PDA

View Full Version : Amazing LW realistic Female Model



Pages : [1] 2

WilliamVaughan
11-10-2006, 11:52 AM
Amazing LW realistic Female Model

******Warning*********
Nudity




http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=360276&page=4&pp=15

hrgiger
11-10-2006, 12:25 PM
Oh boy, I can just see oDDity typing furiously away now, sweat pouring from his brow, firing both cannons at the soft core porn industry....

byte_fx
11-10-2006, 03:08 PM
That is absolutely awesome!

Haven't read the entire thread yet so don't know if it includes wireframes but I hope it does. Otherwise it's kind of hard to believe it's a 3D render.

byte_fx

oDDity
11-10-2006, 03:42 PM
Well, the surfacing is excellent, the anatomy modeling is average, but it's not in the same category as Stalhberg's, since his intent here is technical experimentation in skin shading and not to titillate the viewer.
Let's face it though, he could have chosen a better photo to copy than this one, which is obviously taken directly from some amateur porn shoot.

Nicolas Jordan
11-10-2006, 04:13 PM
G2 seems to be the tool to use to get realistic looking skin shading to top off a very well done model.

StereoMike
11-10-2006, 05:27 PM
I think the scene makes perfectly sense. You can convince the viewer easier with an imperfect shot. It's that amateur look and the flash that give the impression it is real. There was an LW image of a flash-lit girl lying on a bed, that was really good aswell.
I think the flash-lit pictures work out so good, cause everyone knows how a bad lit photo looks like, but the actual internal sensation of the real scene may differ and won't be matched unless you hook up a cable into your brain.
I think it's fruitless to try to match the inner sensation, but trying to achieve something like tv-, movie-or photo-look can work out very good (like here)

Mike

Bushmsn
11-10-2006, 05:33 PM
Were do I find this image the link leds me to a chat site?

StereoMike
11-10-2006, 05:37 PM
it's a thread like this here, go to the first page (or use this link:
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=360276&page=1&pp=15 )

But don't miss the images he posted e.g various lighting rigs etc

Mike

Matt
11-10-2006, 06:33 PM
Quite simply the most realistic render I think I have ever seen in LightWave, totally photographic.

I'm in awe!

jasond
11-11-2006, 12:15 PM
the anatomy modeling is average

I'm curious as to what you would improve. Can you offer some specifics?

oDDity
11-11-2006, 12:25 PM
It's hard to list specifics for people who don't know the subtleties of anatomy in the first place. It just sounds like nitpicking, but it's those subtleties that make all the difference, and sort the men from the boys. Any bozo can get an arm or a finger or a breast in roughly the right place and make it roughly the right size and shape, making it look good for the average viewer.
I think study of classical sculpture gives you great insight into the subtleties of anatomy, and that's what I've been doing this year.

Ztreem
11-11-2006, 12:28 PM
It's a really realistic render, but I don't like it. It's always naked girls with big boobs, nothing wrong with that, just a little bit boring.
I agree with oDDity her anatomy doesn't look right, especially her feet.

Puguglybonehead
11-11-2006, 12:59 PM
I honestly thought I was looking at his photo reference when I first looked at the renders. Just a little bit trashy, in a convincing way. Love the subtle imperfections and the perfectly done 'bad lighting'. Makes me almost want to do something Bukowski-esqe for a character study. This, and Oddity's 'Centaurette' are definitely making me consider purchasing G2.

DogBoy
11-11-2006, 02:35 PM
forget it. it wasn't important.

colkai
11-13-2006, 04:59 AM
Never seen anything so effective in LW before this.
Much talk of if the model / scene context / anatomy is correct or P.C. but really, nothing else out there compares to this from LW that I have seen so far.

If folks think it's below par / nothing special, then money and mouth spring to mind. Y'all reckon your work is superior, let's see it out there.

Like it or no, this is raising the profile of LW, if your work is the best / superior, then why not add to the shout out instead of just plain shouting?

oDDity
11-13-2006, 05:23 AM
I would like to see some closeups and an animation though, that would really show how effective the surfacing is.
G2 sss kind of breaks down when t comes to animation.

colkai
11-13-2006, 05:57 AM
I would like to see some closeups and an animation though, that would really show how effective the surfacing is.
G2 sss kind of breaks down when t comes to animation.

Not discounting what your saying here, but even so, it's been a long time coming that we have anything like this to "counteract" the plethora of Max/Maya work.

To be honest, at this level, I think a good animation here may just tip it into the "freaky" area. That whole "uncanny valley" thing, just think it's great to even see this sort of work.

In fact, what would be really interesting would be to see a clothed version and see if the realism still "sells" in the clothing textures / modelling.

Red_Oddity
11-13-2006, 06:27 AM
What? No Cgtalk frontpage?
Usually it's littered with nude women and shiny cars :p

oDDity
11-13-2006, 06:48 AM
Well, they'll obviously wait till it's finished, they rarely, if ever, put WIPs on the front page.


Not discounting what your saying here, but even so, it's been a long time coming that we have anything like this to "counteract" the plethora of Max/Maya work.
Not really, if you look at the first page of the CG choice gallery, it's a pretty mixed bag, there's XSI, cinema 4d, Max, Maya, I'm currently in there twice with lightwave stuff, Rich Wright got into the CG talk choice gallery a few times with very realistic G2 skin shaded characters, and to be honest, they were better than this. This seems a little bit gimmicky to me ATM, and I will reserve judgement until I see some closeups of it.

colkai
11-13-2006, 07:13 AM
What? No Cgtalk frontpage?
Usually it's littered with nude women and shiny cars :p
The Ballistic book adverts you mean? :p
Oh sorry, they don't have cars in. :hey:

Bog
11-13-2006, 07:44 AM
That's really, really good stuff. That it takes a hard look to realise that it's not a photo is probably one of the best things going for it.

I honestly can't see much to crit here. The hair could be a bit more hair-like, but then in the flashbulb-light, it's plausible. The lighting works, the surfacing works, the modelling's some of the best human work I've seen, Steve Stahlberg's included - in fact, the more natural not-photoshopped-model look makes it even better for me.

It'd be nice if the images weren't censored, as it does jar the eye a bit. Setting the bar for nekkid chicks in 3D, LW or no LW.

Score one for the home team.

jasond
11-13-2006, 07:45 AM
It's hard to list specifics for people who don't know the subtleties of anatomy in the first place.

