Submission criteria

[WeezyGod]

Same problem here. I posted a topic about the same issue.

[JWRodegher]

Here you got some guidelines from Leigh herself:

I feel I should post again to clarify some stuff. Incidentally, I’ve had a busy week but will be writing up the new submission guidelines over the weekend, to hopefully make things clearer to everyone, so keep your eyes peeled for that after the weekend.

I need to comment on the idea that has been brought up a couple of times of subjectivity in gallery judging. First though, I need to talk a bit about the history of the gallery here - when we initially launched it, it was handled by a couple of different moderators who would log in and validate images whenever they had some free time. While this, from an efficiency standpoint, was desirable it did cause issues with consistency in terms of certain required criteria. By which I mean the boring stuff like making sure the full name was submitted (important for copyright reasons), that there was an adequate description, that all the fields in the submission form had been filled out, etc. These criteria are all important but we found that with numerous people logging in and validating stuff all the time, a lot of inconsistencies were occurring where images would get in without all the required info. This was probably due simply to moderators logging in because they felt it was their duty, but they maybe didn’t really have time to check things properly so did it in a hurry, and so we ended up with a few problems. At that point, I took the decision to handle everything myself, so that if there was a problem with submission, I knew it was my own fault and I could rectify the situation. It just made the process simpler, really. So that’s why gallery validation switched from multiple people, to one. And it left the rest of the mods with more time to spend on their respective forums, keeping an eye on everything out there. It worked nicely.

So now that I’ve explained that, let me address a few initial basic points:

• When I validate images, I look at the images first. I then check to make sure there’s a full name (I basically just scan for a minimum of two words in the name field, I don’t generally actually read it), and I check that they’ve written a reasonable length description.

• I don’t read what software was used. So this really puts to rest any software conspiracy theories. And to further elaborate on that point: I am about as disinterested in different software as it’s possible to be. By profession I am a texture painter, so the only packages I take an active interest in are texturing packages. Everything else is pretty much invisible to me. I don’t know what the latest version of Maya is, I don’t know which packages are popular these days, I don’t know when the next version of Max is coming out… because I don’t really care. As such, it’s just not possible for me to have anything against any package because I don’t care enough about software in general to care about what was used in an image. I like artwork, that’s what I am here for.

• Yes there are often inconsistencies in the quality of artwork accepted. I am sorry about this. At the end of the day, I am a fallible human and I make mistakes. I try to do a big batch of validation every day during the week at lunch time, when I sit at my desk and go through the queue. This is when I am able to look at each image properly. However, on weekends and in the evenings, I tend to go through the validation much quicker. I also travel quite often, and when I am in some fabulous location with sightseeing beckoning, it’s hard to really dedicate more than a few seconds to each image when I am going through the validation. When this happens, I sometimes accidentally let in images that needed a bit more polish. I admit this. And I know this makes people feel that the system is unfair, and for this I apologise. I am sorry that it does indeed result in images being let in that may be of lower quality than your work which was not accepted. However, I lack the mean bone that would be required to then go and pull an image from the gallery after it’s been accepted, especially if the image has received any replies. It would feel spiteful to then go “hey you know what, this was accepted by mistake”, so I just leave them and, admittedly, hope that no-one notices.

Which brings me to the issue of subjectivity.

There is no delicate way to put this, so I’m just going to be very upfront at the risk of sounding really smug and arrogant: I only like about 5%-10% of the images that I accept into the gallery every day. Hey, part of being a human being is having certain individual tastes. I see loads of pics every day that I don’t personally like. They’re just not my thing. But I still let them in, because my own personal taste is not a measure of how good an image is, because I am old enough, experienced enough and mature enough to understand this. So I would like to assure you, I do this as objectively as it’s possible to be. Case in point: I personally find images of cars, chicks with big tits and guns, and most fantasy art quite boring. I’m just not into that stuff. But you’ll find plenty of these sorts of images in the gallery. Because even though they’re not my thing, I can still look at an image of any of these subjects, and judge it objectively on its technical and creative merits. Because the gallery is not there for my personal enjoyment, it is there for everyone. And loads of people love stuff that I don’t, so it’s important to ensure a broad variety of themes in the artwork that ends up in the gallery because this is a huge site and we want to cater to everyone as much as we can. So for the majority of the artwork that I click “Accept” on it, I am thinking “I don’t personally like it, but it’s a good image”.

