ComicQueen said:
It's in a 1024x738 res. It's pretty clear what it is.
LOL!! highlighting and Lens Flare is that something you just picked up today. Like the "Word of the Day". LOL! Lighting of the rest of the eye bwahahahahahahahahahaaa!!! Oh sugar you should do stand up.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. That was evident in your post and your small usage of acronyms came off very badly.
Also, come with Remedies, don't come stirring trouble and trying to spew hate when you don't even give logical remedies for these.
If you're going to come on here, critiquing other people's work, and then expect for us to rally behind you, jutting our noses into the air with you when you slam down your gavel of judgement on someone's work, then at least do two things:
1) Show us some of your own work, and show us why yours improves upon the flaws of the others you so relentlessly destroy.
2) Be open to the possiblity that one may not like it.
See, so far, it's this: You come on, see someone's stuff, then scream about how much you don't like it, all the while pretending that you are doing so in the interest of the artist -- when we all know the only interest you have is the boosting of your own ego and your own capacities because you can throw down multi-syllabic art jargon. Thus, a question is begged: why do you feel the need to be so pretentious? To mask your own self-patting on the back as helpful criticsm of others?
Then you show us some of your work and I understand.
That's all you have.
Normally, I wouldn't be this harsh. But when an individual makes a comment saying they don't like your work or that they don't think this or that should go there, you take it as what it is -- criticism. If you are so able to come in here with your black robe of jurisprudence on and slam down your paintbrush gavel all the while, be open when people do it too you. Otherwise, silence yourself.
You're remark on someone "knowing nothing" is as ludicrous as it is elitist -- no, not elitist, just plain ignorant. This is the equivelant of saying that the only good critics of movies are those who can produce movies themselves. It's like turning to the entire movie population and saying, if you can't make that, don't say anything.
Art is inherently a sensory experience. Everyone has more than enough experience with their senses to know what they like, respond to, and turn from. They don't need to be afficiandos of Adobe to feel that something doesn't work, or that something doesn't. Not even Shakespear would have the balls to get up and tell the Elizabethean crowds that they can't like or dislike his work b/c they don't know stageplay terminology.
I'm a writer, that's my cup of joe. However, I would never, ever turn around to someone who was critiquing my work and say -- you don't know about structure, verse, syntax, and dialogue construction; you're opinion doesn't count! That's plain stupidity.
You want remedies:
One, get over yourself and be more understanding of the artistic nuances that influence an individual's preferences.
Two, don't prattle on with your nose stuck in the air. No one wants to see what's up it, and quite frankly, what's coming out of your mouth stinks.
Thirdly, the problem with your manip is that the eye itself is cut off, leaving us with an almost Soccer Mom cropped photograph that doesn't have any fullness to it. The shape of Jean's eye is hindred by this. Secondly, the colors are unimpressive. They'res nothing even abstractly hinted at in her iriseses -- it's just colors. Nothing more. The solid block of "fire" in the upper left hand corner of the eye actually covers the pupil, which is impossible since the pupil is in fact a hole in the eye, not a reflecting surface. True, the lens over the pupil is, however, this is coming from Jean's eyes, so it'd make no sense for the reflection to actually overlap the hole. The white color is boring, and actually falls into the league with the "fire" colors and instead of enhanching them, as a fade out to black would have, it steals their power, which is blocky at best and a bit overdone. The "Phoenix Rising' is not only cliche, but unneccessary and overrides the image. Plus, since all this looks like is a red-on-fire eye, cut off and cropped improperly, the Phoenix Rising really doesn't go with the image. Nothing's rising the image. If anything, something's at best is "flaring" -- and even that's ambigous.
The artwork fails on many accounts. The accent of color in her eyes needs to be more abstract, and thus, using that abstraction, make it more subtle and not so block like. The colors surrounding the eye need to be lost since they steal from the "highlight" that the "fire" colors are suppose to serve on the iris. The anatomy needs to be correct, since the fire flaring in her eyes could not COVER her pupil or reflect in it or the lens above it as EXTERNAL light sources can. Lastly, you need to dump Phoenix Rising. it has no bearing or context on what we are seeing.
That's how I responded to the piece you just showed us. Take it or leave it, I could care less. The one thing I don't want to hear you doing is complaining. Hold yourself to your own defenses and standards and take this for what it is: constructive criticism. Apparently, you're so familiar with it.
And dont' say I'm harping on you, because was I NOT the person who got into a whole pages long debate over defending your use of the word Nazi before -- I thought so.
. Bending all the metal objects so that it gives the illusion of his powers. 
tee hee.....ah chucks...you're making me blush.
