>>1775809>>1775840Pretty much what the others said. If I drew a line, it could mean that the heads are crossing. The disconnected lines basically tell you that the heads are touching. I am a fan of some disconnected lineart, so I am going to leave it since it is in the original.
>>1775832>>1775834Pretty much everything you said, while rather artsy, is basically what I meant. What Phlux
>>1775838 said is a clarification of what I meant. The guy made his fills look like strokes, which made it uniform, because strokes are uniform. The tutorials in the OP stress using fills so you can be creative. However, you still need to be consistent. If you are going to make the hair thicker than the rest of the image, make sure the hair thickness throughout stays consistent within itself. If you don't stay consistent, then you get something like
>>1775131, where the lines throughout the hair change thickness drastically at random points. The image becomes a mess and you lack anywhere to focus. This is why the consistent lineart and parallel nodes/handles are stressed heavily. Like Derpy
>>1775918 said, there has to be a foundation that you start in that is rather rigid so you understand the basics. You can branch out later once you understand how the tools function and know how to use them.
>>1775946>>1775948You know me. I pretty much always stick to the original as close as possible. I would feel like I would be doing a disservice if I downgraded it by removing the features it had in the original, such as the lineart or the simple coloring. That is essentially what the guy above did.
I still play around with minimal lineart images, and have done them, like this one here. Like I said earlier, if it is part of the original, than I am fine with it. I just don't want to be the thread to turn into taking shortcuts and skipping features from the original due to laziness. That is what the minimalism thread is for.
