PDA

View Full Version : Still Life



veljko
07-13-2004, 04:24 PM
I got inspired by the cool still life images posted on the forums so I decided to take a wack at it-

hope you like the results- It was done rather qucikly, but im really happy how it turned out!

I was going for a "painting" look

:)

bloontz
07-13-2004, 05:04 PM
I love the look you've achieved, not sure about the balance of the composition but that may just be me.

SODAPLAY
07-13-2004, 05:48 PM
Very nice! Doen't look like 3d at all. Looks like a painting...

- SODA

tmdag
07-13-2004, 07:29 PM
composition is not good. pears are ok, that cherries are too plastic, also gall has too ideal reflections as an painting. Nice filter / post production/

retinajoy
07-14-2004, 05:20 AM
It's good. You have got a very nice paint look. The composition could be a lot more interesting though. Looks a bit flat. Too much space between the cup and pears. How about having the cherries dangle out of the cup. Experiment a bit more with the placement of things.

EDIt: U could play a bit more with the frame size too. Maybe more of a portrait dimension rather than a LW default ratio.

veljko
07-14-2004, 06:27 AM
Hi- first of, thx for the replies:)
and for the nice comments-
I would have to disagree with the composition comments, specialy with tmdag who did not even bother to elaborate on his oppinion-
The composition was taken from a painting of an american painter by the name of chris peters, so i cant really take the credit for it- But i rather like it. What you refer as bad I think is interesting in the formality and stillnes of the composition counterparted by the oddly placed cherries. The toughtfully placed objects on one hand "reveal" that its a staged composition, but on the other hand leave the viewer with a sence of disorder thous hinting the every day spontanious composition. The flatnes of the imagee IMHO is not a negativ thing and I would not change it.
On the comments about the cherry made by tmdag- I agree that the cherries are a bit plastic and not natural looking, but since I was tryng to reproduce a feel from the early 1600 Dutch school of paining the plastic look of the cherries was a must-
the reflection on the cup are just fine if you ask me- dont know if i understood your critique but the reflection should be crisp and over realistic
Anyways I am glad you aprove on the pears atleast:)
@RetinaJoy. the dimensions of the image were dictated by the dimensions of the paining which I took as a template for the composition- It is not a LW default ratio-
but thx for the input I will make a new image with a glass with some vine and a ceramic bowl with cherries in it as my next project-

;)

retinajoy
07-14-2004, 07:52 AM
Hi veljko,

Didn't know it was an interpretation of an actual painting. It would be better if you had mentioned it and then we could have focussed our crit better.

A warning though. Another artist on CGTalk who used a painting for inspiration faced an unnecessary self-righteous lynch mob for not mentioning his source clearly.

Anyway, I found the painting here:

http://www.studiopeters.com/

You got a very good likeness. Yours is less dark with softer shadows from the cherries. Composition and meaning - I guess it is a matter of taste. As I said before - 'It's good"

bloontz
07-14-2004, 08:32 AM
There are some subtle differences in the actual painting that seem to help balance it. The darker shadow from the cherries lead your eye to the pears which are arranged so that your eye is directed to the goblet and back to the cherries. I think the overall blurriness and the shadows on the tabletop help also. At least for me the stronger lines in your interpretation lead my eye off of the page. Little things like the addition of the leaf and the direction of the stem on the pear on the right and the strong lines from the table edge are breaking the strong triangular composition of the original.

I do love the overall look you've achieved. Again it may just be me but others seem to feel the same. Just trying to be helpful.

veljko
07-14-2004, 08:38 AM
Thx for the input and the warning-
@bloontz- your suggestions make sence- i will make the modifications and post the results
I didnt mention the real painting becouse often people compare the two and give advices how to get closer to the original and that is something i wanted to avoid-
I used the original as a guiding method for the composition, the colours and the mood- I ended up with a different finsih, but the idea was not to make an exact replica-
Thanx again for the cool input an the time invested:)
thats why I love these forums, you can chat and talk about your works with a cool crowd:)

danilo
07-14-2004, 09:49 AM
If somebody did it before you(especialy somebody with questonable painting skils),that still doesn't mean that it is perfect,or even good.