When I judge images, I judge them according to two main things: firstly, the level of craftsmanship (ie the technical skill demonstrated), and secondly, the artistry of the image. Yes, the second one is a bit iffy, so let me list a few questions I consider for each piece:

[ul]
[li] Is the technical skill of the artist very low? If yes, I immediately reject it. I’m talking about “my first extruded pistol model” type renders here, and yes, this type of work is frequently submitted. Images like these probably make up about 20% of the images rejected.[/li][li] Are there any very obvious technical mistakes? Stuff like very noticeable texture stretching, very obvious anatomy problems, a character that’s being labelled as “my realistic character” which has been shaded with a Lambert shader and a 512k texture map, extremely blown out lighting, a total lack of shadows because the artist forgot to switch them on. If yes, it’s an immediate rejection. Probably about 10% of images are rejected for this reason.[/li][li] Are there a few minor technical issues? Stuff like some minor artifacting, or perhaps some slightly strange proportions, some slightly iffy lighting or poor quality shaders. If the answer is yes, I don’t immdiately reject it, but rather continue looking at it according to more of these questions. If I find other issues with it, it’ll probably get rejected. Otherwise, I may simply weigh them against merits of the image and let it in regardless.[/li][li] Is the lighting terrible? So many images get submitted with lighting that is either so dark that you can barely see anything, or so bright that there are huge white splotches all over the image, making everything really ugly. If so, the image will almost certainly get rejected at this point.[/li][/ul]
Moving onto the artistry side of things…

[ul]
[li] Has the artist put an effort into presentation? Characters or objects simply stuck onto a plain background get rejected immediately, unless the plain background is clearly a part of the overall effect of the image (quite rare). Come on people, sticking a model on a black background is one of the most unflattering ways to present it. Even just putting a bit of texture or a gradient or just something back there makes your model look better in most cases. This is a “showcase” gallery, not somewhere to just stick whatever your renderer just spat out.[/li][li] Has the artist attempted photorealism, but not reached it? Many artists submitting their work here are aiming for photorealism. Personally I am not particularly into realism, but since I work in film VFX for a living (feel free to look me up on imdb), I consider myself a good judge on this from an objective standpoint. If the artist was clearly aiming to make something realistic, but the work is not at least almost realistic, I reject it with the suggestion to post it in WIP. This is probably the category that has most noticeably become stricter in the last few months, and is probably the one that most people get upset about when their work is rejected. I give some leeway here - if the work is fairly realistic, l accept it. But if there are some serious issues with it, usually always on the lighting/shading side of things, it’s going to get rejected.[/li][li] With regards to realistic renders, like realistic humans, vehicles or architecture - if the image was a photo instead of a render or painting, would it be impressive? Ideally, the answer here should be yes. A tricky one to judge, admittedly, which is why I am quite forgiving on this one, especially since there is room for potential subjectivity here which I need to be careful with. I frequently reject pretty realistic work because it’s simply presented in a really unimaginative way, like a car just stuck on a plain background in the middle of a weirdly cropped composition (unless this is clearly intentional, in which case it’s generally obvious). As I said, I am quite forgiving on this one, but I do nevertheless consider it, and if the image has failed on some earlier criteria, and then has a really unimaginative presentation, it’s likely to get rejected at this point, unless it’s so extraordinarily technically impressive that I can totally overlook the lack of imagination. But this only happens about once or twice a year, so even if you submit a very realistic character but you submit it in a T-pose with a totally blank expression, it will get rejected.[/li][li] Has the artist made an effort to put thought into artistic principles like composition, balance, colour, etc? This is probably the hardest criteria by which to judge any artwork, but it is also the criteria in which I am probably the most forgiving. Like the previous point, if an image has had issues with other criteria, and then also fails in this regard, it may end up being rejected here. Or it may not. At this stage, I am almost always at a decision anyway. But I do wish that artists would make more effort in this particular regard - many do, but many don’t. I almost always ask for second opinions from colleagues at this point if I am still unsure.[/li][/ul]
There may be other considerations, depending on the image, but these are roughly the questions I run through in my head when looking at a submission.

So there you have it in a nutshell. I can’t really think of anything else offhand to explain and this post is really long now anyway, so I’ll end off here. If anyone has any more questions, just ask and I’ll be happy to answer them.

Cheers!

