« Previous Next » This post is #13 in the Megami #254 2021-07 pool.



falfa_(slime_300) ooshima_yuuki pajama shalsha_(slime_300) slime_taoshite_300_nen_shiranai_uchi_ni_level_max_ni_nattemashita

Edit | Respond

Holy shit this deserves negative score.
Arknovalisk said:
Holy shit this deserves negative score.
Wut why?
The background is ridiculous. Literally worse than blank.
What's with the poorly filtered stuff that burns the eyes and stupid proportions? Also what are the girls on? A bed as large as the room itself? Because it's way too fluffy to be the floor, yet it looks as if it completely fills the room, and is cut off perfectly straight.
Oh yeah, and the ""girls"" look completely, utterly unattractive and drawn so poorly they are definitely not doing favors for them, disgusting if anything. I get that anime industry is basically waging war against lolicons, but this is just pointless.
Arknovalisk said:
Oh yeah, and the ""girls"" look completely, utterly unattractive
Who cares if lolis are unattractive, as long as they’re cute?

But I agree, these ones could be drawn better: the blue one’s heads is a bit too big.
Trit said:
Who cares if lolis are unattractive, as long as they’re cute?

But I agree, these ones could be drawn better: the blue one’s heads is a bit too big.
Attractive doesn't mean sexy necessarily. But if it's not at least attractive to some extent, there's literally no point making an illustration of her for a magazine like Megami.
But compared to the magazine's illustrations from the past, now only braindead ecchi shows get lewd illustrations, which already have more than enough content like that, so meh.
I don't understand with background complaint. It seems like you never take photo with long lens. Something with 85 mm focal length or more. You probably only use smartphone camera with wide lens.

The background here appear a bit blurry and bed appear large. This characteristic of long lens with at least F/4 aperture. Illustrator knew he want to draw the character as if taken photo with long lens.

Here some photos taken at different focal length. The table appear different between 24 mm and 70 mm.
https://expertphotography.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/focal-length-comparison.jpg

Another https://i.ytimg.com/vi/iSj5IQ_1gbc/maxresdefault.jpg
Or perhaps it is just a shitty background with blurring & some deformed humanoids on the foreground.
It doesn't take a genius to know how to push the "blur" button of a given image editor, you know...
vendiu said:
Or perhaps it is just a shitty background with blurring & some deformed humanoids on the foreground.
It doesn't take a genius to know how to push the "blur" button of a given image editor, you know...
I'm 100% sure that's the case, but oh well.
In the end it is useless to argue with people who know nothing about depth of field and poorfag who never own DSLR. Good to know.
omega8719 said:
In the end it is useless to argue with people who know nothing about depth of field and poorfag who never own DSLR. Good to know.
Did you seriously call someone a poorfag? If you want to be an asshole please leave.
omega8719 said:
In the end it is useless to argue with people who know nothing about depth of field and poorfag who never own DSLR. Good to know.
In the end, it seems to me as if you have no eyes for details, and I think most people would agree with me on that. Owning a DSLR won't make you somehow an expert on topic, which seems apparent.
More blurry background from Megami Magazine scan. https://yande.re/post/show/271663 Official art and that is from 2013.
Yeah, there's a huge difference, I never said being blurry is why it sucks.
I'm sorry for you if you can't see the difference in artistic value.
I hate to break it to you, but images from Megami always look cheaply done.
Radioactive said:
I hate to break it to you, but images from Megami always look cheaply done.
Always is not true. There are decent ones, poor ones and joke-tier "QUALITY" illustrations.
There's still huge difference between the one linked and this bottom of barrel one.
Arknovalisk said:
Always is not true. There are decent ones, poor ones and joke-tier "QUALITY" illustrations.
There's still huge difference between the one linked and this bottom of barrel one.
Could you point out some decent Megami illustrations?
omega8719 said:
In the end it is useless to argue with people who know nothing about depth of field and poorfag who never own DSLR. Good to know.
I seem to have stepped on something here - an inflated ego, mayhaps?
You know, smallness can be an issue, but buying a big lens is not going to make it any bigger... ;)

Anyway, if you consider the general level of "quality" of this magazine, you'd know it is full of garbage most of the time.
The artist pay rates are likely around $1 a piece (at least they look such), so there's just no way there would be any real effort or skill behind most of them.