danilo

tmdag
07-14-2004, 10:18 AM
that compositoin is really not good, Light and shadow make composition. That composition is too haevy on the right site.Gall is flying on his left site and whole table is crooked. if Your 3d is exact copy of some painting that means - painting is screw up ;]

veljko
07-15-2004, 04:15 AM
I dont agree with that statement that light and shadow make a composition-They are a part of a much more complex situation. That statment is a huge simplification of a much larger issue-
I do agree that the shadows of the pears are too strong-thats a good observation, i will soften them down,
-the rest, I think, is gibberish

veljko
07-15-2004, 02:23 PM
here is the revised version-
i have changed the leaf and stem direction, softed the pear shadows and contrasted the cherry shadows, blured and darkened the edges of the frame-
I hope you can spot the difference:)

retinajoy
07-15-2004, 02:30 PM
That does look better. The less harsh lighting and the more contrasting cherry shadow does make a difference. :D

Tiger
07-15-2004, 02:44 PM
Great work!

Crooked table? Nice!

Me like poster...how much is it? :D

bloontz
07-15-2004, 02:52 PM
That makes a big difference, really helps keep the eye on the page.

BTW, your little guy with the button eyes was one of my favorite CG works ever, what became of that guy?

veljko
07-15-2004, 03:33 PM
:) thx for the cool replies
Now when i think about it i think tmdag was trying to tell me that the line of the table is not perfetly horizontal- Hmm..maybe that is a problem?
I never was a perfectly horizontal guy anyway..
:)
Poster will be on sale as soon as i get my over grown elephant to jump trough a burning hoop- I told myselfe not to start with the poster manifacturing untill he does that
:D
since most of you will think im joking ill post a picture of him and the hoop-
the image is rather small so i hope you can see it all- the elephant insisted to make the image 175x128 pixels in size- he is peculiar like that..
@bloontz- we are thinking of making a game with the button eyes puppet as the main char- its not a joke-
& I am tryng to cut a deal to make t-shirts- Ill defenetly use him for a t-shirt if that deal goes trough-
:) Thx for that- I tought he was a niffty little critter myselfe!

@retinajoythx for that input- its hard to spot thoes things when your working on something-
:)

tmdag
07-15-2004, 06:36 PM
table is crooked but gall is not.
cherrys are too plastic all the time.

bloontz
07-15-2004, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by tmdag
table is crooked but gall is not.
cherrys are too plastic all the time.

I think I see what you are saying, the table is tilted but the goblet appears to be straight up and down. It does seem that the goblet isn't flat on the table, though it could be an illusion.

veljko
07-16-2004, 04:11 AM
@tmdag-Im posting a wireframe front view& i hear you about the cheriies-but im leaving them as they are,
i dont mind the plastic look
btw. your posts would be much nicer if they were not written like you charge by the sentence-
its not a a telegram
:)


just a friendly tip-

tmdag
07-16-2004, 05:18 AM
Sorry man ;]
I just have a lot of work, and no time to sleep at all .... for whole week now ;[
You did good job, I'm just searching some small bugs that normal person would not nottice at all, just to help you make it perfect ;]

Weetos
07-16-2004, 06:57 AM
Hi all

If I were posting on another board, I would have said "FRONTPAGE !!!!!" :)

Great work as usual

Cheers

Weetos


PS: I first wanted to post lots of critics but I just read another thread about critics and decided I'd rather not ... as I didn't post any good thing on this forum

PSS: just kidding ,veljko :)

PSSS: errr actually one thing is true : I've never made something good enough to post it in the forum :p

Scott Wilkinson
07-16-2004, 11:09 AM
Really nice work!

One thing I would suggest....

In my opinion the camera lense setting you used to render the image is too low (is it 35mm perhaps?). I would suggest 50mm- 70mm. I think if you do this it will look more like it was painted live via a human eye.

Sincerely, Scott

veljko
07-16-2004, 11:23 AM
@weetos- i see my little scare tactic is finally paying of:D
@tmdag hope youll meet your deadlines:)-after a few sleeples days you gain the full understanding of the word "DEADline":(
@Scott- i actually never in my life changed the mm of the lens:) could you please elaborate what it does-
thx a bunch!

Scott Wilkinson
07-17-2004, 01:06 PM
Hi,

I wanted to respond to your question about Camera lens properties (i.e. zoom factor). It is a very important tool. Check your manual and experiment. For your still life, I would try 50mm. This simulates a 50mm lens on a camera which is about what the human eye is. It should make your still life look much more realistic. (you will have to move the camera back a bit as you adjust the zoom.

