IDW #119: Tactical Bomber - Voting

Join the #1 Art Workshop - LevelUpJoin Premium Art Workshop

View Poll Results: Vote for your favorite entry in this round of IDW!

Voters
40. You may not vote on this poll
  • ragtag

    5 12.50%
  • Tomercs

    11 27.50%
  • Orion9282

    9 22.50%
  • Miran

    0 0%
  • John McKenna

    0 0%
  • kosta

    5 12.50%
  • Sady

    0 0%
  • ScribbleHEAD

    4 10.00%
  • Maragnarok

    1 2.50%
  • Steve Somers

    4 10.00%
  • resix

    0 0%
  • Schwager

    1 2.50%
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 32
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    2,689
    Thanks
    405
    Thanked 1,130 Times in 479 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

    Icon IDW #119: Tactical Bomber - Voting

    IDW #119 Topic: Tactical Bomber

    Deadline for voting: Tuesday, March 09

    No voting for your own entries! I repeat, no voting for your own entries

    Give critiques and comments, we're all here to learn from each other!

    Original thread: IDW #119: Tactical Bomber

    Name:  IDW Logo - Poll.JPG
Views: 2341
Size:  7.5 KB

    Last edited by yoitisi; March 2nd, 2010 at 11:23 PM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  


  2. Hide this ad by registering as a member
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    74
    Thanks
    9
    Thanked 46 Times in 21 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

    IDW #119: Tactical Bomber ragtag

    Tactical Bomber with two alternative camo versions.

    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    79
    Thanks
    160
    Thanked 190 Times in 54 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    IDW 119 - Tactical Bomber

    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    188
    Thanks
    46
    Thanked 33 Times in 23 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

    IDW119 - Tactical Bomber

    IDW119 - Tactical Bomber

    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Serbia
    Posts
    93
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 7 Times in 5 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Da bmbr

    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    77
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked 40 Times in 18 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Good luck everyone!

    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  8. #7
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    19
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    IDW#119 - Here is mine (finally); slightly different approach but hope you like it

    IDW #119: Tactical Bomber - Voting

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    544
    Thanks
    330
    Thanked 84 Times in 56 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Hope you like it.

    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    118
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

    Sukhoi SU-37

    My entry, and first ever post in like.....f$%#!ng ages XD

    For those who can't read or speak Russian (i can't either, but i thought it was a nice touch) its the next version of the Sukhoi Fighter/Tactical bomber, though this one has variable sweep wings which allows it to exceed the top crusing speeds of the older sukhoi SU-35.

    It also features a tandem 2-seat cockpit and is capable of vertical take-off and landing, and is the first sukhoi that is able to deploy both nuclear weapons and conventional bombs/missiles.

    Its low profile makes it able, like the b-2 spirit or the f-22 raptor, to penetrate dense anti-aircraft defenses.

    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Last edited by ScribbleHEAD; March 1st, 2010 at 12:37 PM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    5
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 8 Times in 4 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

    IDW#119 Tactical Bomber

    Hi!It's my first concept art!XD

    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  12. #11
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Posts
    179
    Thanks
    134
    Thanked 193 Times in 92 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    IDW #119: ES-9 Guardian

    Name:  Steve_Somers_IDW_119_tactical-bomber.jpg
Views: 1959
Size:  165.8 KB


    Updates and new work:
    www.stevesomersart.blogspot.com

    CA Sketchbook:
    http://www.conceptart.org/forums/sho...d.php?t=175919

    Available for freelance
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  13. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    11
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 7 Times in 4 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Ran out of time for the underside

    p.s some great looking entries!

    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  14. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Posts
    27
    Thanks
    48
    Thanked 37 Times in 7 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

    IDW#119: Tactical Bomber

    Doh, my first IDW... and I miss the deadline!
    Oh well, thought I'd try and sneak it in anyway.

    Loving all the other entries this week. So much talent around here

    Attached Images Attached Images  
    The Art of Schwager
    Blog - theartofschwager.blogspot.com/
    Website - www.solitudo.com
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  15. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    2,689
    Thanks
    405
    Thanked 1,130 Times in 479 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    As usual, a few notes on this round:

    First of all I'm happy to see a few new faces in here and a few more entries than usual I hope this will be the case for many round to come.

