Posted on 2016-05-10 01:29:21
Score: 0 (vote Up)

Not really... All that was removed was the blush, sweat and pupils of the eyes, yet the original facial expression still remains; and I for one don't see how someone looking surprised/embarrassed/whatever without pupils is a good representation of MC, especially if it showed up outside the hub.

Posted on 2016-05-10 05:26:36
Score: 0 (vote Up)

I don't have an issue with your objection; I think it's perfectly reasonable to not want content here deleted, unless it breaks more obvious guidelines. While this one's not as obvious, I still think that a need for "quality" should be upheld, be it original illustrations, manips, etc. Doesn't mean that the content being created nor the creator should gtfo the hub, just try again with the same material or try out something completely new toward developing stuff people will like here.

Posted on 2016-05-10 07:06:54
Score: 0 (vote Up)

I don't think "whitewashed eyes" was meant to be this literal.

But in all seriousness this is kinda creepy, and I think it deserves the nightmare fuel tag.

Posted on 2016-05-10 07:54:37
Score: 0 (vote Up)

Seriously gonna be kept up?
I mean, I don't think it's such terrible quality, but come on. The facial expression + scenario of this just make MC feel very unlikely, and instead just looks like only the eyes were whited out. We're given no hint toward context whatsoever, and it irks me to see manips of just the eyes being changed (again, ik that the blush and sweat was taken away as well, but the eyebrows and mouth clash against the altered eyes and just don't really work...). It gives the impression that basically ANY image online can just have eyes whited out/altered, thus lowering quality standards of manip posts.

Apologies if I sound really stuck up about all this; I just wanna put out my feelings on this post. Usually not a fan of manips, but believe me, there are plenty of great ones here that I can tell have some good creativity thrown into em.

Posted on 2016-05-10 09:19:18
Score: 0 (vote Up)

This seems to me to be the very epitome of what the "empty eye manip" rule is supposed to be about.

Posted on 2016-05-10 09:20:18
Score: 0 (vote Up)

I kinda' felt this. Like if you're gonna manip, at least pick an image where the overall situation/body language lends itself to a scenario, yeah? [especially if there's no accompanying story for context. Can't just slap spiral eyes [or no eyes, in this case] onto ANYTHING and have it work, after all.

Posted on 2016-05-10 10:45:58
Score: 0 (vote Up)

This is definitely a case of the manip itself being fairly well-done, but the image choice being completely unfit for the theme. 50% or more of making a good manip comes down to good image choice, and this just isn't it.

Posted on 2016-05-10 22:56:44
Score: 0 (vote Up)

I don't see a reason for this to be removed. This manip follows all the rules.

Not sure how whitewashed eyes are usually used, but a scenario could easily be thought up if you gave an effort. Maybe she's resisting its effects and the dom is laughing because the sub didn't think they could be hypnotized. Maybe the dom made the (unaware) sub suddenly think there's a giant cockroach in the bath with her instead of the dom. If you don't put in any effort, you could also say that any image without text 'doesn't fit.'

Posted on 2016-05-10 23:37:05
Score: 0 (vote Up)

Pretty much this.



Solid color empty eye manip rule. Empty eyes in general are fine, obviously. It's when someone takes the paintbrush tool and goes "I PAINT THINGS" with a single color to "empty" the eyes that the rule is there to stop.

There are multiple shades of white in the eye, and things other than the eye were manipped. All that implies effort was put into the manip.

Posted on 2016-05-11 01:07:26
Score: 0 (vote Up)

Well, I'm still annoyed as the implications I've previously brought up still make just about any image allowed to use for here, so long as "effort's" put into it. Lowers the bar for QC, but as always, this is highly subjective and very much debatable.



Yet once again, you could pretty much do that for just about anything, so long as you put "extra effort" to pretend that the scenario going on somehow makes sense. Like if I used this image for example by just manipulating the eyes, orig02.deviantart.net/dcc...l_by_aozora95-d4dqt3v.jpg, I could say in the comments that, "She was confused as for whether or not the hypnosis was working, yet clearly we, the audience, can tell that she's fallen under!"

Quality of the example pic itself aside, I tend to find the textless manips that do work here involve the choosing of the original content, so that even if it's just the eyes being changed, a pendulum added in, etc., the overall post we can immediately understand, and any subjectivity toward the situation isn't left completely ambiguous like above. Cause seriously, I shouldn't have to put in "extra effort" to have this manip make sense when it immediately just looks off right away.

Beyond all this though, I'm not pissed off or upset really that this isn't being taken down; just trying to set up some discourse for the sake of QC. Even though it isn't my job at all, it's at least something I like to contribute to when applicable toward helping out the site. Otherwise, just hope I'm not taking things too far with my rants and all. >___<