Sincerely, Scott

veljko
07-17-2004, 03:26 PM
thx-
ill look into it-
:)

shaun_michael
07-18-2004, 03:40 PM
Hi,

I'm a newbie at Lightwave (even though I've had it since version 5!!!!) and enjoy reading all the crits and stuff. I'm not a newbie at picture composition though, and would, if I may, like to add to the crits already posted (lol, no, I dont charge by the line as you'll see!!! )

The post about the 50mm lens is a good tip. The human eye is closer to about 46mm if that's of any help, as it would lend to a more "natural" looking feeling of depth.

The horizontal line of the table is extremely important in your composition as it relates so strongly to all edges of frame, as well as the rear edge of the table too. With this leaning left to right, your eye is led in an unnatural manner across the image. I'm guessing that most of us read left to right, top to bottom, and thats why it feels unnatural.

The leaf on the pear seems sightly incongruous to me. I cant explain it, but it might have something to do with the smooth outline of the Pear being broken up by this sticking out the side pointing away from the pear itself. I think I'd either remove it, or have it drooping down to the other pear so the eye can complete a circuit of the two pears uninterupted.

The cherries have been mentioned, but as a newbie lightwave user I'm in no position to comment.

Overall I like the replica of the painting, and also the painting itself, its starkness is somewhat, well, relaxing I think, and the colours are very warm and homely. I'm trying to imagine whats just outside the frame too, which is just as important to allow us to create the whole mood in our heads and to put things into context - the brain like things in its place! :)


Finally, light are dark are two of the most important aspects of composition. Representing depth on a 2d plane can only be achieved by adding the right light(s) in the right place(s). No light, no depth. There are many other depth cues we use when decoding 2d to 3d in our heads, and this is one of the most important.

Thanks for letting me ramble on my first post. Nice work, and an interesting thread for crusty composition fanatics like myself.

Cheers, now back to figuring out why my box looks so, well, boxy! lol.

Shaun

EDIT: Of course what I meant was the table leans down from right to left, not left to right, against the natural way in which we scan things with the eye. Oops!

veljko
07-19-2004, 03:27 AM
hi there michael-

When i first saw the post I tought its gonna be one of thoes boring ramblings:)
Im glad to say i was wrong-
Thanx for an insightive and interesting comment-
Although, i would have to say that as renesance tought us there are many effective ways to show the depth of a painting (perspective is something that edpends on many other things then light and shadow (just look at the Leonardo da Vincies "last supper", and you will see that the depth of space largerly depends on the lines of the cieling and the the dark brown squares on the side walls-i belive thoes to be tapestry of some sort) the convulsion to a single point in space is what depicts the perspective.
What to say of the fauvists?Take a look at Gauguins "christ-jaune"
Thats a painting with not one single shadow or any light-dark help for the perspective depiction and he painted an open landscape..

As for the other observations I agree, and since I kinda moved on to another projects Im gonna have to make thoes changes at a later date-
Anyways, thanx for the time and for an interesting post!

:)

shaun_michael
07-19-2004, 03:53 AM
Hi again Veljko,

You are right of course when you mention that there are many other depth signifiers that can be used to create the illusion of the third dimension.

In Christ jaune you will actually notice that there is light and shade present, under the chest of the woman to the left of Christ, and in various other places. A particularly flat viewpoint was chosen, cutting the perspective down very much thus concentrating the eye in the foreground. In the Da vinci work you mention, Last Supper, the perspective is very strong, drawing your eye to the centre of the frame, where christ is perfectly positioned, but you will also notice that all horizontals and verticals are perfectly straight also - and for very good reason.

When I was talking about light and dark, perhaps I should have said light and shade, not just black and white and varying shades of grey, but the many shades and tints of colour that serve the purpose of signfying the different levels of light falling on various places.

Its an interesting topic, and one that, like in all of art, is open for discussion on its use (or lack of use), which is why what we dowith images either as a hobby or as a profession is always so interesting.

There is room for objectivity and subjectivity, and I hope it remains that way.

Enjoyed your work, and hope to see more in the near future.

Cheers,

Shaun

reverie
07-19-2004, 06:57 AM
The texturing on this is something I'm going to try to emulate myself. It's lovely -- the "noise" effect is so interesting. The colors are nice, too -- analagous (sp?) right? Orange, yellow, peachy...

Composition-wise, at first glance, it might seem that the pears are too far away from the wineglass, but on second glance, the whole arrangement makes up a triangle shape that's easy for my eyes to rest on. :)

veljko
07-20-2004, 03:46 AM
thx-
there were some problems with it, but i think the second version is better-
I enjojed making this piece, i think ill do one more soon-
:)

Zarathustra
07-20-2004, 03:08 PM
Ok, I'm confused. This is all within LW?

