As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

My best work so far.... I think...

toddleabootoddleaboo Registered User
edited April 2011 in Artist's Corner
sweet_page9.jpg

Comments appreciated.

toddleaboo on
«1

Posts

  • The_Glad_HatterThe_Glad_Hatter Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    First thing that struck me was the fact that the main characters just have flat "cell shading" and your surroundings have busy textures and gradiated lighting is really distracting.

    i'm also not superfond of the combination of the looser linework in combination with the super-rigid 1px point-to-point straight lines the pen tool gives (is it done with the pen tool in Illustrator? it looks like it was..).

    and this could just be me, but i think most children's illustration books nowadays prefer adding the text to a blank part of the drawing, instead of just adding a textbox (unless you're going for more of a comic)

    be sure to post some more stuff, and while you're at it, don't forget to add your own comments (instead of "here's my art, crit now"). What software did you use?

    The_Glad_Hatter on
  • toddleabootoddleaboo Registered User
    edited April 2011
    Thanks for the critique. I see what you're saying, but I personally find the cell shaded characters inside a textured realistic world tend to make the characters stand out as vibrant beings inside a rigid 3-dimensional world. I don't know, it's kind of the style I am going for. But I'm always playing around with it. Here are a few more examples.

    sweet_page7.jpg

    sweet_page5.jpg

    sweet_page3.jpg

    Also, I try to think about where I'm going to place the text when I start drawing up a page. That way, the text bubble isn't covering up anything significant.

    toddleaboo on
  • toddleabootoddleaboo Registered User
    edited April 2011
    Oh, and I use Flash.

    toddleaboo on
  • TheRadiantOnesTheRadiantOnes Registered User
    edited April 2011
    I'd agree that the inconsistent use of textures is a bit off-putting: it makes some areas look flat.

    There's something odd about the fence- the pieces don't look quite like they belong, and the lack of a rail in the extreme foreground limits the world (makes it look like it ends there), while the lack of a hinge on the gate makes it look incomplete. Similarly, the walls of the houses don't look real: they look incomplete (windows only on one side, very little detail. The lack of wires on the suspension bridge, pardon the pun, also strains my suspension of disbelief.

    Now, this isn't to say that everything needs accuracy, for instance, the bridge not having a road extend in to the distance isn't so bothering, nor is the strange sky, as both are obviously meant to be that way, but, what it comes down to, is that it doesn't look like a gestural style, so the missing details look lazy or unintended, rather than intentionally a vague gesture. Now, without seeing the real (vs. dream) world, it's hard to say how gestural it looks in comparison: it might fit right in, if the real world is more highly rendered.

    On a less critical note, the trees/grass/organic stuff is the nicest looking part of the image, and the lighting and water transparency effects are nice, too.

    EDIT: looking at your new post, your backgrounds tend to be a bit flat in general, I think it's the broad use of gradients that makes things look off: for instance, the stove/chimney looks like it's floating. However, the stronger shadows seem to work better (as on the clown and bed)

    Also, it's pretty surprising you use Flash, I've never thought of using that for anything other than animation or allowing interaction.

    TheRadiantOnes on
  • toddleabootoddleaboo Registered User
    edited April 2011
    Agreed. I'm going to add those details before we publish the book.

    toddleaboo on
  • m3nacem3nace Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    I see no problem with the cel shaded characters in a detailed environment. Anime in particular use the same trick of making detailed backgrounds and cell shaded characters (a lot other forms of traditional animation do too). It's supposed to make the audience engaged with the environment and being able to immerse themselves into the situation of the characters.
    On the other hand it was mainly used to make each frame of the animation look like an illustration. But I see no problem with cel shaded characters in an illustrated environment here.
    The use of textures does make stuff look flat.
    Have you thought about taking the style in other directions(edit: for future projects)? Do you feel it's the right style for your books to have these textured and carefully calculated shapes? If I may be honest I personally get a lot better engaged with the environment when just about everything is made in hand (no pen tool etc.). The use of computed lines and textures makes it seem mechanical and what I wanted as a child (and now) was something that seemed organic and sprawling with life. Though I don't know what children want today, I guess that Phineas and Ferb show is doing pretty well in spite of its style of using vectors and stuff so I guess its a personal preference

    Otherwise, it's nice work!

    m3nace on
  • toddleabootoddleaboo Registered User
    edited April 2011
    I'm half way finished with this book... so I'm going to be sticking to the style I'm using now. I am however, going to take all your advice into consideration with the next book.