    Secondly, I'd like to give a few thoughts on the designs for this round. Near-future usually means a little more research and knowledge than more open rounds as the design has to be somewhat believable and realistic. I think most of you managed to pull that off.

    That said, there are a few designs in this round that resemble aircrafts that are currently flying around a little bit too much, or that have smashed two totally different aircrafts together into one. I would challenge you to stretch your imagination a little further next time and stray away from the beaten path.

    The other thing I'd like to point out is the 'near-future' part. A few designs in here look more like 'near-past' or retro-designs -they look old and from the past even though they're meant to be designed in 20 to 50 years from now. I would suggest looking at what is made in the past and what is made in the present, and look at concepts for the future (like, concept cars from car design studios) and try and come up with your own vision of the future based on that.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to yoitisi For This Useful Post:


  17. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    74
    Thanks
    9
    Thanked 46 Times in 21 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

    tactical bomber idw

    @yoitisi: could you evolve your points a little more? What you said sounds interesting but somehow too general, could you give examples and go into detail concerning techniques? Thanks a lot.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  18. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Posts
    27
    Thanks
    48
    Thanked 37 Times in 7 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ragtag View Post
    @yoitisi: could you evolve your points a little more? What you said sounds interesting but somehow too general, could you give examples and go into detail concerning techniques? Thanks a lot.
    I second that request... would love to hear you elaborate on those points... when/if you find the time, of course.

    And big thanks from me, too, for resurrecting the IDW and putting in all this effort.

    The Art of Schwager
    Blog - theartofschwager.blogspot.com/
    Website - www.solitudo.com
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  19. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    118
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by yoitisi View Post
    As usual, a few notes on this round:

    First of all I'm happy to see a few new faces in here and a few more entries than usual I hope this will be the case for many round to come.

    Secondly, I'd like to give a few thoughts on the designs for this round. Near-future usually means a little more research and knowledge than more open rounds as the design has to be somewhat believable and realistic. I think most of you managed to pull that off.

    That said, there are a few designs in this round that resemble aircrafts that are currently flying around a little bit too much, or that have smashed two totally different aircrafts together into one. I would challenge you to stretch your imagination a little further next time and stray away from the beaten path.

    The other thing I'd like to point out is the 'near-future' part. A few designs in here look more like 'near-past' or retro-designs -they look old and from the past even though they're meant to be designed in 20 to 50 years from now. I would suggest looking at what is made in the past and what is made in the present, and look at concepts for the future (like, concept cars from car design studios) and try and come up with your own vision of the future based on that.
    This is too true, i'm ashamed to say that i cut too many corners to finish my idea before the deadline - ultimately a completely original idea is what's preferred and there's no excuse for 'jumping over where the fence is lowest'.

    I can't help but feel that the guidelines may have been too broad, i mistakenly took your '10-50' years as a guideline....obviously its your opinion to say a design is a mish-mash, but without giving specific critique its hard to figure out what you mean exactly.

    Last edited by ScribbleHEAD; March 3rd, 2010 at 02:49 AM. Reason: (%*&grrr....
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  20. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    48
    Thanks
    21
    Thanked 18 Times in 11 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I think they are all drawn superbly. But I agree that a few look like stuff you see about today. Think the problem is that aircraft like the f-22 raptor, which is seen as fairly modern, is a 15/20 year old design. And the latest sukhoi that had its 1st flight a few weeks ago looks very similar to the f-22. So I can see why a few people went in this direction, because the general aircraft "look" hasnt changed much over the last 20+ years. Maybe if people drifted nearer the 50/100 year mark and look at how bi-planes have evolved into modern day aircraft. And then tried to make a theoretical next evolution, maybe that could of helped with originality.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  21. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    118
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Danbot386 View Post
    I think they are all drawn superbly. But I agree that a few look like stuff you see about today. Think the problem is that aircraft like the f-22 raptor, which is seen as fairly modern, is a 15/20 year old design. And the latest sukhoi that had its 1st flight a few weeks ago looks very similar to the f-22. So I can see why a few people went in this direction, because the general aircraft "look" hasnt changed much over the last 20+ years. Maybe if people drifted nearer the 50/100 year mark and look at how bi-planes have evolved into modern day aircraft. And then tried to make a theoretical next evolution, maybe that could of helped with originality.
    I think personally the situation could've been resolved with allowing a more lenient style guide, would've been cool to see that equivelant of a f-22 raptor in steampunk or alternate universes...if these options were included in the guide i just didn't spot them and apologize in advance

