Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sacrosanct" data-source="post: 9550257" data-attributes="member: 15700">I'm just an amateur artist myself, and I'm my own AD for my own projects so take it with a grain of salt. But this is a red flag to me.  If I'm hiring an artist and see they just did a quick paint/smudge job over a DAZ3d render*, I'm immediately on alert.  Why? For a couple reasons, but the biggest is because in physical media like a book, 3d rendered art styles are not looked upon favorably. Secondary reasons include that typically 3D rendered art costs a lot less than manual art because you can whip out an entire figure in 5 minutes compared to the hours of work an artists does, so if an artist is charging the same by using obvious shortcuts and passing it off as more traditional art, it seems off to me. Hard to explain. Maybe it's my bias as an artist myself. I.e., why is this person getting paid the same for cranked out art that the rest of us artists are getting paid but we are doing 10x the actual hours we put in?Edit: specific issues include super sharp and detailed areas on a few things, then smudgy muddy detail-free areas in others. The light source of the devil seems top down, but on the staff coming from the right. Pixalated areas showing around parts of areas like the staff that you can't blame on an overall low res image because other areas are sharp with detail. Tentacles that seem photobashed on the face.  These are all things I'd expect an AD to pick up on. I'm not saying it should be rejected or whatever, but I'd hope they'd at least have the conversation before signing off on it. Maybe they did?  Point is, is that they seem like red flags to me.*I'm not accusing this artist of doing this, but speaking of hypotheticals[ATTACH=full]391698[/ATTACH]</blockquote>

Verification