Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login


Submitted on
July 9, 2012
Image Size
3.9 MB


7,846 (1 today)
758 (who?)

Camera Data

FinePix S2800HD
Shutter Speed
1/60 second
Focal Length
5 mm
ISO Speed
Date Taken
Jan 1, 2010, 12:04:18 AM
Microsoft Windows Photo Viewer 6.1.7600.16385
Sensor Size
Hiiro No Kakera by LuadoChackal Hiiro No Kakera by LuadoChackal
Hiiro No Kakera rereading of crayons
Hiiro No Kakera releitura em lápis de cor
Add a Comment:
ReximusPlus Featured By Owner Feb 14, 2013
Cyanide-Tea Featured By Owner Feb 11, 2013
diregeist Featured By Owner Feb 11, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
fucking tracer. just sell your body for money if you want that much attention, bitch, and stop giving artists a bad name. Can't ruin the name "slut".
Chuushiri Featured By Owner Feb 11, 2013
I don't believe this person used a filter. I think it was coloured with coloured pencils. Some parts are different from the original, and there isn't a way to have that replicated in a Photshop filter. For example, the berries on the right hand side of the picture, near the subject's head, does not contain the same number of berries as in the original picture. These different are usually attributed to the fact that the artist probably didn't want to replicate ALL the berries, and thus got tired and lazily sped through it. I know I've done that before in a detail intensive drawing, especially background stuff.

The hair is drawing differently around the nape of his neck; the original shows two strands layering over his neck, but this person only chose to do one, and not only that, but to pretty much hide most of the neck.

The face on this picture is narrower than on the original, and several hair strands are drawn more thickly that that of the original picture. The patterns also differ, especially when it comes to the sizes of certain things (the white lines are off, the blue oval in his sleeve is much smaller than the original).

However, this doesn't make the person completely innocent. It's possible that there was either some tracing involved, or she's very good at looking at a person's art and copying. I've overlayed the original and this one, and in some places the lines match up perfectly, however in others, it's skewed. It would not surprise me if she used a grid to do this. It's understandable if the pictures themselves are off as well, since this looks like a photograph, and those are subject to all kinds of distortions.

tl;dr I think she coloured this on her own, and it wasn't a Photoshop filter. However, it's possible she could have traced it, either in whole or a part of it, or she's surprisingly good at referencing.

Do I believe she deserved a DD? No. She's definitely not linking back to the original source, and overall this isn't completely original, only a copy. I think in terms of her colouring ability, however, she is good. She just chooses to not make anything original with it, which is a shame.
StandingLast Featured By Owner Feb 11, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Amazing work or not, it' sad you use your talents to completely copy off of other's work, without even crediting the original.
CelestialDrake Featured By Owner Feb 4, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
And the fact that the DD was removed, but they left the STOLEN.PICTURE.UP. is depressing. C'mon DA, you defend the people who break the law, yet you completely ignore the people who buy stuff and pay for shit on the site, and THAT'S the stuff that is giving you your fat paychecks. If you piss them off, they'll all leave, and there will be no more money!

Eventually you will be sued, and unlike what the rules say (and I actually saw this), you won't get any money from the people that sued you.

Actually try to please the people that keep this site running, instead of helping people break the law.

My gosh.
Yuuza Featured By Owner Feb 10, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
the picture can't be taken down until the original artist asks to, and the original artist is Kazuki Yone, a famous japanese artist who probably doesn't have time to go around the internet to make complaints. Besides this is a reproduction of the work, it's not reposting of the original so it could be considered fanart. It's not really such a big deal that it stays on the site as long as the artist doesn't receive praise like it's their original work
FancyDicks Featured By Owner Feb 12, 2013
1. traced
2. no permission
3. no credit

All in conclusion: ~LuadoChackal was a lazy pile of crap who didnt bother credit and felt the need to rip off some one who worked hard for their own praise and butt kissing.
Yuuza Featured By Owner Feb 12, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
i'm tired of talking to you people :/
FancyDicks Featured By Owner Feb 12, 2013
1. Public site

2. Open to any one

3. Free to coment/reply

:shrug: well its true.
Add a Comment: