If (You) don't like something then post what (You) like instead
Remember to support your 'foo frens. GEMS Q/A ARCHIVE
Why is so so hard to find furry art where it actually looks like they have fur? Why do people even draw furries if they're not going to make them furry?
TRVKE, real AND true
>>92901 (OP) yeah alot of them just look oily fur no reason 3:
Because it’s hard okay? And furry artists are some of the laziest.
👍
>>92901 (OP) What the hell is going on with the bikini in the second image
>>92901 (OP) God I wish the one in the middle was my gf...
God I wish I was anon's fat fluff gf...
>>92920
>>92919 You're cycling the entirety of the Appalachians with me until you're Auschwitz-maxxing.
>>92901 (OP) literally none of these examples count as fur to me
finally, a thread im interested in
>>93016 Show me what you've got, pls. I want more fluff!
>>93019 >>93019
>>92901 (OP) Putting more effurt into detailing the fur and adding texture seems to take considerably more time and also pull the focus away from the other areas, e.g. if you draw detailed fur you should also put even more detail into eyes. Most artists seem content with a few tufts here and there to convey that the character is covered in fur and let the viewer's imagination fill in the rest. The annoying gloss / oily effect is a quick and effective way of adding more volume to the image. When looking fur genuinely fluffy characters, artists who draw feral, particularly western, kind of old-school, style seem like the best bet these days. Can't blame the artists fur not painstakingly drawing every strand either, in many cases less is more and people probably don't want to dwell on every project fur too long. Emphasis on photorealistic fur is definitely niche.