The tag implication #67833 looking_down_at_viewer -> low-angle_view has been rejected.

Reason: I'm not 100% sure about this one, but it's kinda hard to picture a character looking down at the camera without the camera being at a low angle or at worm's eyes (that implies low-angle view) without stretching the definitions at least a bit.

EDIT: The tag implication looking_down_at_viewer -> low-angle_view (forum #454262) has been rejected by @romanicyte2.

romanicyte2 said:
The tag implication #67833 looking_down_at_viewer -> low-angle_view has been rejected.

Reason: I'm not 100% sure about this one, but it's kinda hard to picture a character looking down at the camera without the camera being at a low angle or at worm's eyes (that implies low-angle view) without stretching the definitions at least a bit.

The character that does the looking can be on_back while looking_down towards the viewer.
post #3298927 post #5143274

thegreatwolfgang said:
The character that does the looking can be on_back while looking_down towards the viewer.
post #3298927 post #5143274

Really? That counts as looking down?

romanicyte2 said:
Really? That counts as looking down?

Character's head is pointing/looking downwards relative to their body, thus looking_down.
How else would you tag it then?

thegreatwolfgang said:
Character's head is pointing/looking downwards relative to their body, thus looking_down.
How else would you tag it then?

looking_up, since they're looking upward from the ground/bed toward the viewer.

watsit said:
looking_up, since they're looking upward from the ground/bed toward the viewer.

if i looked up (pun not intended) looking_up and found those i would be very confused. they look like the head is looking down, as if the viewer was at crotch level.

manitka said:
if i looked up (pun not intended) looking_up and found those i would be very confused. they look like the head is looking down, as if the viewer was at crotch level.

I don't think looking_up and looking_down should be relative to the character's body, but to the overall scene. These aren't looking_up:
post #5600677 post #5530112
despite looking in the exact opposite direction, away from the crotch. Because we understand the feral's body is parallel to the ground and their view is more level along the ground. Similarly, because the feral's body is lying on a bed, which we understand to be parallel to the ground, their view is more upward away from the ground.

watsit said:
looking_up, since they're looking upward from the ground/bed toward the viewer.

If there was a third character doing the spitroast on the on_back character, what would be the direction tagged then if the latter was facing towards him?

thegreatwolfgang said:
If there was a third character doing the spitroast on the on_back character, what would be the direction tagged then if the latter was facing towards him?

You mean something like this:
post #4473748
except with the character on_back instead of on_front? Nothing for the middle character, unless there's something between looking_up and looking_down that I'm not aware of.

Or do you mean something more like this:
post #3257769
which I would say the character on their back is looking_up at the character leaning over them.

watsit said:
You mean something like this:
post #4473748
except with the character on_back instead of on_front? Nothing for the middle character, unless there's something between looking_up and looking_down that I'm not aware of.

Or do you mean something more like this:
post #3257769
which I would say the character on their back is looking_up at the character leaning over them.

Technically, it's looking_forward (defined as "looking forward relative to the direction of their body"), but I wouldn't tag that unless they are looking straight up at the ceiling.
My tagging perspective is more on the character's body orientation due to the above wiki definition, rather than basing it off the overall angle of the character relative to the scene.

The point I was making is that assuming we are viewing the same side_view angle, with the penetrated character on their back instead, I would tag it as:
post #874184

• If their head is facing ➡️, I would tag it as looking_down between their legs.
• If their head is facing ⬅️, I would tag it as looking_up above their head.
• If their head is facing ⬆️ into the ceiling, I would tag it as looking_forward.
• If their head is facing ⬇️ into the floor, I would tag it as looking_back.
• If their head is facing towards the viewer of the back wall, I would tag it as looking_away or looking_aside.

If we had tagged by the relative angle of the scene, it would be vague in what direction they are actually looking at, such as looking_up possibly meaning all three ⬅️, ⬆️, ➡️ head orientations as long as their head is looking "upwards" relative to the scene.

thegreatwolfgang said:
The point I was making is that assuming we are viewing the same side_view angle, with the penetrated character on their back instead, I would tag it as:
post #874184

• If their head is facing ➡️, I would tag it as looking_down between their legs.
• If their head is facing ⬅️, I would tag it as looking_up above their head.
• If their head is facing ⬆️ into the ceiling, I would tag it as looking_forward.
• If their head is facing ⬇️ into the floor, I would tag it as looking_back.
• If their head is facing towards the viewer of the back wall, I would tag it as looking_away or looking_aside.

I don't think looking_up and looking_down should be relative to the character's body. A character rolling on their front or back doesn't change a character's view relative to their body, so both of these:
post #874184 post #4473748
would be looking_up. That then means both of these:
post #5506634 post #5621435
are looking_up as well.

Then you get cases like these as looking_up:
post #2607475 post #3600898
and this looking_down:
post #5275535
All relative to their body.

FWIW, I also think this implication is bad because the view can be at a normal level relative to the scene as a whole, with a character's viewpoint being a bit higher looking down:
post #2967275
It's not a low-angle_view, but their head is high enough to be looking_down_at_viewer.

watsit said:
All relative to their body.

As far as the example goes, in my book, all the anthro characters shown are correctly looking in the direction you have described.

However, I can see the issue is with feral (and in extension taur) bodies, which I will acknowledge does not perfectly work with the setup I had described.
In those cases, I would still tag them as looking_forward or looking_back if they were standing (e.g., direction of body considered as ➡️ if they were standing and looking straight, offscreen to the right), but differently if they were on_back or on_front (e.g., direction of body considered as ⬆️ if they are on_back, just like an anthro character).

But yeah, that is a discussion for another time since we are basically on the same page for this implication.

I'm late, but...

