontal tiger-like splaying to a minimum, though I know you're going for the cheshire-cat look, too, and maybe adding more verticalness. Try looking at a skunk's back for ideas.
> 
> Also, do you use structual lines? This piece seems like you did most of it freehand without really considering forms. It's a lot easier to get anatomy right when you shape out the form, etc first. :>


Thanks. I didn't know what kind of reaction I would get a first, for me not coming in a furry guise.

Back on topic, I know that the first drawing is quite contour, but i had very light shapes (drawn in with a 6H, what you see is done with an HB) on the drawing. The arms, I'm not focusing on much, since he's supposed to be a more assassin-type, and they are supposed to be a bit thin.

Mainly, though, with the lighter lines, I almost ignored them altogether when i drew the second time. I'm also a bit worried about the top of the bodie's shape (the shoulder area to the pectoral muscles) was too wide, or that the rest of the back tapered in a little too much.


----------



## skunkspray03 (May 10, 2010)

Very interesting... I would've expected something less original, like the usual obligatory chameleon.

so far, i sorta agree with the whole tapering in to quickly thing, and i'd like to make a suggestion.

since the Cheshire Cat is a bit large, you should probably make your art a bit more on the chubby side rather than making him look like he spends hours in a gym every day.


----------



## lunos219 (May 24, 2010)

skunkspray03 said:


> Very interesting... I would've expected something less original, like the usual obligatory chameleon.
> 
> so far, i sorta agree with the whole tapering in to quickly thing, and i'd like to make a suggestion.
> 
> since the Cheshire Cat is a bit large, you should probably make your art a bit more on the chubby side rather than making him look like he spends hours in a gym every day.


Thanks for replying... I forgot that I posted here, and my drawing has remained untouched as well...

Anyhow, thanks for the comment, and the suggestion...You have a pretty good point.


----------