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  22. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    48
    Thanks
    21
    Thanked 18 Times in 11 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Im not knocking back what youve created scribblehead, I think it fits the brief perfectly if you was aiming at the 10/20 years into the near future. I just think if more originality was wanted then maybe the style guide should of perhaps put more emphasis towards the 50/100 year mark to make it a little more obvious. I mean, if you look at whats been entered, IMO the more original designs are the more futuristic ones.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  23. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    118
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Danbot386 View Post
    Im not knocking back what youve created scribblehead, I think it fits the brief perfectly if you was aiming at the 10/20 years into the near future. I just think if more originality was wanted then maybe the style guide should of perhaps put more emphasis towards the 50/100 year mark to make it a little more obvious. I mean, if you look at whats been entered, IMO the more original designs are the more futuristic ones.
    no offense taken whatsoever , not defending my work, pretty obvious its inspired from current aircrafts, i even mention them. But yea there probably should've been more emphasis on a strong style guide, i.e like you mention strictly 50/100 years in the future, and Alien race's aicraft, steampunk, WW2 never ended etc. there's alot of room for exploring....i think if you set the bar at 10/40 years in the future+realistic there's not a whole lot of room to play in....atleast thats the feeling i had.

    'tis was fun still, but....well.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  24. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    48
    Thanks
    21
    Thanked 18 Times in 11 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Yea, I know what you mean. Like with my design, It wasnt really a bomber and was more like a giant gun with a couple of engines and cockpit. And the re-design (same idea, looked a hell of a lot better) had more in common with a helicpoter than a bomber. Felt it strayed from what was required a little. Shame I didnt have enough time to complete it. Seeing the quality of work from the other designs forced me back to work on my idea and technique quite a bit. Anyway, best of luck everyone. Ive cast my vote but tbh I was torn between 4 of the final entries.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  25. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    11
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 7 Times in 4 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I'm very guilty on one point but I should explain my thought process on this at least, first, the brief was near future 10-40 years out and to be realistic.

    To me that ties my hands from doing anything too far out there, secondly I'd chose a country or brand of aircraft to follow in the vein of, I looked at the next generation of fighters the f-35 and as Dan said the Su-47. Read up a little on the f-35 more so, noted it took quite a bit from the f-22.

    While being smaller than the f-22 in size it has a larger radar cross section, so not as stealthy. So to me, I'd rather have it more stealthy for tactical bombing, which seems vital since they engage with ground targets at relativley close range. Also the f-35 can carry more ordiance, but lacks thrust vectoring and supercruising, not that it was vital but it was food for thought.

    So I used the f-22 as more of a referance point, but both the f-35 and f-22 share a similar silhouette. Thinking they might utlize certain production lines and if this was issued today to be ready in 15 Years they'd want to make use of those rather than inventing totally radical changes in production and design, due to cost.

    Since with the economic situation there was an article a while back from The Times, uk paper, where the RAF were considering the reintroduction of very cheap by planes, opposed to 'Cold War' Jets, since they could get more of them per-cost and they can move a bomb from point A to B, which is ridiculous. Again this influenced my thinking, maybe a little too much, on how the design would likely be very simliar to the f-22 & f-35.

    Honestly, designs that are too simliar to current real world planes work for me on this topic opposed to ones that are more style than substance, So personally I disagree with the idea people didn't put thought into it or research just because it looks similar to current real world designs, too much of a slave to referance on the basis of realistic, yes, I'm guilty of that.


    p.s sorry for the long winded post!

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  26. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    118
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by resix View Post
    I'm very guilty on one point but I should explain my thought process on this at least, first, the brief was near future 10-40 years out and to be realistic.