    Here are a few more pages:

    sweet_page8.jpg

    sweet_page2.jpg

    sweet_page6.jpg

    toddleaboo on
  • m3nacem3nace Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    The light in the corner to the right of the bed is missing in the second panel :P

    m3nace on
  • The_Glad_HatterThe_Glad_Hatter Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Have you already got a publisher?
    if you aren't published yet and are interested in Children's lit, Editorial Anonymous is a very good blog.

    The_Glad_Hatter on
  • toddleabootoddleaboo Registered User
    edited April 2011
    m3nace wrote: »
    The light in the corner to the right of the bed is missing in the second panel :P

    Thanks for noticing that.

    toddleaboo on
  • toddleabootoddleaboo Registered User
    edited April 2011
    Have you already got a publisher?
    if you aren't published yet and are interested in Children's lit, Editorial Anonymous is a very good blog.

    We found an agent for our first book, (http://feistycats.com/manuscript1.htm) but they haven't found us a publisher yet.

    1) I don't even know how legitimate this agency is.
    2) Our first book was a learning process, still experimenting with storytelling and an art style.

    Once this book is finished, our motivation to find a publisher will come back with a vengeance. :x

    toddleaboo on
  • melting_dollmelting_doll Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    There is no need for commas at each line break.

    Most children's books
    just leave the break
    (like so)

    because the break is enough by itself to imply rhythm. Only add commas where you normally would in a sentence - to make lists, etc. For example, "Just use your imagination, to turn his smile upside down." The comma you put after imagination isn't necessary because they usually indicate a need to pause slightly and reflect before continuing the sentence.

    And Glad Hatter is right about putting your text on negative space as opposed to in a white text box. It makes the text stick out a little TOO much, which kind of takes away from the image. Making it a little more subtle means the reader will concentrate more on the image.

    melting_doll on
  • toddleabootoddleaboo Registered User
    edited April 2011
    There is no need for commas at each line break.

    Most children's books
    just leave the break
    (like so)

    because the break is enough by itself to imply rhythm. Only add commas where you normally would in a sentence - to make lists, etc. For example, "Just use your imagination, to turn his smile upside down." The comma you put after imagination isn't necessary because they usually indicate a need to pause slightly and reflect before continuing the sentence.

    And Glad Hatter is right about putting your text on negative space as opposed to in a white text box. It makes the text stick out a little TOO much, which kind of takes away from the image. Making it a little more subtle means the reader will concentrate more on the image.

    Noted. I had a feeling the comma was out of place. Nobody said anything about it until now. I will figure out something with the text.

    toddleaboo on
  • toddleabootoddleaboo Registered User
    edited April 2011
    EDIT: looking at your new post, your backgrounds tend to be a bit flat in general, I think it's the broad use of gradients that makes things look off: for instance, the stove/chimney looks like it's floating. However, the stronger shadows seem to work better (as on the clown and bed)

    Also, it's pretty surprising you use Flash, I've never thought of using that for anything other than animation or allowing interaction.

    I'm gonna do something about that fireplace, because you're right... it looks out of place.

    And I love Flash. It's so easy to use, and when I'm finished illustrating the book, it'll be easy to animate the story afterward.

    toddleaboo on
  • toddleabootoddleaboo Registered User
    edited April 2011
    Oh, and here's the cover.

    nmsd_cover.jpg

    toddleaboo on
  • The_Glad_HatterThe_Glad_Hatter Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    this could be me, but the outlined cell-shaded look doesn't combine all too well with the glow/ gradient effects used.
    I know beavotron on these forums does it very well in her TF2 pieces (with the shadow-pieces being slight gradients and whatnot), but for me it's a bit of a style-breaker.