[WeezyGod]

My piece fits that criteria but it was suggested to submit to the WIP section. I tried to message Leigh but he/she doesn’t accept pm’s.

Is there someone to talk to regarding rejected submissions. I really don’t understand why my latest submission was rejected. I did forget to put my name down but that wouldn’t cause the judge to request that the image be submitted to the wip section.

[JWRodegher]

Well, that’s not for us to judge, but I though I’d point you out to the criteria.

I don’t know what the piece is so I can’t tell, just keep in mind you might not be too objective about your own work.

Link your piece if you want to.

[WeezyGod]

http://www.deviantart.com/download/217606196/quitting_is_a_struggle_by_fatherofgod-d3lk20k.jpg

[maxwaver7]

Hi there, I used to send every finished piece here on cgtalk and almost of them were accepted until they have raised the bar, since then no 1 from my latest submission ( maybe 3 or 4 ) seen a place on there !
Here my last rejected piece :
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tCJhlUIVz7M/ThuISVcxFZI/AAAAAAAAAUM/1xAE7g92CVI/s1600/satch-newpose2.jpg

thanks

[WeezyGod]

Hi there, I used to send every finished piece here on cgtalk and almost of them were accepted until they have raised the bar, since then no 1 from my latest submission ( maybe 3 or 4 ) seen a place on there !
Here my last rejected piece :
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tCJhlUIVz7M/ThuISVcxFZI/AAAAAAAAAUM/1xAE7g92CVI/s1600/satch-newpose2.jpg

thanks

Wow that was rejected?

[maxwaver7]

WeezyGod - thanks, but yes it was rejected and it was a refined / reworked version of this rejected version too even i put lot of effort on it and went further on its improvement :

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-OQr7TBQ4xfM/TeUV9QkQClI/AAAAAAAAATI/HH_-yOaDHLc/s1600/satch_pose_Final.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HM5MgJWVGwI/TcCBIx62LiI/AAAAAAAAARY/xvnjstIRPTI/s1600/satch_5.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nUYHCT0vOCE/TcCBKMuDYeI/AAAAAAAAARc/geOi0ingvaI/s1600/satch_red.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-n4GDDcUZrD0/TeUWy6cO_fI/AAAAAAAAATQ/Ats-UVg3Rt0/s1600/satch_wip6_2.jpg
and here a clay render of the last one : ( the last image ).
http://www.zbrushcentral.com/showthread.php?t=130127&page=2&highlight=satch

Honestly, i’m not interssted to post for cg gallery anymore, and i saw lots images accpeted and were less in term of quality compared to my latest submissions. its going too extrem and unfair / subjectif INMHO.
I would not restart an x thread about this because was huges one here in the past months.

Thanks WeezyGod.

[JWRodegher]

Well, if it´s ok with you max I could give you my opinion why your piece didn´t make it to the gallery.

Weezy´s piece looks pretty good to me.

And the OP`s work, I´d give my opinion as well if it´s cool with you, since I understand that you guys are hoping leigh´s feedback why exactly your works didn´t make it.

[maxwaver7]

JWRodegher - offcourse, critics are always welcome ! especillay when they are constructive

[JWRodegher]

First of all, I´ll admit that the last image is an improvement (satch_pose_Final.jpg) over the first you posted (satch-newpose2.jpg). Well, some aspects got better, others felt a bit flat.

I´ll start with anatomy. Some details are pretty good but most areas are showing a dodgy anatomy. Specially in the biceps area and the neck. I´m not sure how much of it is due to the anatomy itself or the lighting/shadow. I´ll get back on the light later. The knuckles (specially the guy´s right hand) form a straight line, when they should be in arc shape (middle finger in a higher point). Thumb in left hand seems to be bending in a strange way.

Biceps are way too big for a guy with this muscle structure. Plus keep in mind that the bicep is pretty much a cylinder with flat sides (the most “rounded” area is pointing to the front in a relaxed position). The forearm looks (right arm) loos good, although the transition from arm to forearm lacks some structure (specially the muscle that arises from triceps and connects with the forearm).

The neck lacks some structure as well, there are some bumpy areas that look a bit confusing. Usually there´s a muscle very visible in the neck, sternocleidomastoid, which is the one that comes from behind the ear (from the mastoid cavity) and connects in the sternum and clavicle.

And then comes another volume, the trachea (which is well visible in your image).