Having studied for years as a painter / illustrator, I'm very familiar with human anatomy. I'm also familiar with the anatomical exaggeration that characterizes a variety of different styles, *including* "classical."

He was clearly not attempting an idealized form. That being the case, what would you have improved in this model to advance it beyond an "average" normal body to an "excellent" normal body?

Bog
11-13-2006, 08:01 AM
He was clearly not attempting an idealized form. That being the case, what would you have improved in this model to advance it beyond an "average" normal body to an "excellent" normal body?

You've got me there, to be honest. Bend the toes a bit more, give more illusion of strain on the tendons in the foot?

jasond
11-13-2006, 08:18 AM
Does that qualify as modeling or posing (bending the toes)?

Bog
11-13-2006, 08:21 AM
Does that qualify as modeling or posing (bending the toes)?

It's posing if the character's for animation, modelling if it's just for a still. But it's an arguable distinction, as many characters are modelled in The Position(tm) (fanfare), then posed.

Given the flashbulb photo style render, I guess that would be modelling.

oDDity
11-13-2006, 08:28 AM
It's average, not because what's there is very wrong, but because it's quite basic, and therefore many people could make a similar generic basic female, it doesn't require a tremendous amount of skill or knowledge.
I've downloaded the torso .obj he linked to, and it's really quite plain.
As I said, I'd really like to see some closeups and different angles to be able to judge it fully.

Bog
11-13-2006, 08:29 AM
It's average, not because what's there is very wrong, but because it's quite basic, and therefore many people could make a similar generic basic female, it doesn't require a tremendous amount of skill or knowledge.

*sigh*

oDDity
11-13-2006, 08:39 AM
My view has always been that a model should stand up on it's own, without textures. This model would not pass that test.

Phil
11-13-2006, 08:44 AM
For me, the only issue was really the feet. There's something not quite right there - almost as though they are made out of concrete - no deformation or obvious signs of loading at the joints. That said, only one image was visible when I looked due to imageshack bandwidth constraints. I haven't looked since; perhaps it has been improved since.

Still, it's pretty convincing. No competition coming from me. I'm just too **** lazy to model this kind of thing and since I prefer animating, I would go for an out-of-the-box or autogenerated mesh anyday :)

Bog
11-13-2006, 09:29 AM
For me, the only issue was really the feet.

That's pretty much it, really. The hair, arguably, could be improved but everything else seems entirely fit for purpose.

ericsmith
11-13-2006, 09:35 AM
It's average, not because what's there is very wrong, but because it's quite basic, and therefore many people could make a similar generic basic female, it doesn't require a tremendous amount of skill or knowledge.
I've downloaded the torso .obj he linked to, and it's really quite plain.
As I said, I'd really like to see some closeups and different angles to be able to judge it fully.

First off, what you're judging is the base cage that was sent to zbrush for more detailed modeling. Sound familiar?

Second, you originally said that the anatomy seen in his image was just average. Now you're clarifying that your judgement was based on details that are too subtle to be seen in the final work. That's just absurd. With a standard like that, no model could ever be considered worthy.

Eric

oDDity
11-13-2006, 10:07 AM
I'm judging it based on what I can see in the renders, and I can't see any more detail in them than on the so-called 'base cage'.
I said specifically that the anatomy modeling was average, yes, due to it's lack of detail, and I stand by it. An open GL screen grab of this model with no shaders or textures or fancy lighting would be no more than an average model.

oDDity
11-13-2006, 10:09 AM
That's pretty much it, really. The hair, arguably, could be improved but everything else seems entirely fit for purpose.
The hair is just pasted in from the original porn photo he's copying.

Bog
11-13-2006, 10:24 AM
I'm judging it based on what I can see in the renders, and I can't see any more detail in them than on the so-called 'base cage'.
I said specifically that the anatomy modeling was average, yes, due to it's lack of detail, and I stand by it. An open GL screen grab of this model with no shaders or textures or fancy lighting would be no more than an average model.

Ye-ee-eee-eeessss, but the final render is the interesting bit. Otherwise we'd just be doing CAD.

Don't see anyplace he's mentioned copying and pasting hair specifically from a porn photo. From a photo, yes, and I know you have this urge to make things as "controversial" as you can.

oDDity
11-13-2006, 10:34 AM
He says that the hair is a composite, I assume it's from the same photo he's copying the model from, would make sense.

StereoMike
11-13-2006, 12:02 PM
What impresses me the most is when cgi meets photorealism. There's not much outthere in that regard. I mean not much successful projects. Lots of trial and error, but only very few images that make even a cgi guy wonder if it's the reference image or the render.
Instant respect to everyone who get's this done, no matter which package.
Some "artistic" approach like celshaded looks or this sterile whiteroom cgi thing are way more easy to do, cause you define your style by yourself, it can't be measured against real life (besides proportions etc).
You can define art also by the craft that imitates life. That pic truly does, no matter if the splinecage is cleaner or more messy than yours, OddIty...
Pure envy.

Mike

oDDity
11-13-2006, 12:56 PM
I've never tried to do any photorealistic skin renders, so I've nothing to be envious about.

Bog
11-13-2006, 01:59 PM
I've never tried to do any photorealistic skin renders, so I've nothing to be envious about.

And - no offence, chap, because it's glaringly obvious that you have a natural affinity and mindset to 3D modelling that is actual, genuine talent - it's that particular gap in your experience that makes your crit of this particular piece of work of only partial relevance.

Like I say - if all that mattered was the mesh, we'd be doing CAD.

In a way, I feel bad for you on this one - you kinda got pulled in, and everyone was expecting The Simon Cowell of the NewTek Forums to come riding in on an exquisitely modelled CG horse. Sucks having a rep sometimes...

Anyway. Top work, say I - it did the job just fine. (Though the feet really don't look like they're supporting any weight).

cresshead
11-13-2006, 02:15 PM
nice pik!

StereoMike
11-13-2006, 02:34 PM
Pure envy.

I was talking about me. And I haven't done photorealistic skin renders either.

Mike

oDDity
11-13-2006, 02:41 PM
And - no offence, chap, because it's glaringly obvious that you have a natural affinity and mindset to 3D modelling that is actual, genuine talent - it's that particular gap in your experience that makes your crit of this particular piece of work of only partial relevance.
Heh, well ok, let's have a rule where everyone has to attach their most realistic skin render, and the relevance of the post should be judged according to the quality of the render...