    Also, most covers and publishers prefer to put more of an emphasis on the name. While here your page seems to be divided in 3 parts, 1 large bottom banner for the dreamer, and then the entire title has to share half a page next to the nightmare character.
    there are only a few words on the cover and i think in most publications they get a more prominent place. Also, the font variation is something i haven't seen on a lot of the books i own (just checked my bookcase). I guess this probably has to do with hierarchy and legibility. Many publications stick with a more classic font (unless the font is an integral part of the book's style). Plus 4 different font styles/ fonts for four letters of text is often frowned upon.
    But you will find that publishers are generally really specific about how they like their covers, and usually have inhouse graphic designers do them.

    The_Glad_Hatter on
  • TheMorningStarTheMorningStar Registered User
    edited April 2011
    toddleaboo wrote: »
    Have you already got a publisher?
    if you aren't published yet and are interested in Children's lit, Editorial Anonymous is a very good blog.

    We found an agent for our first book, (http://feistycats.com/manuscript1.htm) but they haven't found us a publisher yet.

    1) I don't even know how legitimate this agency is.
    2) Our first book was a learning process, still experimenting with storytelling and an art style.

    Once this book is finished, our motivation to find a publisher will come back with a vengeance. :x

    I'm curious...this Feisty Cats thing...this is all made by you and your friend, right? I mean, all those books and animations, and games, and the webcomic, right? How long have you been working on Feisty Cats related stuff?

    TheMorningStar on
  • Stupid Mr Whoopsie NameStupid Mr Whoopsie Name Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2011
    Because these were constructed in flash, they seriously look like they took way more effort to do they they really oughtta. The colors are really muddy and the gradients aren't doing it any favors.

    I think if you're really serious about making books, you should drop flash and get back to basics as soon as possible.

    David Breen used flash for years and his art never improved because of it. Even now, it still has the same dull prefab look to it. Seriously, your reliance on flash is crippling your work.

    Stupid Mr Whoopsie Name on
  • toddleabootoddleaboo Registered User
    edited April 2011
    I'm curious...this Feisty Cats thing...this is all made by you and your friend, right? I mean, all those books and animations, and games, and the webcomic, right? How long have you been working on Feisty Cats related stuff?

    It's my brother and I who do the Feisty Cats. I came up with the characters and do the concept art. He puts the digital media together. I came up with the Feisty Cats when I was in 2nd grade and he started helping me put it all together a couple years ago. This is how it started: http://feistycats.com/episode1.htm

    toddleaboo on
  • toddleabootoddleaboo Registered User
    edited April 2011
    Because these were constructed in flash, they seriously look like they took way more effort to do they they really oughtta. The colors are really muddy and the gradients aren't doing it any favors.

    I think if you're really serious about making books, you should drop flash and get back to basics as soon as possible.

    David Breen used flash for years and his art never improved because of it. Even now, it still has the same dull prefab look to it. Seriously, your reliance on flash is crippling your work.

    SOMEONE is still bitter about Movie Comics. lol :winky:

    toddleaboo on
  • FletcherFletcher Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    What I'm getting from what you just said is that you plan out how the pages will look, and your brother does the digital stuff in flash, is that correct? That is to say, are you even the one who is responsible for the backgrounds/shadows/textures/gradients that everyone has been critiquing so far?

    Because this forum is only for posting your own artwork and looking for feedback/help with it; if you are only responsible for a portion of the artwork then you should just post the stuff that you (and only you) have done, even if that involves posting stuff that you consider half-finished!

    We can help you out, but to do that we need to see your work, not a combination of yours and your brother's. It is hard to help you get better if we don't even know which parts of the art you are responsible for!

    Fletcher on
  • Stupid Mr Whoopsie NameStupid Mr Whoopsie Name Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2011
    toddleaboo wrote: »
    Because these were constructed in flash, they seriously look like they took way more effort to do they they really oughtta. The colors are really muddy and the gradients aren't doing it any favors.

    I think if you're really serious about making books, you should drop flash and get back to basics as soon as possible.

    David Breen used flash for years and his art never improved because of it. Even now, it still has the same dull prefab look to it. Seriously, your reliance on flash is crippling your work.

    SOMEONE is still bitter about Movie Comics. lol :winky:

    Let's be clear about this: Movie Comics is irrelevant. And by the good graces of the internet, it's clear why it's not around anymore. This isn't about drama, I have no dog in that fight, so there's nothing for me to be bitter regarding, but it's important you recognize that David's artwork didn't improve in all of the years he's used flash.