If the looking_* tags are relative to the body parts, does that mean that:

This is looking up
post #5620499

And this is looking down?
post #5219356

Sounds weird to me, but anyway this should be sorted out and clarified in the descriptions of the tags.

romanicyte2 said:
I'm late, but...

If the looking_* tags are relative to the body parts, does that mean that:

This is looking up
post #5620499

And this is looking down?
post #5219356

Sounds weird to me, but anyway this should be sorted out and clarified in the descriptions of the tags.

It depends, are you asking about their perspective or the viewer's?

nin10dope said:
It depends, are you asking about their perspective or the viewer's?

Well, I was referring to the usage of the looking up and looking down tags (and potentially their *_at viewer correspondent), but honestly I don’t think this will arrive at a consensus anytime soon. For now I’ll just tag those if the images don’t leave doubts.

The tag implication looking_down_at_viewer -> low-angle_view (forum #454262) has been rejected by @romanicyte2.

romanicyte2 said:
Well, I was referring to the usage of the looking up and looking down tags (and potentially their *_at viewer correspondent), but honestly I don’t think this will arrive at a consensus anytime soon. For now I’ll just tag those if the images don’t leave doubts.

First one is looking_up and the second is looking_down because those are based on the character's perspective

Sorry for the necro on this request :) I just wanted to throw my hat in the ring. I think that if the tag refers to just "looking_*", it refers to the character's head positioning. If it's a "*_at_viewer" variant, it refers to the actual direction. Of course, this genie is already likely to be "out of the bottle" sooo :P

romanicyte2 said:
I'm late, but...

If the looking_* tags are relative to the body parts, does that mean that:

This is looking up
post #5620499

And this is looking down?
post #5219356

Sounds weird to me, but anyway this should be sorted out and clarified in the descriptions of the tags.

In my opinion, at least, that's a yes. If I had rotated the images 180°, would that influence how you tag the looking_* tags?

Of course, none of these are officially stated in the tag wikis since it has not gone though discussion.
I believe though that tagging based on the character's perspective will provide the least amount of confusion, as far as anthro characters go.

thegreatwolfgang said:
If I had rotated the images 180°, would that influence how you tag the looking_* tags?

No, because it would still be apparent which way the character is looking relative to the ground, either because you can see the ground (in the second example), or because you can see the character is hanging upside-down from the effects of gravity. But to say this isn't looking up:
post #2430350
because they're looking forward relative to their body just feels very wrong to me.

In my view, it just creates too many unexpected and odd corner cases to base it on being relative to the character's body, particularly when it comes to creatures that don't have a human-like up-right body posture (of which there's plenty on the site). And it's okay to me to not tag looking_up or looking_down if its too ambiguous about which way a character is looking relative to the ground.

watsit said:
No, because it would still be apparent which way the character is looking relative to the ground, either because you can see the ground (in the second example), or because you can see the character is hanging upside-down from the effects of gravity. But to say this isn't looking up:
post #2430350
because they're looking forward relative to their body just feels very wrong to me.

In my view, it just creates too many unexpected and odd corner cases to base it on being relative to the character's body, particularly when it comes to creatures that don't have a human-like up-right body posture (of which there's plenty on the site). And it's okay to me to not tag looking_up or looking_down if its too ambiguous about which way a character is looking relative to the ground.

Agreed. That character is looking up at the sky and looking forward. These are not mutually exclusive.

A character hanging upside down and is looking at the ground is looking down at the ground.

In the OP, the character is looking upwards toward the viewer.

thegreatwolfgang said:
In my opinion, at least, that's a yes. If I had rotated the images 180°, would that influence how you tag the looking_* tags?

Of course, none of these are officially stated in the tag wikis since it has not gone though discussion.
I believe though that tagging based on the character's perspective will provide the least amount of confusion, as far as anthro characters go.

Couldn't agree more. When in doubt, put yourself in their shoes

nin10dope said:
Couldn't agree more. When in doubt, put yourself in their shoes

Honestly, if I was upside down and someone said "look up" I would look up relative to the ground (down relative to me).

Maybe we could allow those tags to be tagged both relatively to the ground AND to the person, for example:

post #5219356
This can be tagged both looking up and looking down.

post #2430350
This can be tagged both looking up and looking foward (assuming anyone cares about this specific tag).

romanicyte2 said:
Maybe we could allow those tags to be tagged both relatively to the ground AND to the person, for example:

That severely diminishes the usefulness of the tag, if it has no consistent usage. Tags like original_character have been invalidated because it was used to mean both fan characters and non-fan characters, so in this case, regardless of whether you think it should be relative to the ground or the body, if looking_up would mean both looking_up and looking_down, there's not much reason to use the tag. The two meanings need to be distinguished, like a separate looking_down_from_body to avoid looking_down and looking_up giving both that and looking_up_from_body. It needs to be more consistent than that or else the results will be indistinguishable.

watsit said:
That severely diminishes the usefulness of the tag, if it has no consistent usage. Tags like original_character have been invalidated because it was used to mean both fan characters and non-fan characters, so in this case, regardless of whether you think it should be relative to the ground or the body, if looking_up would mean both looking_up and looking_down, there's not much reason to use the tag. The two meanings need to be distinguished, like a separate looking_down_from_body to avoid looking_down and looking_up giving both that and looking_up_from_body. It needs to be more consistent than that or else the results will be indistinguishable.

I can agree with the creation of a new set of tags if they could be practically implemented (i.e., not going to be confused with "gaze of character" vs. "head position of character"; e.g., raised_head, head_back).
Otherwise, more discussion as to what is considered as looking_* should be encouraged (on a separate dedicated thread) so that we can update the respective wikis.