this is making me a bit sad, two of my pictures have been taken down for what i can only assume is because they were made in ms paint...? i like to think theyre still well detailed and shaded and i put a lot of time into them, they are not low res, either :(
this is especially confusing since OTHER similar pictures ive made have not been taken down.

Overall the standard is vague, and usually it depends on who approve/delete the post. I have seen some really bad drawings got approved before.

Also take a look on pinned topic https://e621.net/forum_topics/23578

I am sorry to tell you, but the quality is questionable on those. Very shaky lines, and the color infill isn't sufficient (white dots on the lines). You have a talent, though. Your understanding of anatomy looks good to me. A different program would give you way more opportunities, already. + a cheap tablet and you are good to go.
The others are borderline acceptable.

You can make tools like MS Paint work if you're willing to put the effort in and pay close attention to detail, but you might have access to other image editors and hardware that would improve your workflow, give better fill-bucket tools, and let you test/revert changes more easily.

I'd like to refer you to an old webcomic from the days of yore when image editors were crap and we had to chisel each pixel manually. See https://web.archive.org/web/20060301192221/http://www.adultimum.net/rw/

What medium are the comics drawn in? What tools do you use?
Good old MS Paint. Mouse drawn with my non-writing hand, I might add (I'm a lefty, most mice are for right handers). And colored.

Blurring is non-trivial with MS Paint, and layers are also completely non-existent in MS Paint, so even if you're committed to the low-tech style that MS Paint images have I wouldn't blame you at all if you decided to swap, but the artist made all this stuff for many, many years while using similar tools. However, they can get results that look like this (it's not to say that Ragnarok Wisdom is some kind of mindblowing masterpiece, but that you can get passable results with weaker tools) because of their attention to detail. There's no apparent fill-bucket-related issues that are present in your uploads, the linework's pretty consistent, and they have a similar approach to coloring/shading as you do but it comes off more naturally.

If there's one issue Ragnarok Wisdom has that's immediately apparent, the comics are saved as JPGs, though, when PNGs would be 100% better. Save as PNGs unless you're working with photos or you have a printer/book editor/etc who specifically wants them.

clownglider said:
this is making me a bit sad, two of my pictures have been taken down for what i can only assume is because they were made in ms paint...? i like to think theyre still well detailed and shaded and i put a lot of time into them, they are not low res, either :(
this is especially confusing since OTHER similar pictures ive made have not been taken down.

Your anatomy and perspective are actually quite good. You definitely have what it takes to create art that would be acceptable to our standards. The big problem with these images is all the scribbling and messy, shaky lines. All it would take to get these accepted would be to clean it up a bit. Maybe go over the lines again to make them smoother, maybe use a blending brush to smooth out the shading and get rid of the obvious scribbling. A program such as Krita would be much better suited to this task than MS Paint, however. If you wanted to clean these up a bit and resubmit, I feel that they would be accepted without a problem.

If you insist on continuing to use MS Paint, opting for clean cel shading would turn out much better than the scribbling approach you used in those drawings. Drawing with a larger canvas may also help with creating smoother lines. But really, using proper art software like Krita (which is completely free to use!) will go a very long way towards improving your art quality. Good luck!

Hmm, without source links, I can't really judge the images. The 4 that are left up seem OK, though. Tried Inkscape or others? They have a lot of useful features!

alphamule said:
Hmm, without source links, I can't really judge the images. The 4 that are left up seem OK, though. Tried Inkscape or others? They have a lot of useful features!

Here's the context.
https://i.imgur.com/v61daMN.png
https://i.imgur.com/ms2LZf3.jpg

I agree with the janitors – this clearly does not meet the minimum artistic standards.

bitwolfy said:
Here's the context.
https://i.imgur.com/v61daMN.png
https://i.imgur.com/ms2LZf3.jpg

I agree with the janitors – this clearly does not meet the minimum artistic standards.

Ugh, Img(D)ur tries to be too clever by far, still. To view those I had to deal with it's cookie/referrer/JS shenanigans.

Yeah, those look like they'd need some passes through cleaning and shading I guess.

alphamule said:
Ugh, Img(D)ur tries to be too clever by far, still.

What image hosting is hip with the kids these days then?
I only use imgur because that's what I'm used to.

bitwolfy said:
What image hosting is hip with the kids these days then?

TikTok
just kidding

I think I have seen some posts post #3779948 that have shaky lines and insufficient color infill or even below the quality get approved. In my opinion, this deleted one is not that bad.

watchdog22 said:
I think I have seen some posts post #3779948 that have shaky lines and insufficient color infill or even below the quality get approved.

Different Janitors have different tolerances as well as different approval styles. Personally, I would not have approved that one on artistic standards, but that's only me. Other approvers would think differently. Such is the hazards of not being cookie-cutter clones.

They are good, just don't use paint to make them.

Like others have said, this isn't a lack of talent as much as lacking tools. The skills are there. Better software would go a long way here. Krita, gimp, paint.net, all kinds of free software options at your disposal.