I said in my first post that this was excellent surfacing and average modeling - an entirely accurate summation, and was quite happy to leave it there, but yet again, I get endless posts criticising my critique and asking for clarification etc.

Bog
11-13-2006, 03:24 PM
Like I say - it's tough towing a rep, and someone was calling for you to ride in before you even posted.

These little communities are funny sometimes. Anyway. FWIW, I was actually trying to sympathise. I know you don't want it, but I do a lot of things people don't want. It's my nature :)

dablan
11-16-2006, 09:43 AM
It's a really realistic render, but I don't like it. It's always naked girls with big boobs, nothing wrong with that, just a little bit boring.
I agree with oDDity her anatomy doesn't look right, especially her feet.

I didn't think the boobs were too big.

:thumbsup:

Ztreem
11-16-2006, 10:14 AM
I didn't think the boobs were too big.

:thumbsup:

Ok! got me there! Wrong by me in this particular case. :D

jasond
11-16-2006, 01:15 PM
I said in my first post that this was excellent surfacing and average modeling - an entirely accurate summation, and was quite happy to leave it there, but yet again, I get endless posts criticising my critique and asking for clarification etc.

Well, in regard to my contribution, I asked you for specifics and you were condescending in your non-answer. So, I have none of your insight and too much of your attitude.

I wasn't challenging you. It was a request for more insight.

kopperdrake
11-16-2006, 01:35 PM
I didn't think the boobs were too big.

:thumbsup:

Serious talk, serious talk, serious talk, BLAM!! :D No scars though Dan - those are genuine polygons ;)

Great, stunning even, image - agree with the feet, but then he's said it's a WIP and he's working on it/them. My sister's also got feet of those kind of proportions so no problem with the size either - again, just another tick to the realism as far as I'm concerned. Just the weighting really.

Had me fooled first glance, so being a human with eyes I'd say that makes me eminently qualified to say whether this a good realistic study or not.

Envy from this corner too...

Verlon
11-16-2006, 04:35 PM
My sister's also got feet of those kind of proportions so no problem with the size either - again, just another tick to the realism as far as I'm concerned. Just the weighting really.



Another computer geek who needs revenge against his sister....no wonder we get stereotyped :devil:

Seriously great work on the model (to include modeling, texturing, lighting, and everything else that went into making that scene).

Whether or not you like the material, that's an incredible piece of 3D work. It could have been worse..... At least he didn't use a picture of ME. None of you would want to see that. :D

Stooch
11-16-2006, 05:56 PM
i think the model was actualy posing for the artist, doubt its a porn shoot.

also, the face is my biggest concern with that 3d model. its not quite there, the edges of the chin and the overall lighting is off. hard shadowing etc.

T-Light
11-16-2006, 06:19 PM
Have to say I like it a lot. Really wanted to take a picture, grab an hdr from the same scene and try and replicate the form and texture, it's got to be educational if nothing else.

This is great work, If I had any crits it would be that I don't like the knees in one of the shots and as Bog says, she needs CGI hair. However, it's still a wip :) :thumbsup:

umstitch
11-18-2006, 09:21 PM
..how is this amazing?
matching the model to the reference, so that the model looks like the reference//!

..or the reference looks like the model, or... (whatever)

..kinda reminds me of odditys copy of a vermeer painting..
..me thinks theres far more sexual frustration than artistic skill here...

..for me the test has to be , what do you do with it? ..because the novelty of making cg graphics look like photo reference is easily the most boring geeky pasttime ever. modelling a girl with her legs open for the purpose of making your f9 render look like a photo of a girl with her legs open??/!...

(actually, having just looked again, i think its creepy and unless there has been posted some !amazing" node setup or texture preset that has evolved from this i really cant see the point)

..as an employer i would find this irrelevant to a very large degree8/

jasonwestmas
11-18-2006, 09:26 PM
Like most CG realism, it's cool on a technical level. Doesn't go beyond that.

Puguglybonehead
11-18-2006, 10:53 PM
..how is this amazing?
matching the model to the reference, so that the model looks like the reference//!

..or the reference looks like the model, or... (whatever)

..kinda reminds me of odditys copy of a vermeer painting..
..me thinks theres far more sexual frustration than artistic skill here...

..for me the test has to be , what do you do with it? ..because the novelty of making cg graphics look like photo reference is easily the most boring geeky pasttime ever. modelling a girl with her legs open for the purpose of making your f9 render look like a photo of a girl with her legs open??/!...

(actually, having just looked again, i think its creepy and unless there has been posted some !amazing" node setup or texture preset that has evolved from this i really cant see the point)

..as an employer i would find this irrelevant to a very large degree8/

The actual reference pic hasn't been posted, so we don't know how close to the actual source the picture is. From what I read, it is based on a 3d.sk model (the real live kind). I don't remember ever seeing any pictures of women posed in bedrooms there.

The fact that, at first glance, the render actually looked like an amateur porn photo (the artist's intention), was enough to impress me. It's not your usual 'idealized' rendering of a female. Seems like an appropriate statement on much of the other renderings of females out there that are passed off as 'art'. Very clever IMHO.

jasonwestmas
11-18-2006, 10:59 PM
Is that what it is, social commentary on the female form? Blast, i didn't catch that one in all the lingerie plastered throughout CG talk.

richcz3
11-18-2006, 11:00 PM
Very well modeled and textured and the different lighting is a good mix.

It's a great render for all the right/wrong reasons.
Of course the subject on display is going to be controversial. Straight out sexual/erotic in your face pose. Not much left to the imagination here.
Would it be as good if the pose was toned down and the figure clothed? Or would it just meld into the mix of other female models/renders out there?

Well being the cats out of the bag - (err so to speak) and given that it is a WIP, I'm sure crits based on technical or subject matter will probablt ensure a long thread life.

Jim_C
11-18-2006, 11:05 PM
The handle on the white door seems too far off of the floor.

Or something weird with the doors.

Is that suppose to be a grade school class room?

Cageman
11-19-2006, 02:02 AM
..how is this amazing?



Digital stunt doubles are still mostly used in very fast-paced action. If you can give the director an option to use the digital double in a more evolving stunt, such as Legolas taking down that Mumakill (or what it's called) in LOTR-TROTK, you really need this kind of talent to make it look good.



..me thinks theres far more sexual frustration than artistic skill here...

Eh?



..for me the test has to be , what do you do with it? ..because the novelty of making cg graphics look like photo reference is easily the most boring geeky pasttime ever. modelling a girl with her legs open for the purpose of making your f9 render look like a photo of a girl with her legs open??/!...


We have CG-renders of cars, different computer tools, architecture, SCI-FI and cartoon-styled characters being posted all over the place, all the time. I don't see a problem having some people trying to do photoreal humans and environments. I take it you are offended by the picture?



(actually, having just looked again, i think its creepy and unless there has been posted some !amazing" node setup or texture preset that has evolved from this i really cant see the point)


He posted several screengrabs of his surface-presets and G2-settings. I think the G2-settings could be useful, because that is what he is using to get the look of the skin.




..as an employer i would find this irrelevant to a very large degree8/

If I were in a position to hire talanted LW-artists that can make photoreal humans for digital double stunt-shots, I would give this guy a call, give him a backplate and a couple of weeks to see what he could come up with in terms of lighting, shading and integreation.

oDDity
11-19-2006, 03:07 AM
I doubt that unless it was thrusting a pair of tits in his direction he'd be able to concentrate on it for that long.
Howeverl, if the director of 'Trailer Trash Housewives #6' needs a CG stunt double for a particularly strenuous money shot, he'll know who to call.

Captain Obvious
11-19-2006, 05:10 AM
I doubt that unless it was thrusting a pair of tits in his direction he'd be able to concentrate on it for that long.
Howeverl, if the director of 'Trailer Trash Housewives #6' needs a CG stunt double for a particularly strenuous money shot, he'll know who to call.
Oh, get a clue. :oye:

oDDity
11-19-2006, 06:49 AM
Currently bidding for one on ebay.

Emmanuel
11-19-2006, 06:55 AM
"Trailer Trash Housewives #6" is out ?
****.Nobody told me.

Verlon
11-19-2006, 07:12 AM
I doubt that unless it was thrusting a pair of tits in his direction he'd be able to concentrate on it for that long.
Howeverl, if the director of 'Trailer Trash Housewives #6' needs a CG stunt double for a particularly strenuous money shot, he'll know who to call.


That's hardly fair. Just because the artist chose to do this scene does not mean that it is the limit of his talents.

And for all your trash talk of porn, you familiarity with the Trailer Trash Housewives series makes you sound a bit hypocritical :P (j/k)

I don't much care for country music, but I can certainly respect the effort that goes into making it.

oDDity
11-19-2006, 07:47 AM
The only difference between you and I here, is that I dont' feel the need to actually write :P (j/k) when I'm making one.
I prefer to leave it hanging in the air.

colkai
11-19-2006, 08:04 AM
Hmm, interesting, for someone who decries modelling the naked female form as porn so much, oDDity sure does a fair amount of modelling breasts.

His last two 'sculptures' involved naked breasts, the work he so admires as true art and fine technical detail also happend to be of a woman with naked boobs.

Methinks the man doth protest too much. :p

Yeah yeah, I know, the work he LIKES with nudity is art, the work he doesn't is porn. Can ya say double standards?

Bog
11-19-2006, 08:13 AM
Nahhhh Col, if there's a vase or a leaf or summat, or if she's got hooves instead of feet, then it's art, not smut.

That's why nuddy ladies in art galleries are alright, but you get a clip 'round the ear for looking at those websites.

jasonwestmas
11-19-2006, 08:22 AM
Nudity isn't the issue in my mind. (Though this may be social commentary)There's a difference between over the top sexual provacativeness and a figure that is just nude and doing something that isn't intended to be in a sexual pose or context even. Though you can't hide the sexual nature of the beauty of a nude figure it can still be admired in the context of beauty without the bedroom eyes.

Bog
11-19-2006, 08:28 AM
Nudity isn't the issue in my mind. (Though this may be social commentary)There's a difference between over the top sexual provacativeness and a figure that is just nude and doing something that isn't intended to be in a sexual pose or context even. Though you can't hide the sexual nature of the beauty of a nude figure it can still be admired in the context of beauty without the bedroom eyes.

Personally, I think sexual content of this image is part of it's power. The intent of the image seems far more - to me - to be some girl who dressed up for her significant other, who then took a flash-photo of her striking a pose. The "porn" angle sort of falls over for me on that one, as porn these days tends to use the airbrush even more than normal advertising (http://www.campaignforrealbeauty.ca/bblank.asp?id=6895) does. The delibarate imperfections in this CG lass, rather than the burnished perfection of, say, Steve Stahlberg's stuff - seems more about a reality than a fantsy to me.

oDDity
11-19-2006, 09:23 AM
Yeah, like any woman stands around in stockings and suspenders using a chair as a prop in real life.

Bog
11-19-2006, 09:24 AM
Yeah, like any woman stands around in stockings and suspenders using a chair as a prop in real life.

Smug Mode Engaged, off to tell the wife how very much I love her...

(Play is an imporant part of a well-rounded relationship, IMHO)

oDDity
11-19-2006, 09:44 AM
(...in other words she may do, but only to fulfil your fantasy, which was my point)

Bog
11-19-2006, 09:48 AM
(...in other words she may do, but only to fulfil your fantasy, which was my point)

*level gaze*

Right.

I've come across a lot of motivations for women to dress themselves up - in 90% of them, it's been as much for their benefit as anyone else's. To feel sexy, to feel like they're more than $jobtitle, to just feel like they look special. Same reason I enjoy, f'rexample, putting on a smart outfit even if I'm going to the Jazz club 'round the corner (not the world's most salubrious establishment), or the way I've got a tux hired for a Christmas ball we're going to.

Anyway, that wasn't your point at all. Or if it was, you've set an all-time new world record for expressing it badly - you said :


Yeah, like any woman stands around in stockings and suspenders using a chair as a prop in real life.

You've changed your statement so quickly you've left a skidmark on the screen.

Stooch
11-19-2006, 09:59 AM
Heh, i think the modeling of that model is great but the combination of texturing and lighting ont he face (And maybe modeling) looks creepy.

as far as choice of subject matter, everyone has their fixations. odditiy likes hooves and sheep with tits with a nice pair of horns to grab onto. this guy happens to like traditional sluts with a psychopathic stare/smile. to each is own.

Bog
11-19-2006, 10:01 AM
That made about the psychopathic stare made me laugh - she does look a bit like she's about to go for the jugular, doesn't she?

Maybe what's really missing is a pair of fluffy bunny-ears projecting from a pot of boiling water ;)

Stooch
11-19-2006, 10:41 AM
AMAZING Toon style spread eagle-hop!

http://www.consumptionjunction.com/downloadsnew/cj_62841.jpg

lol jk but somehow this is relevant?

richcz3
11-19-2006, 11:01 AM
oDDity - Your "professional cynicism" is duly noted.
Then again it's probably less about cynicism and more to do with being jaded on the subject matter.

I've seen your other post on a female model and it's more apparent you don't like women modeled in an idealized fashion. Some of your comments border on being PC which removes any sense of real objectivity in your replies. Not being able to appreciate the technical merits because it doesn't suit your style. Perhaps she should be dressed from neck to toe in 15 century dress posed in position that suits the era?

oDDity
11-19-2006, 11:30 AM
*level gaze*

Right.

I've come across a lot of motivations for women to dress themselves up - in 90% of them, it's been as much for their benefit as anyone else's. To feel sexy, to feel like they're more than $jobtitle, to just feel like they look special. Same reason I enjoy, f'rexample, putting on a smart outfit even if I'm going to the Jazz club 'round the corner (not the world's most salubrious establishment), or the way I've got a tux hired for a Christmas ball we're going to.
Anyway, that wasn't your point at all. Or if it was, you've set an all-time new world record for expressing it badly
No one dresses up for their own benefit, it's always for the benefit of others, or rather a self consciousness about how others view them.
If you lived on a desert island by yourself, you wouldn't even bother combing your hair.

My point was that women don't naturally hang around in sexy undies draping themselves over chairs, unless it's for the attention of males, and therefore that scene is a fantasy made by - no surprise - a male..

oDDity
11-19-2006, 11:37 AM
I've seen your other post on a female model and it's more apparent you don't like women modeled in an idealized fashion. Some of your comments border on being PC which removes any sense of real objectivity in your replies. Not being able to appreciate the technical merits because it doesn't suit your style. Perhaps she should be dressed from neck to toe in 15 century dress posed in position that suits the era?

Have you ever tried limbo dancing? I think you'd be good at it.
Given that I adore neoclassical sculpture, which almost always depicts nudes in an idealised way, the exact opposite of what you said is true.
What I don't like is anything, male, female, animal or vegetable, depicted in a sexually provocative fashion, unless it's marketing itself as pornography.

Bog
11-19-2006, 11:50 AM
No one dresses up for their own benefit, it's always for the benefit of others, or rather a self consciousness about how others view them.
If you lived on a desert island by yourself, you wouldn't even bother combing your hair.

My point was that women don't naturally hang around in sexy undies draping themselves over chairs, unless it's for the attention of males, and therefore that scene is a fantasy made by - no surprise - a male..

Your argument is entirely circular and has absolutely nothing to do with the simple fact that people do dress that way for their partners sometimes. Therefore it's neither porn, nor fantasy, but a little snapshot of what happens behind closed doors. Your dislike of it unless it's sold as pornography doesn't enter into it. The assertation that "it doesn't happen in real life" is false.

oDDity
11-19-2006, 01:24 PM
So because something happens in real life, means it can't also be porn?
I don't think that statement would hold up to much scrutiny, now would it?
And of course 'fantasy' does not mean 'that which cannot happen in real life'

Bog
11-19-2006, 01:41 PM
So because something happens in real life, means it can't also be porn?

So because something happens in porn, it never happens in real life?

In case you forgot,


Yeah, like any woman stands around in stockings and suspenders using a chair as a prop in real life.

Well, yes. They do, actually. The fact that we're wandering all over the map doesn't prevent that from being true. Nor do motivations. Nor does the porn industry exaggerating and commercialising the fact mean that any lass who does do so in the privacy of her own home is in some way naughty.

Jeez, man, what's so wrong with just saying "Oh, well, y'got me there."


And of course 'fantasy' does not mean 'that which cannot happen in real life'

According to this 'ere OED, not explicitly by use of the word "Fantasy", no, but it is a word heavily laden with connotations of improbability.

oDDity
11-19-2006, 02:02 PM
Well, yes. They do, actually. The fact that we're wandering all over the map doesn't prevent that from being true. Nor do motivations. Nor does the porn industry exaggerating and commercialising the fact mean that any lass who does do so in the privacy of her own home is in some way naughty.

Jeez, man, what's so wrong with just saying "Oh, well, y'got me there."

...because you didn't.
As I say, it's a fantasy, and fantasy means dreaming/hoping, or for the purpsoes of art, depicting something which you want.
Whether that thing is actually possible or not is irrelevant.
You can have a fantasy about a women in stockings displaying her wares for you (as we have in this case) , which is perfectly possible in reality, or have a fantasy about an invisibility ring, which isn't possible.

jasonwestmas
11-19-2006, 02:38 PM
. . .or have a fantasy about an invisibility ring, which isn't possible.

Well why not? I'm so disappointed. I found it funny in College how all of the fine art students there thought that Fantasy was always something sexual. I guess it was one of those freudian schools ;) I like the real definition better.

mattclary
11-19-2006, 02:47 PM
The only flaws that jump out at me are the feet. I called my wife over and said, "Want to see something cool?". She was like, "OK, looking at naked women on the internet. What's special about that? Is it someone we know?" She had to look at it a few minutes before it occured to her to ask if it was CG.

We are a notoriously tough audience. Other than the feet, joe average porn surfer would be mouseing left handed to this pic and not think twice about it. It would never occur to them it was CG, depite only being an "average mesh".

jasonwestmas
11-19-2006, 02:54 PM
There's still a falseness about the model that I saw right away and it usually happens where the skin is supposed to crease e.g. breast and armpit folds are the most difficult; not that it is good or bad to look a little false. It's just CG and it serves the intent of the project.

Stooch
11-19-2006, 02:55 PM
people i hang around with would call it out in a heartbeat... lol. and they arent 3D professianals or anything.

Bog
11-19-2006, 03:17 PM
people i hang around with would call it out in a heartbeat... lol. and they arent 3D professianals or anything.

Well, yeah same here. Then again, after years of hanging around me, I've got 'em trained.

At the movies, one of them'll shout "I can see the edge of the matte!"

A beat of time will pass.

"Mark, you git, you've ruined movies for me!"

Arf, arf, arf.... I can't help it if my eternally pointing out observations about CG and reality got 'em in the habit of thinking... :)

umstitch
11-19-2006, 04:25 PM
..obviously it is commendable when an artist puts some effort into his/her work, but what we have here is an illusion of greatness, simply because it is frankly "the norm" to use a photo to produce a cg-based copy of said photo...honestly this is nt amazing its boring and quite typical./..but im sure its fascinating to those who dont see this kind of work very often.

..truth be told the subject matter is surely chosen to help the artist maintain an interest in sitting at the computer, hence we have boys fantasising over girls, so there ya go, nothings changed....how is that amazing?

..and as for being a stunt double, is it rigged, animated, and unbeleivably beleivable..no, cause thats the hard part, even with mocap..there are no beleivable human cg actors..yet (soon tho..) we re still in fantasy land...fantasising.

..but hey thanks for the info anyway..

umstitch
11-19-2006, 04:48 PM
We are a notoriously tough audience. Other than the feet, joe average porn surfer would be mouseing left handed to this pic and not think twice about it. It would never occur to them it was CG, depite only being an "average mesh".


..yeh thats what i was thinking:agree:

umstitch
11-19-2006, 04:53 PM
..whats curious is , if and when we have dedicated cg porn artists (not the poser models type) who are clever enough to fool the eye of the most seasoned observer of cg images, what happens to all the chicks making a living showing off their punani?

..just a thought//

umstitch
11-19-2006, 04:57 PM
We are a notoriously tough audience. Other than the feet, joe average porn surfer would be mouseing left handed to this pic and not think twice about it. It would never occur to them it was CG, depite only being an "average mesh".

..unless joe average porn surfer is looking for an average mesh with odd feet, cause thats what turns his wheel?
..still, kinda weird

umstitch
11-19-2006, 05:01 PM
...ok now i feel all dirty in a pixellated kinda way, so im off to bed...

..oddity, invective required..>>>>

Captain Obvious
11-19-2006, 05:06 PM
..whats curious is , if and when we have dedicated cg porn artists (not the poser models type) who are clever enough to fool the eye of the most seasoned observer of cg images, what happens to all the chicks making a living showing off their punani?

..just a thought//
Haha, maybe they'll call for a ban of it? :D

oDDity
11-19-2006, 05:06 PM
I suppose it will one day be possible to make animated CG porn actors so totally realistic that no one can tell the difference. That's maybe only 15-20 years away.
It'll always be faster and cheaper to hire real ones though, so I'm not sure what the point would be.

Captain Obvious
11-19-2006, 05:09 PM
It'll always be faster and cheaper to hire real ones though, so I'm not sure what the point would be.
Oh, that's obvious. The same reason the use CG doubles in film today. Stuff that a regular actor simply can't do. I don't think live action tentacle porn is very common, since it's probably hard to film. When you can make perfectly believable porn actors in CG, we might see more of that sort of thing.

umstitch
11-19-2006, 05:14 PM
live action tentacle porn

..please post link, thnks

Bog
11-19-2006, 05:16 PM
Oh, that's obvious. The same reason the use CG doubles in film today. Stuff that a regular actor simply can't do. I don't think live action tentacle porn is very common, since it's probably hard to film. When you can make perfectly believable porn actors in CG, we might see more of that sort of thing.

Is that midget tentacle porn, or the normal kind? And do the tentacles have suckers?

These things are important, darnit. Hentai fans are so picky.

Okay, I'm even creeping my own self out now. And that's really pretty difficult.

borkus
11-19-2006, 05:25 PM
oh, this is way too funny. especially the comment "Other than the feet, joe average porn surfer would be mouseing left handed to this pic and not think twice about it.", by mattclary. i'm not very good at this 3d stuff yet, but the thing i see more and more is how it is getting pushed into the realism aspect. which is definetly cool. but the one thing that i think that sometimes gets forgotten is that this is art. and art by definition has no particular rules. some of the greatest works have broken most of the rules. and i wish oddity could just lend his advice and not get pissed or defensive when someone feels otherwise. you are extremely talented when it comes to anatomy oddity. more so than most of us. but sometimes there is a time when we are looking for something other than textbook. your site has some amazing work on it. but they all look like a painting. some people may have a different approach because that's what their artistic eye sees. i guess i'm babbling now, but i just wanted to put my 2 cents worth on when looking at an image, does it look good? that's basically what the artist is looking for. this particular image looks nice because it captures human feelings into it. the look on her face is reminiscent of pride and exabitionsim (spell check!!). wouldn't hurt to get rid of the censor marks. that would have all the geeks flying at the wheel of their computer with no hands!! lol

jasonwestmas
11-19-2006, 05:31 PM
i'm not very good at this 3d stuff yet, but the thing i see more and more is how it is getting pushed into the realism aspect. which is definetly cool. but the one thing that i think that sometimes gets forgotten is that this is art. and art by definition has no particular rules. some of the greatest works have broken most of the rules. and i wish oddity could just lend his advice and not get pissed or defensive when someone feels otherwise. you are extremely talented when it comes to anatomy oddity. more so than most of us. but sometimes there is a time when we are looking for something other than textbook. your site has some amazing work on it. but they all look like a painting. some people may have a different approach because that's what their artistic eye sees. i guess i'm babbling now, but i just wanted to put my 2 cents worth on when looking at an image, does it look good? that's basically what the artist is looking for. this particular image looks nice because it captures human feelings into it. the look on her face is reminiscent of pride and exabitionsim (spell check!!). wouldn't hurt to get rid of the censor marks. that would have all the geeks flying at the wheel of their computer with no hands!! lol

*Jason sprays on Oddity repelant* pffffft!

Red_Oddity
11-19-2006, 06:08 PM
I suppose it will one day be possible to make animated CG porn actors so totally realistic that no one can tell the difference. That's maybe only 15-20 years away.
It'll always be faster and cheaper to hire real ones though, so I'm not sure what the point would be.

I feel for the folks who have to wear those MoCap costumes after that shoot...

Verlon
11-20-2006, 01:16 AM
I suppose it will one day be possible to make animated CG porn actors so totally realistic that no one can tell the difference. That's maybe only 15-20 years away.
It'll always be faster and cheaper to hire real ones though, so I'm not sure what the point would be.


Always is a bold word to use. Think about how far 3D has come in 30 years. But it wouldn't be the first incorrect statement you've made in this thread.

People dress up for themselves at times...else why dress up when no one else is around?

Even if she is posing for someone else, so what? That doesn't make her a porn model. She could have taken the photo for her lawfully wedded husband for all you know.

