drawing things like this is comforting i'm sorry it's so pink

anonymous asked:

Mind if I ask you about your shading process and how you pick colours for shading? Because it's mindblowing and I remember reading that you didn't like to use multiply. So I'm really curious.

This is a great question!! I’m sorry it took so long to answer. I was trying to think of the best way to go about showing you! That being said, here is a very long post with a lot of gifs.

Keep reading

Title: Golden
Series: Mob Psycho 100
Characters/Pairing: Katsuya Serizawa & Arataka Reigen; SeriRei
Rating: R/Mature 
Notes: This idea popped into my head this morning and refused to leave so I had to write it. Initially I think it was gonna be more angsty but I made it super fluffy. Whoops
Warnings: Sex talk, but nothing really explicit. 

Keep reading

anonymous asked:

Helloooo perfect, I saw another anon asking about tutorials; and I was just wondering about like the face and hair and stuff? Like the head i guess idk OMG (I'm so awkward sorry omgomg) and like proportion? Because I've been trying to draw the boys a lot lately and I can do like basic chibi but I'd love to be able to do something more... Realistic??? Man idk omg. And when I try drawing full body the head is massive compared to the body; I just wondered if you could give some tips? Thank you! <33

Hello! Thank you for coming by with your fantastic question! It wasn’t awkward at all, so don’t sweat it. :)) Boys can be tricky if you’re not as comfortable or used to drawing them, but all it takes is practice. Men’s proportions are very similar to that of women, but their bodies don’t have the soft or more dramatic curves. They are also a bit broader and straighter. But I ramble– I will do my very best to explain my process and give some tips. It may get a bit lengthy, so I apologize beforehand. For this tutorial, I will be using Ezio Auditore. :)

1) In this base here, I have two colors: Pink and blue. At this point of my drawing escapades, I skip right to rough sketches (the blue), so I forego the whole guidelines bit (pink) most of the time. But, if you don’t know what goes where just yet, doing the pink guidelines is very useful. The main guidelines are for these things: The ear starts and ends where your eyes begin (halfway down the head) and your nose ends (up until the bottom quarter of the head). Your mouth is halfway down between the nose and the chin; its width is from the middle of one eye to the middle of the another. Eyes are a quarter each way from the front of the face (but it’s a bit skewed here do to the turn of the head). You can look at more placements on google with face proportions, but this is a nice one. (Of course, however, everyone has different faces, so things can be different!)

2) Now the actually drawing comes into play. See all the stuff I mentioned in part 1 about what belongs where? Well, if you did the guidelines, it will make it even easier to plot out the eyes, nose, ears, and mouth out. So, go ahead and do that! I’ll give a detail on how I do eyes here:

Next, hair!

3) So, as you can see, I got rid of the sketch/guidelines. Why? Because you’re down the skeletal structure. All what’s left is hair, and that’s not…part of the skeletal structure (I guess that’s the way I can describe it, haha). All you must remember for hair is to not make it too poofy by starting your hair far too up. It rests on top of your head and hugs it! The hairline is about a tenth from the top of the head. Even if the person’s hair is poofy naturally, keep that in mind! Respect that hairline! Anyway, now, you asked how I did hair, no? :

So, this is a really dumb detail shot (and this will be an even dumber explanation; i’m trying) but hair isn’t too difficult. I honestly just stroke in lines (and this is messy here, so as you can see, I kinda just go with it). There’s two things to remember about hair: Hair part and hair flow. Your hair at the part should be stemming from it, branching off into the appropriate direction. Ezio Auditore has a hair part in the middle, so his bangs and hair fall sideways evenly down the middle. Just remember: Flow and direction. That part is crucial. And, to note, don’t be afraid to draw in those strands! Hair isn’t a block; it has detail. You don’t have to go hyper detail, however, for that can really make the work look clunky. Just keep practicing and it really will come to you, and easier than the others (like eyes, nose, lips, etc., in my opinion). 

