Shop Forum More Submit  Join Login

What is MOST important for you to add a collage to your favorites? 

27%
20 deviants said Technique (aka realistic - I like collages that looks like real photos and it's more important than any other factor)
26%
19 deviants said Model (I like certain type of beauty and girl is most important factor)
26%
19 deviants said Size (I prefere certain size of giantess and I don't pay much attention to who exactly is gigantic - as long as she is not ugly ^^)
18%
13 deviants said Size of breasts (similar to "Model" with an exception - I am not focused on a whole person and/or her face, but I am fan of certain size of bust and this is most important for me)
4%
3 deviants said Naked woman (I like naked women as giantesses and this is more important than who that woman is and how big she is - as long as she is not ugly)
0%
No deviants said Other - please comment

Devious Comments

:iconstilgarpl:
stilgarpl Featured By Owner Jan 12, 2014
I voted for size... but I'm actually 50:50 size vs model. I love giantess celebirties. Especially the "giantess" part. 
Reply
:iconn7warrior007:
N7warrior007 Featured By Owner Feb 28, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
I'm the same
Reply
:iconemiliagreyheart:
EmiliaGreyheart Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2014
I like collages that look realistic and for the same reason I don't like collages with naked people.
Reply
:iconzitukx:
ZituKX Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
For me realism is also very important :) It's great when work looks exactly like a photo. Even better if it looks as if taken from a movie - full of dynamism, what is difficult to create.
Thank you for answering my question! :)
P.S.
Did I understand you correctly that you think that giant naked people don't look realistic?
Reply
:iconemiliagreyheart:
EmiliaGreyheart Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2014
Yes, because, in real life, people are not running around naked - if I were to grow, for sure I wouldn't be naked.
Reply
:iconzitukx:
ZituKX Featured By Owner Jan 12, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
You are very right. I suppose any giantess would feel more comfortable in clothes or at least in lingerie. But what about non-magic growth when there is no possibility to grow clothes? You'll end up naked, 'cos your clothes would be torn during process.
Reply
:iconemiliagreyheart:
EmiliaGreyheart Featured By Owner Jan 12, 2014
Since we are already ignoring science (a giantess would colapse under her own weight), we can ignore it a little more and you can make me some bigger clothes :) I don't care how those tiny people are going to do it, I want my clothes :)
And shoes, don't forget about shoes! I don't care that my heels are bigger than your buildings, I'm not going to walk barefoot!
Reply
:iconzitukx:
ZituKX Featured By Owner Jan 12, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Well, I'll leave finding some clothes for yourself ^^ I can taylor for only one person at a time and my love will keep me busy for next hundred years at least ^^ I'll need some immortality potion to finish all her demands ^^
I don't think that giantess could colapse under her own weight. Her bones would be proportionally thicker so she would be able to support herself. Of course, when her weight would be close to that of the Moon, there will be some strange gravitational effects (change of Moon orbit or Earth's, when she leaves planet), but I can't figure out anything else that could harm her for just living ;)
Reply
:iconstilgarpl:
stilgarpl Featured By Owner Jan 12, 2014
I think Emilia is right :) 
The strength of bones is proportional to their cross-section (length of a bone has no effect on its strength). Cross-section is 2D, so it means, when you scale it, you will increase its size by scale squared (if something is 2 times larger, field of cross section will be 4 times larger). Mass is proportional to volume (assuming density is constant), which is 3D - which means it will scale like a cube. 

So, when a giantess is two times bigger, her bones are two times weaker (her bone strength increased 4 times, but her mass increased 8 times, 4/8 = 1/2). Giantess that's 10 times bigger would probably break her bones just by walking. 100 times bigger would indeed collapse under her own weight without even doing anything. 

Sure, you can increase bone strength by increasing its density... but that will also increase its mass. 

Look at elephant leg (or dinosaur leg) - you will notice that it's very wide, compared to other animals. Whales can survive while being gigantic because they are submerged in water, so they don't have to carry their own mass. This is also the reason why ants can lift objects that are 80 times heavier than them - scaling works both ways. 

There are also other effects - smaller things have greater surface to volume ratio ( cube for example - 6a/a, a - edge length), and so they cool down faster. Mouse has to eat all the time to keep its body temperature. Elephant eats much smaller (relatively) amounts and not that often. 

Reply
:iconzitukx:
ZituKX Featured By Owner Jan 12, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I don't get one thing. Because let's imagine that bone has a shape of cyliner (just for theoretical thinking). If so, when you increase this shape, all dimensions will be bigger. You said that lenght has nothing to do with strength. If so, then let's just focus on one cross-section of whole, let's say, leg. If leg is increased, then muscles and bones increases by the same percent. When you will cross-sect normal person's leg and giantess's leg it'll look as two circles - outter circle of muscles and inner circle of bone. Proportion will be the same. So why wouldn't proportional system hold same (proporional) weight? I might be wrong, but when I read your comment it was very strange for me, that you got from 2D to 3D. If you compare mass in 2D only, then you have to compare everything in 2D. Speaking in other words - comapring different cross-sections. Not cross-section and volume :)
About other animals - giantess's leg would be thicker and so will be her bones, so I don't feel very convinced that giantess acually would collapse under her weight. But I am open for discussion, so please go on considering my comment of not comparing 2D with 3D (what is mathematicly incorrect) ;)
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconkosm1ta:
Kosm1ta Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I prefer realism, in that the model and background blend seamlessly. It is very difficult to do and I still have trouble with it, but when done properly, it's awesome. On top of seamless integration, I'd say matching colors between model and background is also important. After all that is said, I think the choice of model would be the second important factor. All my opinion of course :)
Reply
:iconzitukx:
ZituKX Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Thank you very much for answering my question :)
I strongly agree - I also look first at realism of a collage, what can be only rarely overcame by very interesting and unique idea :)
If it goes about your collages, you are doing good work and many of your works are nicely blended :) Don't worry, sometimes I still do this mistake and even if I do blending properly, I mess up something else ^^ The point is to constantly develop skills and try to e even better :)
Once again thank you for respond :)
Reply
:iconn7warrior007:
N7warrior007 Featured By Owner Feb 28, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
yeah a good collage makes it more relistic and on a second level shows the artist really took there time to get it right
Reply
:iconzitukx:
ZituKX Featured By Owner Mar 3, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Thank you for your answer :)
Reply
:iconn7warrior007:
N7warrior007 Featured By Owner Mar 3, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
no prob
Reply
Add a Comment: