Hi, how is it? Pretty, aggressive, or like a ghost
lolipahmed, these arenāt what I would call āwatercolor design.ā Iād 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 thatās all theyāll be is opinions based on our reaction to your work.
Thanks for your compliment. recently Iām inspired by someoneās design so I started this type of designā¦that was made by adobe photoshop
@lolipahmed by the way I first read the name as āClarkā. You may want to consider a different font or adjust the kerning between the l and i.
No. Itās āChadieā ā¦ and no, it is NOT ādesignā. But what do it know? It just might mean that in some cultures.
Itās digital art not design. I know the style you are going for. Itās 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. 
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 itās easy to go too far with them.
Did you draw the dog (and gorilla) before decorating it and adding the glasses, or is it a āfoundā or stock illustration?
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 elseās work and ātechniquedā it, it leaves me with the sense of the being pretty vacuous and pretty averagely executed, Iām afraid. For example, the glasses are just āthrownā on top.
The pertinent question, though, is if you just āusedā someone elseās images, do you have the permission / licence to do so?
Sorry to be so damming, but if you didnāt create the illustrations, then thereās not much else there really.
Iāll also add if you are just practicing to develop your own technique you are fine. You just canāt sell anything that contains the work of someone else.
3 Likes
Indeed. I was possibly a bit full on, if it is just for learning. If so, Iāll pull my head in a bit.
1 Like
Practice, for fun, experimenting with a new technique ā I think theyāre 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 whatās available, as long as itās legal and ethical.
And thereās the rub. The knowledge that, that is even a problem seems to be eroding a little more every day. Not saying thatās 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 canāt 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. itās 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 canāt 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, thatās why we tend to remind people. We donāt want to see anyone who is just starting out get in legal trouble. 
1 Like