And a naked girl is a naked girl. I don't care if she's posed like Pamela Anderson or a Venus de Milo, I find them attractive. If you think about it, I was MADE that way. So you can talk about classical sculpture all you want, but those guys were doing the same thing for their times that Hugh Heffner is doing today. Or do you think women were walking around naked back then?

Motzart was a rock star born about 200 years early.

Most of he great artists got crosswise with the establishment at least a little bit, just like the great scientists. Just because the scandal is buried 400 years doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Cageman
11-20-2006, 02:48 AM
..and as for being a stunt double, is it rigged, animated, and unbeleivably beleivable..no, cause thats the hard part, even with mocap..there are no beleivable human cg actors..yet (soon tho..) we re still in fantasy land...fantasising.

..but hey thanks for the info anyway..

MoCap works pretty **** well on everything but faces (yet) and toes. We do alot of MoCap stuff here, the only things we hand-animate are faces and fingers. We don't have to tweak much of the MoCaped data.

We all know how hard it is to do convincing digital actors, but I have yet to see any digital actor in the same type of close-up like the sexy girl, which have been shaded and rendered using LightWave in a Feature film... Mental Ray and Renderman are the industry standard here, and it is very nice to see that some LW-artists are willing to put effort into doing something that looks almost as good as what the big stuidos have made.

umstitch
11-20-2006, 04:23 AM
..actually the most convincing digital actors, so far, for my money, would be the cast of the Incredibles..and they re not even toilet trained>>>

oDDity
11-20-2006, 04:54 AM
And a naked girl is a naked girl. I don't care if she's posed like Pamela Anderson or a Venus de Milo, I find them attractive. If you think about it, I was MADE that way. So you can talk about classical sculpture all you want, but those guys were doing the same thing for their times that Hugh Heffner is doing today. Or do you think women were walking around naked back then?

Well that's where we differ then, because I don't look at classical nudes within any context of sexual attractiveness at all. I don't differentiate between classical male sculpture or a classical female sculpture in any sexual fashion, They really become quite asexual for me.
I can't see why I would have looked at them any differently back when they were made.
They were not made for men to have sexual fantasies about, there is no hint of provocation in them.
However, in a shot like the one we're discussing here, which very closely resembles a random photo from an amateur porn shoot, I don't think any heterosexual male could look at it in anything other than the context of sexual attractiveness.

jasonwestmas
11-20-2006, 08:05 AM
Yes, the question isn't "are they sexually appealing", the question is "How am I precieving it". You can look at a clothed figure and think they are sexually appealing or vice versa for a nude, you could say is that nude sexually appealing or you can think of it in terms of aesthetic beauty and design. (In many cases you could say that a figure that is clothed or partially clothed is more sexually appealing than a complete nude.) You can even take it further and think about what the figure is expressing in order to reflect the personality or deep seated emotions other than a physical feeling of procreating or making a sport out of sex.

jasonwestmas
11-20-2006, 08:08 AM
BTW, The above post I wrote was in the context of nudes "in general" and not to say that porn can be taken other than sexual.

CMT
11-20-2006, 08:32 AM
Take a look at Frazetta. By oDDity's standards, most of his art involving nude women would be porn since there is a sexual nature to the female poses. I just don't see it that way.

Here's a good Frazetta gallery for reference.

http://www.therionweb.de/frazetta/frazetta.htm

jasonwestmas
11-20-2006, 11:52 AM
I wouldn't say they are ALL sexual poses. . .

CMT
11-20-2006, 12:15 PM
No of course they ALL aren't, but many are. This in no way takes away from the artistic nature of his work. That's the point.

oDDity
11-20-2006, 01:18 PM
He's the worst of both worlds, it's neither useful as porn, nor art in my view. It falls into a void in the middle somewhere. He has decent technical skill there, but none of those works are the sort of thing that I would ever enjoy looking at, neither the ones with a sexual undertone, nor the ones without.
I'd call him an illustrator, which is a different kettle of fish. Illustrator's can get away with just about anything, since it's their prerogative to scrape the bottom of any barrel for money.
Sure, some people see some of their work as art, but then there are people who will tell you that any doodle done by their 5 year old with fingerpaints is art.

bobakabob
11-20-2006, 01:34 PM
Interesting debate.

:thumbsup: INFINITE has obvious technical skill and his modelling, texturing and lighting research is on an exceptionally high level. It's an illuminating WIP thread and seeing it progress is technically fascinating. INFINITE is generously sharing his surfacing knowledge. It's also good to see that his work is raising Lightwave's profile. How amusing to see some CGtalk cynics go "Whaa?" and realise what a great tool they've been bashing.

:thumbsdow On an artistic level I've got to confess I'm ultimately baffled by what INFINITE's trying to achieve. His previous images are wonderful well composed and researched attempts at realism. His sleeping girl image is poignant and beautifully rendered. And as a display of technique his latest pieces are impressive.

However, sadly, I have to agree with Umstitch and Oddity: the composition and subject matter is just plain tacky. I seriously worry about anyone who finds a 3D model like this 'sexy'. And I don't know about any of you geeks out there, but no way could I show these images to my - broadminded - female friends without them going "Yechh!". Much as it pains me to agree with Oddity, the initial images look like snaps from a grubby copy of Readers Wives.

cresshead
11-20-2006, 02:02 PM
i would imagine the choice of subject matter and the pose of that subject was decided as this would have the maximum amout of impact and raise his profile on the net...good or bad choice of subject...it's definatly got people talking!....can't argue with that!...the only downside is that many debates have sidelined his achievments in photoreal rendering over to the smutt/porn side of things...but i'm sure when his next project airs he'll be in good shape for alot of people taking a look...

jasonwestmas
11-20-2006, 02:23 PM
No of course they ALL aren't, but many are. This in no way takes away from the artistic nature of his work. That's the point.

Well, there you go, Oddity said that Frazetta's "stuff" isn't art at all, his stuff is illustration which I think he means someone who whore's out his skills for money and thusly is not an artist.

I think many believe that illustrators rarely do what they enjoy and are forced to sell a product and therefore have no personal connection to their work, which is of course not always true.

Thomas M.
11-20-2006, 02:44 PM
Point is, everybody who manages to connect 8 points to build a cube calls himself 3D artist. Every w.i.p. or finished 3d illustration which looks better than a tesselated sphere draws the attention of inexperienced users and there we have it: Hip-hip-hurray, gorgeous, great, super and a lot of other superlatives. Nobody dares anymore to say, "Be ashamed!" or "Utter rubbish!".

