This image has been resized. Click on the View larger version link in the sidebar for a high-quality version.
Hide this message.
Image samples have been disabled. If you find this to be too slow, you can turn samples back on in your profile settings.
Search (Advanced)
Tags
Statistics
- Id: 196854
- Posted: about 9 years ago by Flandre93
- Size: 2437x1080
- Source: i4.pixiv.net/img-ori...
- Rating: Safe
- Score: 206
- Favorited by: lionlxh, itouLen, Len_01, vinya, tonone, Lemikil, ilias, mattiasc02, totalxp, Kiran, angelesroma, Rackie, Dewei, FriedrichEngelh, WinFakt_Dust, VengfulRaptor, AnonymousSays, Hikaroo, vier2ni, 哑狐狸, fuze35, DraftyKiller, shiftyichi, LegendSkies, yy3121572411, Tochii, AnearCoive, hung2a13, 359368170, zorancho, alma79, Hulmy, fans1321, SullyJHF, CoyoteMister, SAWA87CHIKAD56ZQ, selection-, bssl, Kirakimori, qaz54110, SplashyX, Kiho, KindHermit, Roebuck2, WorldOfManga, NikolayGI, sumanta, CeruleanShu, terrorking13, AnimeBoi99, BoyanGirlTwns, Chlebekk, Blackstern, lost_synx, grean817, gameboy6001, gnarf1975, Emolgia29, Kumacuda, esacaled (54 more)
Options
A bit on the scenic tag
I think scenic and landscape tags ought to be used only when the character(s) depicted is(are) not the sole focus of the image; i.e., the background is not simply filler but is actually meant to be a part of the image. OR, the background contains lots of detail, in-spite of having a character as main focus (this still means the bg should be at least 30-40% of the image).
Using the most recent posts tagged as scenic/landscape as example, I'd say post #197007, post #196930 and post #196909 do not qualify. All are either character-centric images or have background with little detail.
On the other hand, post #196866, post #196829 and, yes, this very post are all valid for scenic, by the reasons I stated above. post #196866 especially, since it comes off as scenic despite having the two girls in focus.
I think scenic and landscape tags ought to be used only when the character(s) depicted is(are) not the sole focus of the image; i.e., the background is not simply filler but is actually meant to be a part of the image. OR, the background contains lots of detail, in-spite of having a character as main focus (this still means the bg should be at least 30-40% of the image).
Using the most recent posts tagged as scenic/landscape as example, I'd say post #197007, post #196930 and post #196909 do not qualify. All are either character-centric images or have background with little detail.
On the other hand, post #196866, post #196829 and, yes, this very post are all valid for scenic, by the reasons I stated above. post #196866 especially, since it comes off as scenic despite having the two girls in focus.
Thanx for the guidance. I will be more discretionary in the future applying this tag.Flandre93 said:
A bit on the scenic tag
I think scenic and landscape tags ought to be used only when the character(s) depicted is(are) not the sole focus of the image; i.e., the background is not simply filler but is actually meant to be a part of the image. OR, the background contains a lots of detail, in-spite of having a character as main focus (this still means the bg should be at least 30-40% of the image).
Using the most recent posts tagged as scenic/landscape as example, I'd say post #197007, post #196930 and post #196909 do not qualify. All are either character-centric images or have background with little detail.
On the other hand, post #196866, post #196829 and, yes, this very post are all valid for scenic, by the reasons I stated above. post #196866 especially, since it comes off as scenic despite having the two girls in focus.
You can't comment right now.
Either you are not logged in, or your account is less than 2 weeks old.
For more information on how to comment, head to comment guidelines.
Either you are not logged in, or your account is less than 2 weeks old.
For more information on how to comment, head to comment guidelines.