    To me that ties my hands from doing anything too far out there, secondly I'd chose a country or brand of aircraft to follow in the vein of, I looked at the next generation of fighters the f-35 and as Dan said the Su-47. Read up a little on the f-35 more so, noted it took quite a bit from the f-22.

    While being smaller than the f-22 in size it has a larger radar cross section, so not as stealthy. So to me, I'd rather have it more stealthy for tactical bombing, which seems vital since they engage with ground targets at relativley close range. Also the f-35 can carry more ordiance, but lacks thrust vectoring and supercruising, not that it was vital but it was food for thought.

    So I used the f-22 as more of a referance point, but both the f-35 and f-22 share a similar silhouette. Thinking they might utlize certain production lines and if this was issued today to be ready in 15 Years they'd want to make use of those rather than inventing totally radical changes in production and design, due to cost.

    Since with the economic situation there was an article a while back from The Times, uk paper, where the RAF were considering the reintroduction of very cheap by planes, opposed to 'Cold War' Jets, since they could get more of them per-cost and they can move a bomb from point A to B, which is ridiculous. Again this influenced my thinking, maybe a little too much, on how the design would likely be very simliar to the f-22 & f-35.

    Honestly, designs that are too simliar to current real world planes work for me on this topic opposed to ones that are more style than substance, So personally I disagree with the idea people didn't put thought into it or research just because it looks similar to current real world designs, too much of a slave to referance on the basis of realistic, yes, I'm guilty of that.


    p.s sorry for the long winded post!
    Totally agree with you resix, thats a very nice explanation...it's unfortunate that the mere design is frowned upon when its actually deeply researched and not just a bunch of random shapes thrown together.

    Case and point is just, next time, a more specific topic would be preferred.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  27. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    79
    Thanks
    160
    Thanked 190 Times in 54 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I thought this brief was pretty good. Open enough to push a design beyond a "the next generation of" brief, but closed enough to reign in spaceships and totally new shapes. It did leave a lot of decisions up to the designer, which can make it very difficult to pin down an idea. I suffer from this a lot with open briefs.

    I think one of the most interesting parts of each of the design are in the explanation. When we learn how a vehicle works, we can start to see reasons for it's form. (having said that, I didn't write and explanation)

    Right, here are some (hopefully constructive) opinions...

    I voted for Orion. I like the design, it looks like a heavy bomber, I can imagine it being used like an A10 Warthog, just low and slow, delivering a lot of a punch. It's a great render, with a good sense of depth. Is the perspective a bit off or is it me? Maybe it's just very close to isometric. A bit of a wider angle perspective might've been cooler. just a thought though, it still rocks. A lot of character in the design.

    I almost voted for:

    Ragtag, I really like the design, but something about it just looks quite jolly for a fighter bomber! It's just personal preference, but I'd like to have seen it looking a bit more threatening. I could see it fitting in with a certain art style though.

    Kosta, really like the final design, and my vote almost went your way.

    ScribbleHEAD, fantastic execution, I think the design could've been pushed further into the future. But great for near future. The bottom render is my favourite, an you can really see the weight and stance of the vehicle, and I like the tandem cockpit.

    Steve Sommers, cool looking design, but I felt it was a bit alien.

    Thanks Yoitisi, I enjoyed this a lot, and look forward to more in the future.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  28. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    2,689
    Thanks
    405
    Thanked 1,130 Times in 479 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I have to say, I'm glad I managed to get a bit of discussion going in here. The reason I kept my comment general is that I didn't want to point fingers too much, but I would like to defend my point of view a little more.

    I saw a few of you say this topic was too restricted with its 10-50 years near-future guideline. To be clear, this topic was rather tight on purpose. It might seem fun to jump to Steampunk or Retro all the time when trying to come up with original and new designs, but in the end it becomes a bit of a lazy excuse not to have to think too much about what you're doing. It is much more difficult to actually stay within the guidelines and yet create something original and new with what you have.

