File :-(, x, )
Transformation Thursday Anonymous
>> Anonymous
>>537720
Furry
>> Anonymous
Well, considering the human face I'd be willing to say this is monstergirl on a technicality, although the artist was probably furry.

Most TF artists are.
>> Anonymous
Actually its a dragon, i dont know if i want to call it 100% furry...
>> Anonymous
>>537737
Scaly is still furry.

Though this looks more like naga than anything else, I'll still condemn it for being crap.
>> Anonymous
>>537739
Really? I thought if it had a human face it wad probably monstergirl?

And yeah, it still is crap as far as TF goes. You can hardly make out the transition.

There needs to be more decent TF that isn't furry shit or just forced fem in disguise.
>> Anonymous
furry furry.

I don't give a shit. Whether it's furry or not it's shitty american art made by furries thus it sucks.
>> Anonymous
TF, retains most of the previous facial features, Pokemon (subjective to just which Pokemon), nipples, smooth skin (I'd assume from the look of it)...

I vote not furry.
>> Anonymous
I see no fur. scales on the other hand. so is it no scalies? cause it aint furry.
>> Anonymous
i vote that since her face doesn't actually change...except the color, that this counts as snakegirl.
>> Anonymous
>>538069

i agree
>> Anonymous
This is transformation. Furries are furry from birth. I'm calling monster.
>> Anonymous
I think it's fucking hot.
>> Marsproject
>>538076
Indeed it is. No fur, therefore not furry, my vote goes with monstergirl as well.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
moar transformations, and technically its friday now
>> Anonymous
>>538086
We already solved this in /v/. Pokemon can be either Xenophile material or furfag material. Rin and Ferengi were actually involved in the discussion as well as Answerman and it was decided that nonhumans can be non bestophiliac material as long as the fapper is aware of the dangers animal similarities pose to ones ability to separate reality from fantasy.
>> Anonymous
/d/ would be some much better if people didn't whine about this so much. Transformations are fine, and allowed, just fucking post images or shut up. (or ask for source :P)
>> Anonymous
>>538098
What the fuck did anon just say?
>> Anonymous
>>538087
I really don't know what to think of this one. On one hand, it's hot to see it mid transformation, but on the other hand, I'm feeling something here. Not a furry alert or anything, but something more of... Can't place it.
>> Anonymous
>>538236
Hint: It's the same feeling you get when you see vore.
>> Anonymous
>>538236
It's perhaps the level of retardedness in the concept that you find in furry, coupled with the crappy art.
>> Anonymous
Since i cannot make up my mind this leaves me confused. My mind is basically this: One part says ugly furry?, eww, burn it? One says transfromtaion, fapalicious? One says ugly shitty art, sage this shit? This leaves me with only one option, "When in doubt, SAGE"
>> Anonymous
in defense of the artist (whom I'll not name for fear of flaming) they dont enjoy drawing TF or Furry art, however accepting commisions while on a tight budget....well you cant really be picky
>> Anonymous
>>538265
oh, that's a good feeling
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
>>537720
Sauce?
>> Anonymous
>>538395in defense of the artist (whom I'll not name for fear of flaming)

FYI everyone, the OP was done by Sandi Elsen, which is the name in the corner of the pic if you had bothered to look.
>> Anonymous
>>538556
THE FUCKING THING IS WATERMARKED WITH THE WEB ADDRESS.

>>538087
Furry Friday is /b/ exclusive, and even they don't like it. Edmol is a furry TF artist, although he does do some nice TF every once in a while. The Peach to Bowzer TF gives me a nice stiffy whenever I think about it long enough.
>> Anonymous
bump for transformations