Back on the hands, they looked better in satch-newpose2.jpg. His left hand looks like he´s pressing some strings and the right hand seems to be “in action”, they´re more expressive in this aspect. In the last pose, left hand is kinda floaty (plus some ao might help the contact with the diapason, same for the right hand though).

The shading in the guitar body improved a lot and it looks pretty cool now, some reflections are a bit strong to me and it looks a bit too clean, maybe it would be a good idea to add some dirtiness. I´ve seen guitars looking really clean though, so that would be a minor thing.

The pants are in my opinion the single element that´s killing most of your image. Wrinkles aren´t helping to sell the pose, since they´re not pointing to the rest points (specially in his right leg, the left has some wrinkles pointing the knee, that´s good). Check this picture:

Same happens in most areas in the shirt. The strap should generate a good bunch of wrinkles pointing in the direction where the strap is dragging the guy´s shirt. In the shading department, the bump is way too strong (in the pants), and in the case you want to portray a very rough leather, you need to work the specular. There´s definitely something that makes it look closer to plastic than leather. Perhaps the problem is that this type of leather as a less focused specular and even more glossy reflections.

The hair in the arms look better in satch-newpose2.jpg in my opinion. In the final pose, it looks too thick I think, and they don´t seem to proyect any shadows on the arm, and that might make it harder to integrate (in case you render your char and the hair in different layers). Most of the white hair looks good though, I think we should see more of that in the face, not so much in the head.

Finally the shoulders, they seem to be smaller than they should, and even if he´s skinny, normally we should see a harder curve (from the acromion:

to the spot where it “meets” with the bicep).

I liked the lighting a bit better in satch-newpose2. I think it related better with the background. The thing with the final pose is that some areas look way black and in some spots (like under his nose, right arm bicep) it looks like it´s not casting shadows (it appears to be reaching the ear, and mixed with the light coming from the left of the image, makes a bit confusing surface). Plus the light coming from the right of the image could help if it was more blue (maybe it is though, and it blends greener mixed with the skin shader).

The skin shader, looks ok in some spots, and in others (again, right arm bicep) has too much scattering. The pose, he looks more focused on the playing in satch-newpose 2, that was a good thing I think.

Shading on the strap looks great (hey, that seems to be a good shader for leather actually!). Details like veins on the head are great, tendons and veins in the hand look very good too. I like the fact that his face does not look generic (even though in the other images I could have some crits for the face as well), he does have an expression with attitude, I think that´s a great thing (plus his lips seem to be asymmetric, it might be the camera angle but still it adds a lot of life to the character).

Sorry, the post got too long too fast! If I may add, just keep in mind this in only my opinion and it´s been laid out with the best intention. At the end of the day, you´ll be the one calling the shots in this image and maybe a comment or two could help, but it´ll be up to you. Maybe you don´t agree with any of this and that´s fine.

I hope I could be of some help!

PS: my english is not great, so sorry if I wasn´t very clear wording some concepts.

[maxwaver7]

JWRodegher - what can i say, just thank you very much, not all artist takes time to write such long critics with detailled images and explanation, i do appreciate all the attention you gave for that, really thank you.4
I would just add a little clarification : the stach newpose2 is the improved version of the stach final, i know its a little bit confusing because of the image names, but they were intended as files name rather than artowork name, its seems your crtics were based in the wrong chronological order, i’m really sorry, however your critics are still consistant though.
As you mentioned, the arms in satchnewpose are more improved to have a natural shapes, i tried to work the overal pose and reduce his biceps to match more his real anatomy, i agree that they were too big in the satchfinal which is more like a heroic tribute to this guitarist than a cg reproduction attemp.
The problem when you reproduce somone is that you could face great likeness issues not only with the face but with body too, its ok when the subject is a model because hes body / face structure are more generic and match what its should to be but in this case joe satriani has a very unique looking and he is really hard to reproduce, some great modelers agreed about it in another forums.
Here an image, that may show how he look in real ( that show his smal shoulders ):
1 -Body
2 -Body2
3- Body3
Important to notice that he is less skinner than he was in the 90’s, and tried to make a balance from these periods.
and here the face :

1-Face
2-Face2

Thank you again JWRodegher and good luck for your pieces.

[JWRodegher]

Oh, then some of my comments are useless lol.
In case newpose2 is the latter then I would have a small comment to add about the glares. I think they’re a bit too strong, I would think about it again if they are needed.