    To do so, you need research and knowledge of the subject. Then again, you don't want to stay too close to your research as your design might become boring and old news. There's a kind of guideline for a succesful design that describes this idea very well: MAYA. It means 'most advanced, yet accepted'. It's a very fine edge you're walking on when designing, but you better learn how to walk it as you'll find yourself in this kind of situations many more times in your life. Don't rely on your 'style' too much when designing.

    To give some more specific examples for this round: I just did a very short bit of research on modern army aircrafts. I have kept up with my research through the years so I might be a step ahead of some of you, but nonetheless it isn't very hard to find a whole variety of shapes, forms, sizes and types of aircraft that all have a very distinctive shape yet all look like they can fly. A few names for you to check out are the Blackburn Buccaneer with it's very distinctive fuselage and jet engines, the Panavia Tornado with it's block-shaped air intakes, the Hawker Harrier with its strangely shaped cockpit to accommodate for vertical take-off and landing. That's only listing some quite old tactical bombers of course, but if you want to take a look into modern aircraft shapes check out UAV's and aircraft like the F-22 Raptor, Saab Viggen, Rafale, Eurofighter. Who knows, in 10 to 50 years we might have only unmanned aircraft?

    If that doesn't help you to get underway, maybe take a look at existing concept art for aircrafts, or step outside the scope for a bit and look at examples like Virgin Galactic's Spaceship I and II, or commercial airliners of the future? Concept cars? Mobility concepts for the future?

    I hope that this helped a bit to explain my point of view, I'm happy to clarify more if needed. Again, we're all here to learn and get better so I'm really glad some of you actually scratched their heads and started to doubt their designs or my point of view

    In the meantime, the next round is up and it's a whole lot wider than this one...

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  29. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to yoitisi For This Useful Post:


  30. #27
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Posts
    179
    Thanks
    134
    Thanked 193 Times in 92 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Some really amazing, and intimidating designs in here. I wish some of you guys had time to share WIPs so us IDW newbies could learn from you. Really impressive, well researched and cool designs. Scibblehead - the detail on yours is amazing, I'd be interested to see how you made yours. Kosta - Yours seems most plausible to me, unmanned aircraft seems to be very popular with the military from what I hear in the news. Ragtag - Yours won me over in the "Toy I would've wanted as a kid" category.

    I wasn't trying to get a job with Boeing or Rockwell with my design. When I read the brief I was thinking more along the lines of a kids toy, or a special effect in a film. -- which is also how I voted. So, definitely style over substance for me. Mostly an exercise for me to visualize an object from 3 sides, and give myself sort of a blueprint in case I want to build a model of it.

    Anyway, great exercise, I learned some new things and had fun. Thanks to everyone else that participated.


    Updates and new work:
    www.stevesomersart.blogspot.com

    CA Sketchbook:
    http://www.conceptart.org/forums/sho...d.php?t=175919

    Available for freelance
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  31. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    77
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked 40 Times in 18 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I voted for Tomercs, I really liked both his design and execution. It felt the most like looking at a plane from the future, like a mature UAV strike bomber that could jet up to the stratosphere and put some warheads on some foreheads.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  32. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    544
    Thanks
    330
    Thanked 84 Times in 56 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I voted for tomercs.
    Although I don´t know much about modern aircraft, I liked the overall design and concept.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  33. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Munich
    Posts
    1,544
    Thanks
    216
    Thanked 300 Times in 269 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    My vote goes to Tomercs because his design looks pretty hot and functional and reasonable.
    I think the most professional and most well painted is the one of Orion9282 but it reminds me too much of one out of the massive black works.
    I also really like the work of ScribbleHEAD it's actually pretty near based on the real model but it's well painted and just looks hot! Love the 3rd shot of it with the pilot awesome.
    Great work of everybody btw.
    Shame I couldn't join

    when you get to hell, tell them I sent you - you`ll get a group discount

    My Sketchbook

    kischisart.com
    available for freelance
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Members who have read this thread: 1

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
  • 424,149 Artists
  • 3,599,276 Artist Posts
  • 32,941 Sketchbooks
  • 54 New Art Jobs
Art Workshop Discount Inside
Register

Developed Actively by vBSocial.com
The Art Department
SpringOfSea's Sketchbook