Hervé
07-20-2004, 11:45 PM
really great LW replica here.... I love your LW render, but not the painting at all... it's too naive for what the painter is trying to communicte (understand not enough work here, and I like to SEE the work in a figurative still life...)

all that is just a POV .... of course....

idea.... a window reflecting in some cherries would not be too bad....:D ;)

@+

veljko
07-21-2004, 02:57 AM
@Herve- HI, too teell you the truth i was more interested in doing a still life image then making a good painting:)
Its all an exsecsize fo rme-
@Zarathustra- all done in LW-EXCEPT:) the cracked old painting finish- This was done in photopaint..(oh yea, in the last image i softened the pear shadow in photopaint aswell..)

Hervé
07-21-2004, 04:41 AM
I really like yours Velijko. Now it's time for a new challenge:D

veljko
07-21-2004, 04:50 AM
Yes, why not!
:)
who is the artist?

Hervé
07-21-2004, 06:27 AM
Pieter Claesz, a Dutch painter in the 16 century....

I go to Tefaf in Holland every year, and I have a full catalogue of real beauties, so I'll scan a few for you , then you'll have a good choice for your next....;)

veljko
07-21-2004, 02:59 PM
great- but do it quickly cos I allready strated on the mental constructions for this one:)

Zarathustra
07-21-2004, 03:25 PM
ok. I was waiting for a mention of the post work.

Could you post the render from LW, before your post modifications? I'm just curious.

Also, I'm thrilled that there are people around here who actually know traditional art.
You should see, if you haven't already, Girl with a Pearl Earing (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0335119/). Great movie. I hadn't experienced that kind of buzz since I visited Rembrandt's studio several years ago. Vermeer was one of the first artists whose works I had to replicate when I first started my study of oils.

veljko
07-21-2004, 04:16 PM
here is the image straight from LW-
I finisehd the art academy last year- studied painting:)
I havent seen the movie- end will make the effort to find it somewhere so i can watch it-
I was not much into making replicas while i studied, and most of my work was a bit too expresionistic and nerveous for the old masters:), but since i was a figurative painter, naturally i allways studied and admired them-
Somehow i loved the way two brush strokes can become a pearl on a neckleace, so perfectly and elegantly done- with just two brush strokes..
:)

Zarathustra
07-21-2004, 04:31 PM
Thank you.

well, Vermeer was a study in blocking values and colors for me. That was at the beginning. At the end, I replicated a section of a Caravaggio.
I was specifically studying the northern techiques near the end of the Renaissance on. Painstaking process of underpainting followed by subsequent thin layers of color, blending with sables so at the end there's little or no brushstrokes like Jan van Eyck.

Also if you never have, it's worth it to grind your own pigments at least once in your life. There are scenes of this in the movie. I don't know how she stayed so clean doing it, though. Maybe I'm just a slob. A dumb slob who wore white while making alizeran crimson. Dumb, dumb....

Hervé
07-22-2004, 12:45 AM
here you go... Take it while it's hot....:D ;)

Hervé
07-22-2004, 12:47 AM
#2

Hervé
07-22-2004, 12:48 AM
#3

Hervé
07-22-2004, 12:49 AM
#4

Hervé
07-22-2004, 12:50 AM
#5

Hervé
07-22-2004, 12:51 AM
#6

Hervé
07-22-2004, 12:53 AM
#7

Hervé
07-22-2004, 12:54 AM
#8

Hervé
07-22-2004, 12:55 AM
#9

veljko
07-22-2004, 03:54 AM
In the end i decided to go with #3- the interior with the cat. But ill leave the cat out- she is a bit to much work:)
since i just landed two mascote deals and one 3d shootout game modeling job It will take me a while, but ill od it:)
so, watch out for my post:)

Hervé
07-22-2004, 04:24 AM
And a really good choice... yes the cat is a bit... err... mmmh... Be sure that I'll be the first to comment ....:D

BTW If you need closer views of details, let me know !

@+
Hervé

Hervé
07-22-2004, 04:28 AM
I'd like to try #6 myself, the hard part being the rabbit.... ouch...

I've always wonder how the hell they were doing with dead animals for painting.... I mean they had no other references than the actual scene, and I can imagine the scene in #6 becoming smelly very fast....:D