Most likely, yes!

I think, in this case, that it's okay to make the gesture not that flowy if the pose itself is not that flowy. To quote Stan himself (on drawing fists) "Don't think that everything has to be dynamic. Some things should feel blocky and heavy. A fist shouldn't feel like Jell-O." I think the best approach would be to draw them as straights or C-curves.

Hey, I don't think that this is necessarily the best place to ask. We (as a community) mostly focus on the technical aspects of drawing and painting -- Color, shape design, anatomy, etc. However, I think I found a site from Webtoon themselves that could help you out! https://www.webtoons.com/en/creators101/webtoon-canvas Proko also sells a course on drawing traditional comics, which, while not necessarily the same, certainly overlaps with the Webtoon format.

You could digitally "glaze" some color over this black and white painting to see if you can learn how color would look with these values. I added a layer, made it a color blending mode, and glazed colors over it to show you what I mean, I hope it helps :)

okay i screwed up and posted the same picture twice because i thought i had already attached it whoops

21. First off, let me say, while you may have unintentionally deviated from the reference in terms of color, Id say that the values are more than likely spot on, and the colors you did pick are very pretty. My issue with this one is that the brushwork and shapes seem a bit... unfocused, for lack of a better word. There isn't a logic to which edges are hard and soft, and why in the lights. In the darks, the soft and lost edges make sense, but in the lights, the mismanaged edges make it more difficult to discern the clouds' form. 22. Apply the same praising of values to this one. I think, and I could be wrong here, that you, knowing that the light families were the focus of the painting, laid in the darks with a big, soft, probably round brush, and then used smaller and finer brushes to paint the light families. This is a good approach, but the shapes feel, again, unfocused. The shapes don't feel designed, but more circumstantial. There's no real rhythm to it. The big light shape in the center of the canvas doesn't feel like an intentional big ol' light shape, but rather a bunch of tiny shapes glued together. Also, the cloud in the upper right hand corner seems to be lit from a different, direction for some reason? 23. Again, values good, seemingly unintentional scribbly brushwork could be improved. As a guy who works in digital, the thing that sticks out to me is the odd yellow highlight. Now, don't get me wrong, yellow in a cloud is perfectly fine, but the problem is that the apparent value seems to darken where the yellow hits. I imagine you took a yellow colored brush with a layer modifier attached (not sure which one) and painted it to indicate some warm light hitting the very top of the cloud. However, in effect, the yellow comes off as cold. (For reference, a warm yellow has more of an orange tint, while cold yellow has more of a greenish tint.) In the future, I'd recommend a brush set to overlay for that purpose, or using a warm off white, with a sort of reddish pink as a halftone. 24. The clouds in this one are pretty darn good. Values are solid, colors are harmonious, brushwork seems intentional. I think you could have gotten away with exaggerating the darkness of the foreground to draw attention to the clouds, but that's more of a composition thing and not a study thing. The other far more major problem is that the clouds are lit from the wrong angle. They're supposed to be lit from behind, if they're in front of the sun. (Keep in mind, the sun is millions of miles away, so clouds will never be behind the sun in a scene where the sun is in frame, see attached reference by Julien Di Majo) 25. First of all, if it works, it's not cheating. Doing something like that won't help you learn, necessarily, but it'll fly in a professional setting. However, I agree that the way you've done it does create an odd, unintentional effect where the surface of the water is perfectly, uncannily still. However, this isn't a set rule. For example, in "Here Comes The Flood" by Magical Realist Rob Gonsalves, the surrealism of that is the point. Also, you can flip the canvas, and then come in with a hard brush to form the ripples. Overall, I think that a good exercise would be to limit yourself to one or two hard brushes for at least a few studies.

I screwed up. I screwed up BAD. It was supposed to be simple, supposed to be five values and sharp edges. I thought, hey, I do painting, I can thumbnail whole scenes with just four! As you can tell, I am full of hubris. My brain just wouldn't be satisfied and confident in my decisions, because I wanted to capture a likeness. Pears don't have likenesses. Pears are pears. So, my brain essentially pushed me, by my need to make sure that the shapes were accurate rather than my shapes being able to fit atop a sensible structure, to make it into a finished painting with a decent enough likeness, and THEN, to even QUALIFY as DOING THE ASSIGNMENT, I added a new layer, and painted my new, better shapes on top of THAT. Ya know, like a normal person. And I only used four values. and some of the shapes STILL came out self-important and noodly. I have attached the "painting" version and the "shape" version i did afterwards. Burn me to a crisp.

I like the style and the use of wood elements overall. The rendering is on point, the eclecticism of the elements gives it a story, for lack of a better word, and the concept comes through somewhat clearly. Is this intended to be a house or a car? Can you drive it, and if so, are you supposed to? A few simple elements, like overgrown plants or parking lot lines, could clarify this. I'm not sure if this was intentional design, or just the way you took the photo, but the whole car seems to be leaning awkwardly. Otherwise, the draftmanship is pretty impeccable. All in all, great work! edit: disregard the storytelling portion of my critique i just read the title