    If you're serious about improving your artwork--which I would assume you are, otherwise you wouldn't be posting here--using flash to do illustrations is crippling your end product. Fletcher is right, show us what you've been working on and we can help you improve.

    Otherwise there isn't much reason for this thread to be here.

    Stupid Mr Whoopsie Name on
  • The_Glad_HatterThe_Glad_Hatter Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Also, not to turn this into a discussion thread, there ARE serious artists that invest time an effort in improving there work that use flash. I believe Guigar does everything in flash. I think the way it handles "strokes" and editing them is pretty unique, and i can imagine some artists prefer it that way.

    But i agree that there is a lot of room for improvement. If you don't care about our comments, ask your agent. (if he's experienced in children's lit..). Perhaps look at some recent award-winning publications (the bologna children's book fair just closed. the winners there always look amazing). Silly question, but do you read children's lit yourself? Try to get acquainted with the style of the various publishers in your market.

    Nobody's perfect here, from beginners to experts, but we're all here to improve and help each other get better. That's it..

    The_Glad_Hatter on
  • toddleabootoddleaboo Registered User
    edited April 2011
    ...but it's important you recognize that David's artwork didn't improve in all of the years he's used flash.

    Hasn't improved?

    020301.gif

    sweet_page10.jpg

    You're either mad, in a coma... or stuck in the past. ;)

    Of course Movie Comics is relevant. Your comments in this thread are obviously a reflection of your hatred for anything MC, especially the illustrator. (Gabe & Tycho bought an MC shirt and hung it on their wall by the way) We're not coming here stating that this is the best art ever, and everything can always be improved. We've actually been very receptive to all the feedback and constructive comments. Your comments are not constructive, and your revulsion for Flash is misguided. This book is going to be available as an animated storybook as well, so "going back to the basics" would not be very productive.

    toddleaboo on
  • toddleabootoddleaboo Registered User
    edited April 2011
    Also, not to turn this into a discussion thread, there ARE serious artists that invest time an effort in improving there work that use flash. I believe Guigar does everything in flash. I think the way it handles "strokes" and editing them is pretty unique, and i can imagine some artists prefer it that way.

    But i agree that there is a lot of room for improvement. If you don't care about our comments, ask your agent. (if he's experienced in children's lit..). Perhaps look at some recent award-winning publications (the bologna children's book fair just closed. the winners there always look amazing). Silly question, but do you read children's lit yourself? Try to get acquainted with the style of the various publishers in your market.

    Nobody's perfect here, from beginners to experts, but we're all here to improve and help each other get better. That's it..

    Just to clear things up, my brother David is following this thread closely as well... and he appreciates the feedback. This thread isn't a waste as the moderator would suggest.

    Yes, we check out children's books. :) Some of them are amazing looking, but some of them look average and are still very successful. We understand that we're under the Artist's Corner and it's normal for our work to be attacked... but there will always be people like Stupid Mister who want to get their 2 cents in even though they have nothing constructive to say. Mods make the worst trolls. :lol:

    toddleaboo on
  • JLM-AWPJLM-AWP Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    toddleaboo wrote: »
    Also, not to turn this into a discussion thread, there ARE serious artists that invest time an effort in improving there work that use flash. I believe Guigar does everything in flash. I think the way it handles "strokes" and editing them is pretty unique, and i can imagine some artists prefer it that way.

    But i agree that there is a lot of room for improvement. If you don't care about our comments, ask your agent. (if he's experienced in children's lit..). Perhaps look at some recent award-winning publications (the bologna children's book fair just closed. the winners there always look amazing). Silly question, but do you read children's lit yourself? Try to get acquainted with the style of the various publishers in your market.

    Nobody's perfect here, from beginners to experts, but we're all here to improve and help each other get better. That's it..

    Just to clear things up, my brother David is following this thread closely as well... and he appreciates the feedback. This thread isn't a waste as the moderator would suggest.

