That's watercolor design/Ink-flash no matter

Hi, how is it? Pretty, aggressive, or like a ghost

lolipahmed, these aren’t what I would call “watercolor design.” I’d classify them as illustration work or they might possibly fall under the genre of fine art. If they are illustrations, we would need context in order to give you a proper critique. If they are fine art, we can share opinions, but that’s all they’ll be is opinions based on our reaction to your work.

Thanks for your compliment. recently I’m inspired by someone’s design so I started this type of design…that was made by adobe photoshop

@lolipahmed by the way I first read the name as ‘Clark’. You may want to consider a different font or adjust the kerning between the l and i.

No. It’s “Chadie” … and no, it is NOT “design”. But what do it know? It just might mean that in some cultures.

@IzChik it’s “Charlie” Yeah, I will adjust it…thanks

@Eriskay recently I’m inspired by someone’s design so I started this type of design…ops Work :+1:

It’s digital art not design. I know the style you are going for. It’s not bad. The first one is the better of the two in my opinion. I would lose the glasses and the font definitely needs to be changed unless you want the pup to be called Chadie. :wink:

1 Like

@RedKittieKat Ha ha ha…definitely I will

1 Like

I think language difficulties are getting in the way of the discussion.

However, I do like the style of the illustrations. I like the dog better than the gorilla illustration you posted earlier. The typography should be more legible. If it were me, I would spell out the word in nice, clean typeface rather than trying to make the type look like the illustration. I would also cut back on the running, dripping paint. The splatters look nice, but it’s easy to go too far with them.

Hey @Just-B thanks for your compliment

Did you draw the dog (and gorilla) before decorating it and adding the glasses, or is it a ‘found’ or stock illustration?

@sprout no, it’s just an image before I start

In that case, that changes my thoughts on them. Initially, I thought they were pretty well executed drawings, which had been over-decorated with a somewhat dated, over-used technique.

However, as you have just used someone else’s work and ‘techniqued’ it, it leaves me with the sense of the being pretty vacuous and pretty averagely executed, I’m afraid. For example, the glasses are just ‘thrown’ on top.

The pertinent question, though, is if you just ‘used’ someone else’s images, do you have the permission / licence to do so?

Sorry to be so damming, but if you didn’t create the illustrations, then there’s not much else there really.

I’ll also add if you are just practicing to develop your own technique you are fine. You just can’t sell anything that contains the work of someone else.


Indeed. I was possibly a bit full on, if it is just for learning. If so, I’ll pull my head in a bit.

1 Like

Practice, for fun, experimenting with a new technique — I think they’re all fine.

Even professionally, not every job comes with a big enough budget to hire a photographer. Using stock and other photos where permission is obtained first is OK too. It might not be ideal, but sometimes one needs to make do with what’s available, as long as it’s legal and ethical.

And there’s the rub. The knowledge that, that is even a problem seems to be eroding a little more every day. Not saying that’s the case here, but I think it is something that should always be flagged up.

1 Like

@sprout @RedKittieKat @Just-B Hello everyone, Please understand that I am a Graphic Designer so I can’t do any action to be guilty in a digital world and I want to stay here. I told that was an image but not like that as all of you see. it’s a simple picture as you get a selfie. I work on that picture for about 2 hours. both of jpg is not going in the same direction. If I illustrate your face image with the realistic method it was copyright but if you can’t find your face on my illustration so how do you clime to me for copyright action.

There is a bit of a language barrier going on. I will try to explain in simple terms. Here in the US and UK you can be held liable for copyright infringement if you knowingly sell work someone else did. I do not know how that works in other areas of the world. But, that’s why we tend to remind people. We don’t want to see anyone who is just starting out get in legal trouble. :slight_smile:

1 Like