A couple of line arts

[Mynock]

Very Nice Billie. You're one hell of an artist.

[quagmire_uk]

But well, I know the limit. The limit of similarity. (No limits for love!) It's at about chin level The girls in my head stuck at that level and don't go in deeper. Don't go under. They don't get out either. Not until a good Samaritan shows up and rescues them.

You have similar tastes to me... I like women in peril but I don't like them to disappear. Except for me the preferred stuck depth tends to be about breast level. If they are neck deep all the best bits have gone!

I'm a big fan of your artwork, and I'm delighted to see these two line arts.

[Billie Bonce]

Thank you very much! Your appreciation is very important to me.

But I think you are overpraising me. Recently I registered at www.hentai-foundry.com and planned to upload some of my pictures there. But the very first attempt was not successful - the picture was rejected because it doesn't meet their standards of quality. I still have to learn a lot.

You have similar tastes to me... I like women in peril but I don't like them to disappear. Except for me the preferred stuck depth tends to be about breast level. If they are neck deep all the best bits have gone!

Yes, I agree, I just told about the limit. When I look through my "published" pictures, I see that on most of them the victims are stuck at about hips level. Even knee-deep is OK as long as the victim can't get out and needs help.

However, in my unfinished and hence unpublished pictures there are much more different situations, including going under and head-first plunge. Stay tuned

[quagmire_uk]

Thank you very much! Your appreciation is very important to me.

But I think you are overpraising me. Recently I registered at http://www.hentai-foundry.com and planned to upload some of my pictures there. But the very first attempt was not successful - the picture was rejected because it doesn't meet their standards of quality. I still have to learn a lot.

I am very surprised! Which pictures were they? I can understand if it was these line arts because I guess they are just line art figures against blank backgrounds, somewhat less complicates that some of your other work. But some of your artwork is FANTASTIC and there's no way they should be rejected. I can see plenty of work on hentai foundry of a lesser standard.

[Billie Bonce]

I am very surprised! Which pictures were they? I can understand if it was these line arts because I guess they are just line art figures against blank backgrounds, somewhat less complicates that some of your other work. But some of your artwork is FANTASTIC and there's no way they should be rejected.

Here is the picture that was rejected. It was posted at DeepSinking (and now is deleted from there), and I also post it virtually everywhere because I honestly believe that this picture is one of the best done by me. I didn't plan to repost my older pictures here, but I can make an exception for this one.

underwater_quicksand.jpg

The reason for rejection was "The perspective is off on land". I discussed it on their forum. They have a "Constructive Critique" subforum, where all rejected pictures can be discussed. I admit that the critique is constructive, they give good advices, and the atmosphere is friendly. But I also got an impression (from the discussion about my picture and many other pictures, too) that they attempt to fit all the pictures in some traditional templates that they have and don't want to change.

After that I didn't make attempts to submit another pictures there. May try it in future. Or not.

I can see plenty of work on hentai foundry of a lesser standard.

Yes. Somebody compared his rejected work with much worse pictures that reside there. They say, many artists are (or were) on a self-approval, and not all of them kept the high standards. Blah-blah-blah. Still, I'm not the only one. Other rejected pictures were good, too (one can see them in "Constructive Critique" subforum there).

[water_bug_62208]

They didn't like the fact that the gals were out in the water (referring to their objection as the perspective being "off land")? What you drew was certainly from a different view point when it comes to sinking in quicksand, and differnent certainly can be good, especially with this piece. Oh well, we're happy to have you here.

[Duncan Edwards]

You can post such rejected works here anytime you want. Once again you get inside my head with so many things.

[Billie Bonce]

You can post such rejected works here anytime you want. Once again you get inside my head with so many things.

Thank you Duncan! I readily post here all my quicksand-related works without exceptions, and plan to do the same in future. It's so great to have a place where I can share my works without any doubt!

They didn't like the fact that the gals were out in the water (referring to their objection as the perspective being "off land")? What you drew was certainly from a different view point when it comes to sinking in quicksand, and differnent certainly can be good, especially with this piece. Oh well, we're happy to have you here.

In fact, the picture is really a sort of composite. It's like an aquarium in which you look through the glass, and your eyes are exactly at the level of the surface of water. I did this intentionally, that was the idea. You see what happens under the water, but also you can see details above the water that explain the storyline behind the picture. They didn't accept this idea. Here is what they said:

From that perspective, you probably wouldn't see sand at all, and you'd just see the back/side of the boats. I'm not sure where you wanted the perspective focal point to be, but when I look at the pic, the kneeling girl's eyes seem to be it, so you'd probably see the beach through the water towards the surface, with just a sky and maybe a few of the grassy tops above water (with very blurred beach and grass through the water).

They said many good words about the picture, too. But we didn't come to agreement about the possibility of this picture to appear on their site

[quagmire_uk]

I suppose that they are right from a realistic point of view - the perspective of the beach and boats should mean that we can see the surface of the water. But I accepted that as an intenional bit of creative license rather than a mistake. You are right about them sticking to traditional templates.

Might be worth submitting some of your black and white sketches. Like "The Forest Lake": http://billie-bonce.deviantart.com/art/ ... -105429496 I can't see anything to criticse in that artwork whatsoever.

And I'm pretty sure that once you are accepted on the website you can just submit more stuff without being under such stringent "quality control" or traditional templates.

[water_bug_62208]

Sounds like they expected you to draw your picture the same way a camera takes a picture, that is the area of importance is all sharply focused and the "unimportant" areas are out of focus to take away attention to them. Guess you could say is what you drew (as many artists tend to draw) was an images where thre is high levels of depth of field... i.e., everything from the foreground to the background is in focus. Well, depending on the effect the artist is after, sometimes having high depth of field is desirable.

Well, their site, their rules, thus they can do as they please. I'd say you have an appreciative crowd here that respects the intent and preference of the artist versus impacting the artist's creativity through negation of personal abilities and imagination.