    Yes, we check out children's books. :) Some of them are amazing looking, but some of them look average and are still very successful. We understand that we're under the Artist's Corner and it's normal for our work to be attacked... but there will always be people like Stupid Mister who want to get their 2 cents in even though they have nothing constructive to say. Mods make the worst trolls. :lol:

    I have a feeling you are picking and choosing what you see as constructive. I remember your old thread from a year ago or so (maybe more), and I really don't see much improvement either, which makes Stupid Mister kind of on the right track with his assertion that Flash hampers progress.

    Earlier in this thread, you also bat away constructive criticism and justify it by saying "it's the style I'm going for", which is essentially the artist equivalent of "my dog ate it."

    If you want ass-pats for your work with gradients and mis-matching styles for characters and backgrounds, you may want to look elsewhere. No mods on this forum are trolls, and you'd be wise to take his words seriously, even if you don't like them. Seems like you just don't like anything negative said about your work at all, is what it really boils down to. You skirt every attempt to call attention to flaws in your work. Ignorance is the opposite of wisdom, not a replacement for it.

    JLM-AWP on
  • WassermeloneWassermelone Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Stupidmisterwhoopsie is right on the money. And I don't even know what 'Movie Comics' is.

    The gradients need to go. The photoshop filter textures need to go. The attitude needs to go. You need to go back to the basics. Flash is fine, but you don't seem to be near ready for it.

    Wassermelone on
  • toddleabootoddleaboo Registered User
    edited April 2011
    Stupidmisterwhoopsie is right on the money. And I don't even know what 'Movie Comics' is.

    The gradients need to go. The photoshop filter textures need to go...

    No, they don't actually... but thanks for the advice anyway! 8-)

    toddleaboo on
  • WassermeloneWassermelone Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    toddleaboo wrote: »
    Stupidmisterwhoopsie is right on the money. And I don't even know what 'Movie Comics' is.

    The gradients need to go. The photoshop filter textures need to go...

    No, they don't actually... but thanks for the advice anyway! 8-)

    What are you looking for in getting peoples commentary on this?

    Wassermelone on
  • toddleabootoddleaboo Registered User
    edited April 2011
    JLM-AWP wrote: »
    I have a feeling you are picking and choosing what you see as constructive. I remember your old thread from a year ago or so (maybe more), and I really don't see much improvement either, which makes Stupid Mister kind of on the right track with his assertion that Flash hampers progress.

    Earlier in this thread, you also bat away constructive criticism and justify it by saying "it's the style I'm going for", which is essentially the artist equivalent of "my dog ate it."

    If you want ass-pats for your work with gradients and mis-matching styles for characters and backgrounds, you may want to look elsewhere. No mods on this forum are trolls, and you'd be wise to take his words seriously, even if you don't like them. Seems like you just don't like anything negative said about your work at all, is what it really boils down to. You skirt every attempt to call attention to flaws in your work. Ignorance is the opposite of wisdom, not a replacement for it.

    And I have a feeling you're not reading all my threads. I said I'm doing this in Flash because it's going to be animated.

    I don't know why I feed you people. I guess it's fun.

    toddleaboo on
  • tynictynic PICNIC BADASS Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2011
    So, just to be clear, you're not interested in hearing what we have to say, and simply post here in order to troll?

    gj

    tynic on
  • toddleabootoddleaboo Registered User
    edited April 2011
    toddleaboo wrote: »
    Stupidmisterwhoopsie is right on the money. And I don't even know what 'Movie Comics' is.

    The gradients need to go. The photoshop filter textures need to go...

    No, they don't actually... but thanks for the advice anyway! 8-)

    What are you looking for in getting peoples commentary on this?

    I'm looking for advice, and I appreciate it, but it doesn't mean I have to, or am going to take it all. Let's flip this around on you guys... you accuse me of being ungrateful because I am not taking every bit of advice. But you guys seem to be getting frustrated because I won't conform my work to all your artistic "wisdom".

    winning. ;-)

    toddleaboo on
  • toddleabootoddleaboo Registered User
    edited April 2011
    LOL!