BAM. Ezio. I just pooped on clothes… Sorry, Ezio. Your assassin gear is a pain in the butt.

Now, about full body, the way to differ from chibi to, say, realism, is the proportion. Chibi ignores the rules of proportion in relation to the head, but if you want it to be more realistic, you can’t do that. You can bend rules for cartoons, etc., of course, but to note, to bend these rules and make it still look purposefully stylized and not flat out wrong, you still must know the rules. To bend them, one must first understand them. Anyway, the human body is 7 ½ heads tall.

(Ezio is so happy and so dazzled by your beauty.) But that’s how it is! Thighs are roughly the width of your head. Shoulders extend about a head away from the center. The width of the torso extend just a bit beyond the ears of the head in both directions before tapering a bit thinner to the waist and rounding about again at the hips. This is a good reference image.

Anyway, I suck at tutorials, but, hey, I tried! Happy drawing, as always!

anonymous asked:

I think it's cool that you are brave enough to post feminist stuff... I'm female and do see this as somewhat of an issue in my life. I wanted to share this quote with you, however, because I feel it is just as true. The world has enough women who are tough; we need women who are tender. There are enough women who are coarse; we need women who are kind. There are enough women who are rude; we need women who are refined. We have enough women of fame; we need more women of faith."MargaretDNadauld

Thanks! I don’t know that it can really be considered brave in my case, though. :) Knock on wood, I’ve carved out a relatively safe space for myself online to express those ideas and opinions (and have other types of privilege that help keep it that way).

So, before I get into the rest of your ask I want to clarify something up front – Feminism is an old and storied movement, with a colourful (often checkered) past. If you read up on it you’ll see references to different “waves” of feminism, and movements within the movement, and sometimes directly opposing viewpoints within the movement. It’s a really, really broad umbrella term that includes both trans-exclusionary radical feminism and intersectional feminism and everything in between and around it. I don’t know which chapter of feminism I belong to (I would say intersectional, but I think that word/name might have a very specific context of belonging to black or other PoC communities), but I wanted to clarify this up front. A lot of people seem to think there’s only one type of feminism, but the movement is too big and too old for that. It’s complex, and it’s disingenuous to reduce it to a single viewpoint (and it’s dangerous when that viewpoint is an external-to-the-movement one, which is more often than not where people’s idea of feminism and feminists comes from).

I’ll use feminism as a shorthand in the rest of this ask, but unless otherwise specified I’m talking about my specific views as a feminist.

(Also noting that judging by the last line of that quote, I’m guessing it was said originally in a religious context of some kind – I’m not educated enough even in my own religion to tackle that side of it. I will be taking a secular interpretation of the words as you’ve presented them to me!)

Onto the reply!

Before I comment on that quote, I’d like to address the implied juxtaposition of it against feminism in your ask. I know asks have a character limit, and this may not have been what you intended to communicate, but your wording (“however”, “just as true”) implies that the ideas (direct, implied, and perceived) behind that quote are somehow counter to or opposite of feminism. Which in turn, gives me the sense that you’re proposing the quote as an alternate idea to consider (alternate, that is, to feminism). To which I have to respond, yes and no.

I’m assuming what you’re getting out of this quote is that it’s okay to be traditionally feminine, and you feel that feminism’s message is that you have to be tougher than that, and harder than that, and cruder than that (seen as traditionally masculine traits). In fact, feminism is about enabling women to be who they are, and protecting women who are being who they are, regardless of how society perceives them (and, of course, to actually change the way society perceives them). It’s totally okay to be traditionally feminine, feminism is not against that. It’s also totally okay to be traditionally masculine, feminism is okay with that to. Being a feminist means wanting women to be protected from and free of societal pressure to conform to only one external expression of their gender (along with other cool things, like not being discriminated against because of your gender, and maybe not being murdered because of your gender). If you express your gender that way because it suits you, power to you! But it should be your choice.