When I have the time, I think it’s cool to sit down and make a good crit. It is actually a good exercise for myself!. So, you’re very welcome. I think it is great the attitude toward the crit you had so I assume you’ll improve a lot in a short time.

Keep up the good work, and the attitude man!

[WeezyGod]

What should I do to ensure my piece is accepted?

I’ve posted it twice now and it’s been rejected…although I did forget to put my full name in. But that shouldn’t prompt a WIP response.

[ThE_JacO]

You should do what the message says, and post it in wip, get comments, and grow as an artist into producing a better piece from there.

To be really honest, I can fully subscribe to the piece not meeting the standards.

The palette is extremely narrow. A red piece doesn’t need to ONLY have red in it.
It lacks the lower frequency of contrast that makes a piece acquire depth and sit into a composition, every detail is extremly high frequency and lost in a rather flat field of noise, or smidged in like some of the fire trails.

The composition is really hard to read, it’s impossible to tell what the centre piece is, if there is one, or what my eye should go to (the guy crawling his way out is barely perceptible).

It took me several viewings while writing this to notice the woman’s face in the background, for the first three viewings I thought it was bad vignetting.

The scale is unclear. By the title and by desuming I can guess it probably wants to be micro VS macro, but it comes off as a tiny man coming out of a soccer ball sized lump of rock in front of a three metres tall woman. I doubt it’s what you set off to trasnmit.
Only after the repeated viewings above I finally realised it seems to be a chick smoking a joint with green lantern in it.

The image is at odds with its title and its parts at odds with each other for all the reasons above.

On top of that there’s a solid list of technical issues with it, lighting being incoherent, DOF being all over the place etc.

Normally this stuff should go into WIP (stuff being my comments), but i’m making an exception to explain my comment about agreeing with the image falling short of the standards, because it’d be rude to do otherwise.

Again, I think the message you got, coupled with the guidelines posted by Leigh, is spot on. You need to improve, and like nearly every artist on this world if you work in isolation without others’ feedback you will at some point fail to notice the issues with your work, no matter what kind or magnitude. Easiest way to do it is to fish for comments, and react to them maturely and constructively.

The only way to ENSURE a piece is accepted, is to produce stellar work. The only way to produce good work or better, let alone stellar, is to have at it until you get it.
If you think your piece and the one posted by maxwaver are honestly gallery worthy, and I have not one reason to doubt you’re sincere, you’re simply not there… YET

[enricocerica]

Here you got some guidelines from Leigh herself:

Cheers!

Well after reading the guidelines, should I understand that my images have been rejected because I gave only a one word name instead of two ? I’m still confused and claim for a more explicit message as imo a stage in the WIP forum wouldn’t solve that issue :curious:

[JWRodegher]

Well after reading the guidelines, should I understand that my images have been rejected because I gave only a one word name instead of two ? I’m still confused and claim for a more explicit message as imo a stage in the WIP forum wouldn’t solve that issue :curious:

I think it would be a lot more productive if you take a look at your work, put your ego aside and REALLY REALLY look into it an ask yourself if you meet the standard. Is a good exercise and a kind of humbling one as well. Who knows, maybe you can find something useful?

If you were aiming for realism, your piece isn´t really there (yet), so I think that could be your answer. I think that taking a good look to the piece and the guidelines, and only believe that what you didn´t get right is the name, is a bit arrogant.

Plus, whatever you´ve been told in other forums has no relevance here (just as it wouldn´t in other forums what you`ve been told here in cgsociety). So that argument won´t fly. Everyone has different guidelines and standards, some are more strict than others. Deal with it.

[WeezyGod]

You should do what the message says, and post it in wip, get comments, and grow as an artist into producing a better piece from there.

To be really honest, I can fully subscribe to the piece not meeting the standards.

The palette is extremely narrow. A red piece doesn’t need to ONLY have red in it.
It lacks the lower frequency of contrast that makes a piece acquire depth and sit into a composition, every detail is extremly high frequency and lost in a rather flat field of noise, or smidged in like some of the fire trails.

The composition is really hard to read, it’s impossible to tell what the centre piece is, if there is one, or what my eye should go to (the guy crawling his way out is barely perceptible).

It took me several viewings while writing this to notice the woman’s face in the background, for the first three viewings I thought it was bad vignetting.