    Your names say it all. :lol:

    toddleaboo on
  • tynictynic PICNIC BADASS Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2011
    I can't really imagine this thread being anything other than a trainwreck after this point, so there's no point beating around the bush. Basically, your anatomy is terrible, your linework is boring and flat. Your colours are insipid and clashing, your textures and filters compete with each other and destroy any harmony in the image. Your work here is ugly, and not in an interesting or provocative way. It is incompetent and unpleasant to look at, which is pretty much a death knell for children's literature.

    tynic on
    Brolo
  • WassermeloneWassermelone Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    toddleaboo wrote: »
    What are you looking for in getting peoples commentary on this?

    I'm looking for advice, and I appreciate it, but it doesn't mean I have to, or am going to take it all. Let's flip this around on you guys... you accuse me of being ungrateful because I am not taking every bit of advice. But you guys seem to be getting frustrated because I won't conform my work to all your artistic "wisdom"

    Who's advice would you take? Is there anyone that could tell you that the textures/gradients should go because you believe them to be artistically wise?

    Wassermelone on
  • FugitiveFugitive Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    toddleaboo wrote: »
    (Gabe & Tycho bought an MC shirt and hung it on their wall by the way)

    To be fair your work inspires an intense urge to nail it to a wall.

    Fugitive on
  • IrukaIruka Registered User, Moderator mod
    edited April 2011
    I would recommend deviant art or Furaffinity. We generally don't facilitate people who cant step back from their work a bit, but shitting on the community isn't a great way to move forward. Its fine to not like this corner of the internet and our breed of advice, but no one is forcing you to take part.

    You have a very weak sense of structure and light, and your control over the digital medium is average at best. I would find more artists to admire and really see if you can figure out whats going into their work. If you commit, you could have a pretty long but rewarding road of artistic improvement ahead of you, but if you like to hang out in the culdesac of webcomics completely willing to remain delusional about their own skill level, more power to you, but we cant help you.

    Iruka on
  • SublimusSublimus Artist. nowhereRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    At risk of facilitating this thread's continued existence, I just want to point out that I lol'd at your improvement comparison.

    I've seen people progress that far in six months, much less ten years. Which I think speaks to the point that drawing exclusively web comics (may or may not have anything to do with flash being used) is not the fastest way to improve.

    Sublimus on
  • m3nacem3nace Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Look, it's always hard to be told that your stuff might not be as good as you think - probably everyone who's commented in this thread has experience this at some point in their lives, but don't commit artistic suicide like this! If you want your ego to ruin your art? Fine go ahead, but try stepping back a little, just try. For the sake of your art.
    Don't denounce these guys as wannabe wiseasses. They're not, if you want a testimony go check out their site, blogs or whatever (or even the how far we have come challenge to check out how much they've improved) and witness that this bunch knows their shit and do not deserve "sarcastic remarks" about their "artistic wisdom".

    m3nace on
  • FugitiveFugitive Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Sublimus wrote: »
    At risk of facilitating this thread's continued existence, I just want to point out that I lol'd at your improvement comparison.

    I've seen people progress that far in six months, much less ten years. Which I think speaks to the point that drawing exclusively web comics (may or may not have anything to do with flash being used) is not the fastest way to improve.

    I honestly believe it has less to do with insistence on using Flash and more to do with your mindset. If you're dedicated to doing boring-ass life studies in addition to your vector work, you will improve. Vectors can be constricting since they're not really a natural way to draw, but if your focus is on learning how stuff actually looks and then applying what you've learned to your work, I feel like that's something you can overcome.

    Conversely, if you insist on only emulating someone else's style, or if you never try to figure out the nuts and bolts of drawing, the program/number of gradients you use is irrelevant.

    Despite Jeph Jacques diligently updating his comic 5 days a week, his current work is only marginally improved over his work from 3 years ago, which is almost identical to his work from 2 years prior. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest he probably only draws comics and cartoons, so he's in a sort of stylistic feedback loop. Also, his idea of an old person is a 20-something with two lines under their eyes to signify wrinkles and literally no other body changes. This is a perfect example of how someone can draw constantly, and yet show virtually no improvement, because they aren't putting the time into learning how old people/hipsters/etc actually look.

    It's also an example of how, if you can find a market and put out work consistently, you can find success. Though I would question why a person like that would ever bother coming to a forum that revolves around respect and honest criticism.

    Fugitive on
Sign In or Register to comment.