Where I have an issue with this quote, is that there are some problematic ideas hidden in the structure and wording of it. It implies that we have hit our quota of THIS type of woman, so you should not BE this type of woman (even if you ARE this type of woman). Instead, you should be THIS type of woman. It’s still prescriptive, it still carries a very subtle shame-based undertone, and it still does not leave any room for women to be who they are, pointe finale.

It’s prescription disguised as permission. Which is great for women who readily identify with the approved categories, but the same old middle finger to the rest.

It also fails to take into account broader environmental factors. It implies we have a lot of tough/coarse/rude women, like, too many. We don’t, really, though. We have a lot of women who are perceived to be those things, who actually are vastly LESS those things than their male peers. They’re just MORE those things than their female peers. And for everything they do with even the smallest, tiniest possibility of being interpreted as rude, they are reminded by everyone around them that they should be “nicer” or “gentler” or “humbler” or “not so mean” or “less of a bitch” and so on and so forth.

Honestly, we don’t actually have a lot of women who are comfortable presenting as tough/coarse/rude. And those that do still censor heavily, hold back, go easy, and ration their toughness/rudeness/coarseness. They’re careful about who and when and in what circumstances – and it’s at least half sub-conscious.

The way the quote is worded implies there’s a limited capacity for women, you know? And that limit is built right into the premise so that unless you’re used to tearing apart syntax, most people won’t realize it’s there to question it and will just accept it. The words “enough” and “more” refer to proportions of a whole, and directly imply a limited size and capacity for the whole. But that’s false. You can’t have ENOUGH of one type of woman, and need MORE of another type of women, because there’s no limit on the number of women you can have. We have ALL women, and however they present, they are what we need.

What does “enough” mean? Is there a limit on the number of tough (or tender, or rude, or kind) women we can have? Why is that limit in place? What does it preserve or create or protect? What would the consequences be if we exceed that limit?

Also, why are these things presented as binaries? Maybe I’m somewhere between tough and tender. Maybe sometimes I’m one and sometimes I’m the other, depending on what I feel the situation calls for using my own judgement. These things are qualities, they’re behaviours, they’re modes of expression, they aren’t absolute personality types. More than that, they’re qualities/behaviours/modes of expression that are coded as masculine, so the quote is still drawing a line in the sand and telling women to make sure they fall on THIS side because it is appropriate.

If you fall on the feminine side just because that’s where you fit, power to you! I mean that very truly, with every fibre of my being. I will support you in that – and so will society. For women who fall on the other side of that arbitrary line, though, society won’t support them, which is why you often see some feminists pushing hard in that direction (and they get it wrong too – I’ve seen feminists using very similar limited, exclusionary wording, just in the opposite direction).

It’s like society (via this quote and others like it) handed the audience an 8-pack of crayons and said, “Here’s your box to do your drawing with. But look! Look how much purple there is in that box! That’s a lot of purple, we should really have some green crayons in there.” And the audience looked in the box and went, “Well, I mean, like half of those are really more pink or blue, but I guess I see your point, some green would be good too.” And they went, “Great, so pick which purple ones you’re going to throw out to make room for the green ones.”

And because of the way the discussion was presented, the audience just starts trading purple crayons for green ones and never thinks to stop and go, “Hey wait, why can’t I just have a bigger box?”

The quote is essentially “Hey ladies, be X instead of Y” with an implied, “in order to suit society’s currently established gender-based structures.” When it should be, “Be you, and we’ll work on changing society to suit.”

(Footnote: If we’re talking media representation (and I don’t believe we are – the quote seems focused on actual women, but for the sake of argument) we have so little representation that even two women of the same personality type will seem like suddenly all women are being presented as X – because they are, because there was only two of them, and they’re the entirety of our representation and therefore have to represent all of us, even though that’s impossible. So the problem isn’t actually how many “tough” women we see in our media – it’s how many women, period. We don’t have enough tough women, because we don’t have enough women.)