The scale is unclear. By the title and by desuming I can guess it probably wants to be micro VS macro, but it comes off as a tiny man coming out of a soccer ball sized lump of rock in front of a three metres tall woman. I doubt it’s what you set off to trasnmit.
Only after the repeated viewings above I finally realised it seems to be a chick smoking a joint with green lantern in it.

The image is at odds with its title and its parts at odds with each other for all the reasons above.

On top of that there’s a solid list of technical issues with it, lighting being incoherent, DOF being all over the place etc.

Normally this stuff should go into WIP (stuff being my comments), but i’m making an exception to explain my comment about agreeing with the image falling short of the standards, because it’d be rude to do otherwise.

Again, I think the message you got, coupled with the guidelines posted by Leigh, is spot on. You need to improve, and like nearly every artist on this world if you work in isolation without others’ feedback you will at some point fail to notice the issues with your work, no matter what kind or magnitude. Easiest way to do it is to fish for comments, and react to them maturely and constructively.

The only way to ENSURE a piece is accepted, is to produce stellar work. The only way to produce good work or better, let alone stellar, is to have at it until you get it.
If you think your piece and the one posted by maxwaver are honestly gallery worthy, and I have not one reason to doubt you’re sincere, you’re simply not there… YET

I like critique and received plenty of it where I submitted it. I am part of an art collective which requires very high standards in terms of the art produced. I received feedback like yours from many high quality artists.

Your feedback is welcome but it is nearly nitpicking in terms of technical critique and some personal/preferential critique thrown in there.

Again, I don’t mind feedback/criticism, I like it. But if I compare my piece to some of the work that is getting in now I really don’t understand. I can provide plenty of examples and give a through critique like the one you have given my piece.

The fact that JW believed my piece should be in and you didn’t gives me indication of some preferential bias when judging artworks.

[ThE_JacO]

I wouldn’t say a palette that barely covers a small patch of reds is nitpicky, if you look at more accomplished pieces that push the dominant colour theme they will do so with a fair bit more elegance and variety and carefully disguise completely different tones and hues into the contrast and get better depth and readings for it.

I’m glad you’re part of a panel and you’re getting a lot of criticism, you still do seem to resent it though, and I haven’t seen the image pushed to WIP around here, so how can I know whether you take criticism on board and push your work or not?

The fact someone else likes it and I don’t might mean there’s bias (there always is), but might also mean that you’re not to that level where the image, personal bias aside, is at that level where it’s objectively well realised, which is kind of where the bar for the gallery is (since personal bias is not part of the parameters).

You can decide to act on criticism when it’s well offered and constructive, or decide to resent it and criticise the criticism. Only one of the two usually gets you anywhere

[WeezyGod]

I wouldn’t say a palette that barely covers a small patch of reds is nitpicky, if you look at more accomplished pieces that push the dominant colour theme they will do so with a fair bit more elegance and variety and carefully disguise completely different tones and hues into the contrast and get better depth and readings for it.

I’m glad you’re part of a panel and you’re getting a lot of criticism, you still do seem to resent it though, and I haven’t seen the image pushed to WIP around here, so how can I know whether you take criticism on board and push your work or not?

The fact someone else likes it and I don’t might mean there’s bias (there always is), but might also mean that you’re not to that level where the image, personal bias aside, is at that level where it’s objectively well realised, which is kind of where the bar for the gallery is (since personal bias is not part of the parameters).

You can decide to act on criticism when it’s well offered and constructive, or decide to resent it and criticise the criticism. Only one of the two usually gets you anywhere

I do like critique while I’m making the piece. I received critique from 20-30 artists over the course of the piece…not constantly but some input once or twice from each artist. These are quality artists so the fact that they didn’t pick up on what you did or didn’t see it as much of a concern makes me feel your critique is nitpicking. Sure you could question the quality of those artists as well but they are quality.
http://gloom82.deviantart.com/
http://zbush.deviantart.com/
http://designspartan.deviantart.com/
http://aiiven.deviantart.com/

-these are a few examples of some of the artists who gave input like yours.

I’ve been done with this piece for a long time now so most critique isn’t really needed. If I’m working on something personal I would be glad to submit it to the WIP section for sure.

The only reason I’m upset about this is because there are pieces that have far, far less technical, conceptual, and aesthetic technique/execution that were accepted into the 2D gallery. I can easily provide examples of these works…although I think for respect of those artists I would do this in private.