HOME | DD
DocRedfield — Sideshow - Cover
[NSFW]
Published: 2013-04-12 19:23:08 +0000 UTC; Views: 11300; Favourites: 180; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
Commissioned cover art for a 14 pg online adult comic I've been working on (and is finally nearing completion). Set in the 1950s, the girl each becomes an ultimate male fantasy.I was going for a cel shading look. In some ways, happy with the results.. in others, I'm having a hard time making even cuts/strokes in adobe. Maybe in future I should stick to the more forgiving airbrush.
Micron pen on Strathmore, Adobe PS7
Related content
Comments: 28
There are three good reasons why this is one of my favorite things you've ever done: (1) I love the contrast in the colors, (2) the non airbrushed shading is not your usual style but I think you pulled it off fantastically, and (3) the babe on the right strikes me as the quintessential Docredfield illustrated babe. The other two are certainly enjoyable, but Ms. Garter Bluedress looks and feels perfect. 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
this week, I hope... been working on it. Then it's just a question of when it gets uploaded to Mindcontrol.com
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Link? Typing the website no work for me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Can anyone explain me why Americans are so oerconcerned about nipples? You can put a naked woman in suggestive pose without any problem, but God forbid if her nipples are bare. What is it about?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, the nipples are the nudity, I guess... show as much side boob as you want, but nipples are just too far. But in this case, I was evoking cheesecake of the 1950s, which in North America rarely had nudity, so I felt that I was keeping to that theme by deftly (but not completely) covering up the girls
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, I understand your point with this picture, but I was asking about overal tendency about nipples in States. It's crazy, when you can take a shot of completely naked woman and use it in, let's say, public advertisement. And it will be ok, as long as her nipples are covered. This is at least bizzare, if her whole body is naked and moral guardians let it be, but if you won't cover nipples, you get censors on your back. Is my point now a bit more clear? 
... actually, I don't understand American way of censorship at all, but that's entirely different topic.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
... and genitals are ok, but not nipples? I could understand if this was about naked breasts. But nah, it's only about nipples, the brest can be naked. This is absurd.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If you think American censorship is "absurd," then you understand everything about it as well as I do. 
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Well, I figured it out long time ago. It's about religion. Since quite big part of first settlers in later founding colonies were religious zealots from many different protestant churches, it carried with it a package of strict moralism. Nudity not included. The point is that it was back in 17th century and the Americans still stick with this, for unknown reason. Bonus points if this is about some non-Anglosaxon part of US, like lands from Louisiana purchase, Florida or what was taken during American-Mexican War. Because those states either don't care or have much more relaxed stance on nudity, Hollywood being the only exeption (Hayes code and now the age ratings). Which is double funny, since I hardly remember Christians being open-minded toward sex and nudity, while those states were in their past under Christian rule.
So guess I didn't figure it out after all
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think you're definitely on to something. America makes a very vocal issue of its "freedom of religion," to the point where it becomes a battlefield in all/most media and all/most civil rights issues. The truth is that imagery involving nudity may actually be harmful for some folks and therefore perhaps be worthy of some kind of attached warning (like by the surgeon general...), but the way such a thing should be researched and potentially legislated is not in general practiced by those vocalizing the religious-based censorship of nudity.
In the end, I think you've come close enough to the issue: religious censorship is often based on what arouses the viewer, labeling that as something evil.
Bringing it back to Doc's cool picture above, the harem slave-girl sports manacles and a chain that covers over only her nipples, and for some more outspoken proponents of censorship this represents an act of "contrition" on the artist's part that says he is suitably humble before The Maker to cover up those naughty bits of what "The Maker" made, meaning that Doc is suitably ashamed of sexuality that he tries to cover it up in some fear.
I, however, know Doc personally, have enjoyed his erotic art for years, and I believe that there's not a lot of sex-shame in the guy...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thanks very much... I like diversity
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think I know what you mean.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
