Beautiful and well done Mistypine.


You did quite well.

Thank you.

Awesome work as always Scott, only got one small nitpick though. One of the key rules of handling a firearm is to keep your finger away from the trigger until you're ready to fire the weapon, and she seems to have her finger on the trigger. As for the safety being on, the 'safety' on Glock pistols is the trigger itself; they don't have a separate safety switch like on other pistols. Not trying to cause problems, just wanted to point that out.

I would like for my previous comment to be deleted if possible.

What comment?

I LOVE this pic, Scott!

She has such a happy look on her face!

The pose is classic too!

I am VERY pleased!

Thank you. I'm glad that you like how she came out.
Should have her coloring done soon.

wheres her bike?
:)
if she has a gun wheres her gunholder. :)
do those before colring her. :D

First, the helmet she is wearing is not a motorcycle helmet. It is part of her costume. Second, her backpack is where she carries all of her weapons. Third, this is what the commissioner asked for. Take that up with him.

Thank you, someone needed to say something.

Just needed to be said.

Nods to that. You're right.

E-yup.

What's up with the SUPER COPYRIGHT WATERMARK?
1) It's huge and distracting
2) Anyone with Potatoshop can remove it in one step

Seriously, man. You're doing it wrong.

I don't see him doing it wrong.

So far, no one hasn't stolen his art.

And hopefully no one will, either.

He just needed to be told that.

Roger that.

I'm not saying that they should remove the watermark entirely, just that it's out of control. A multi-colored transparent watermark is both more secure and can be used without covering up the ENTIRE FRIGGING IMAGE.

I'm sorry, but since this is the way my brother wants to do it, you can stop right there.

Chill out, it's called criticism. When you post something online for the entire internet to view and comment on, you might expect some of it mixed in with the hearts, stars and rainbows.

Please note that I'm not even being all that aggressive here, I actually like the artwork - it's just that putting a giant red watermark over said art has serious problems both in the execution and philosophy. As I've mentioned before, 1) if you're worried about people stealing your art then there are ghost watermarks that can be placed and are unable to be seen by the naked eye, and 2) there are also many tasteful watermarks that allow common, law-abiding users to view artwork without having to squint and brave eye strain.

Take a look at some of the most successful artists out there. Blotch, oCe, Dingbat, Gami Cross, and a few others come to mind. How many of them put watermarks on their images? None that I can recall, and any watermarks they did use were small enough to go unnoticed. Instead, they have signatures - it's a form of marking that brings the viewer's attention to the artist's name without damaging the image in any way. I can't imagine how many artists have become popular overnight when their artwork gets featured on Fchan or some site and their signature is used to track the artist down.

A watermark cannot do this for two reasons - first, it damages the image. Good graphic design states that images should be clear and easy to understand. This watermark is so dark, it is a large part of the image. It makes it visually conflicting and makes it difficult, even at a close look, to tell what is going on near her right elbow and midsection. The black is visible but the red places so many lines over it that it becomes confusing. This could be solved without compromising security by adding a low-opacity watermark in multiple colors, and by placing the watermark somewhere else on the image.

Second, a large watermark sends the message to the viewer, "I have prevented you from stealing this" when most of the viewers never intended to in the first place! Would you go back to a supermarket that accused you of shoplifting every time you walked in the door? Not likely. I would have +Faved this image, if it weren't for the watermark. I might have +Watched the artist, if it weren't for the watermarks on everything.

I'm sorry if you're offended, but "this is the way he wants to do it" is not a good enough reason to make a bad decision like that watermark. I certainly can't stop you or your brother from doing so, but hopefully he will make a more intelligent choice next time. Just think about it.

Look Amadameus, He drew it and it's his drawing.

YOU'RE the one being overly critical and complaining.

It's your decision not to watch.

The watermark isn't damaging the picture. I don't see it that way. You may see it that way.

That's the way he operates.

How do you know that someone wouldn't try to steal this artist's picture?

Why don't you move on?

*shrug* I'll move on, indeed. I was kind of hoping to hear something from the artist themselves, but ah well.

Opinions are opinions, to be honest I was saying this mostly because if I were the artist in question and I were doing something that might potentially miff my viewers, I would sure want someone to tell me about it! Clearly they don't want to speak on the issue and you two are the only other voices involved.

Good luck to the artist! They've got great lineart, watermark notwithstanding.