Oddity is quite right in calling this guy an illustrator. His skills in drawing and reproducing human anatomy are pretty good, but it's not better than the stuff hundreds of comic illustrators achieve each day. Not bad, but not special (although I wish I would have his experience with the human figure).

For the LW w.i.p. I have to say that it looks great in terms of realism, but it's embarrassing in terms of the subject. Couldn't get worse, except if somebody tries to reproduce kiddy-porn. But I wouldn't be surprised if people even then would go nuts, because the skin of the child looks so real, even with Kappa II. Wow!

jasonwestmas
11-20-2006, 02:55 PM
il‧lus‧tra‧tion  /ˌɪləˈstreɪʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[il-uh-strey-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. something that illustrates, as a picture in a book or magazine.
2. a comparison or an example intended for explanation or corroboration.
3. the act or process of illuminating.
4. the act of clarifying or explaining; elucidation.
5. Archaic. illustriousness; distinction.

il‧lus‧trate  /ˈɪləˌstreɪt, ɪˈlʌstreɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[il-uh-streyt, i-luhs-treyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -trat‧ed, -trat‧ing.
–verb (used with object)
1. to furnish (a book, magazine, etc.) with drawings, pictures, or other artwork intended for explanation, elucidation, or adornment.
2. to make clear or intelligible, as by examples or analogies; exemplify.
3. Archaic. to enlighten.
–verb (used without object)
4. to clarify one's words, writings, etc., with examples: To prevent misunderstandings, let me illustrate.

So I guess to communicate or express something means that it is not art.

CMT
11-20-2006, 04:17 PM
Oddity is quite right in calling this guy an illustrator. His skills in drawing and reproducing human anatomy are pretty good, but it's not better than the stuff hundreds of comic illustrators achieve each day. Not bad, but not special (although I wish I would have his experience with the human figure).

Sure he's an illustrator since his art was printed on books and such. But not special? I heartily disagree. And so will the majority of illustrators and artists around the world who admire Frazetta's work. Not teenage wannabe's, but professional artists.

I'm not one of the sorts to drool at the sight of every bare breast in any piece of art. And I do enjoy looking at his work.

[QUOTE=jasonwestmas]Well, there you go, Oddity said that Frazetta's "stuff" isn't art at all, his stuff is illustration which I think he means someone who whore's out his skills for money and thusly is not an artist.

Yeah. Whatever. Let him think that. Doesn't mean it's true. It's like saying the Star Wars soundtrack isn't music just because it was slapped into a movie. Yeah. Tell that to John Williams.

Art in it's entirety isn't the end piece. It's also the process. Just because there's a monetary transaction involved, doesn't take away everything that went into the piece or what the piece conveys. It's just BS and anyone who believes that illustration isn't art is just not seeing things clearly for whatever reason.


He's the worst of both worlds, it's neither useful as porn, nor art in my view.

Well, to each his own. There's always someone who doesn't like a certain style. Might as well be you I guess.

BTW.... Nice start on the next one.

Bog
11-20-2006, 04:24 PM
Oddity is quite right in calling this guy an illustrator. His skills in drawing and reproducing human anatomy are pretty good, but it's not better than the stuff hundreds of comic illustrators achieve each day. Not bad, but not special (although I wish I would have his experience with the human figure).

*cringe*

Does it occour to anyone who passes this kind of comment that out of a planet of seven billion people, there are probably less than 400,000 who are in any way competent with 3D imaging, and probably less than 50,000 who could produce this kind of imagery at gunpoint, without a time constraint? Maybe - be generous - 5,000 who could do this to a deadline?

Out of seven billion people. In an industry this small and competative and demanding.

Have some perspective for people who can produce the goods. Please.

jasonwestmas
11-20-2006, 04:29 PM
indeed, frazetta was at gunpoint most of his life doing things he enjoyed. gotta kinda respect that.

Bog
11-20-2006, 04:32 PM
It's a crapload easier to learn to draw, paint or sculpt than it is to learn 3D.

For starters, you're working directly with the medium. For seconds, you don't have to visualise your 3D medium whilst working on a two dimensional representation of it.

Also, his PSU never blew, and he never had to learn surfacing or render times.

Frakkin' wuss.

;)

Verlon
11-20-2006, 04:45 PM
Don't forget----then canvas doesn't crash on you either :)

guess I'll unsubscribe this thread as the opposing opinions will never see things even remotely similar to how I do.

The guy generates 8 pages of posts in a place where his picture isn't even showing, and you wonder why he did it? I never heard of the guy before this.

It may not be my favorite LW rendering, but I can certainly respect the work that went into it.

If only some of the 'artists' here had the ability to create as good a work as this "illustrator."...

bobakabob
11-20-2006, 04:45 PM
It's a crapload easier to learn to draw, paint of sculpt than it is to learn 3D.

For starters, you're working directly with the medium. For seconds, you don't have to visualise your 3D medium whilst working on a two dimensional representation of it.

Also, his PSU never blew, and he never had to learn surfacing or render times.

Frakkin' wuss.

;)

Hmmm... I've met good pro 3D artists who admit they can't draw for toffee.

IMO there's no doubt INFINITE is technically brilliant; it's a wonderful model; just a shame the images are bordering on tacky whereas his earlier pieces are just superb, especially the sleeping girl. As I mentioned before, the reaction of a couple of (broadminded) female friends has been along the lines of 'Yechh'. It just reinforces the stereotype of 3D as being the preserve of frustrated male geeks.

But good luck to him, it's still a fascinating CG Talk thread.

jasonwestmas
11-20-2006, 05:05 PM
The level of difficulty depends on the look you want to get and if you are talking, concept art, formal aesthetics, realistic production stills or stylistic animation etc. There are styles that a computer cannot make simply because the mechanical interferes with the artist's touch and vice versa. My computer is more of a camera than a paint bush or pencil and that's it strength. The paintbrush and pencil is more intune with myself rather than the specificity of the camera. Then Let's not forget what the nature of paint, canvases and prep work entails. I don't find traditional mediums any easier, they just do different things. It took me a decade or so of hard work to take a traditional medium and turn it into something I was half way pleased with. There are those who are more talented than me of course and they would probably say something similar, especially the concept artists who spend a ton of time deciding on the best design that best fits a story or plot; and let's not forget story boarding, matte painting and all those other genres within the backbone of the entertainment industry. That is tough stuff to learn!

Bog
11-20-2006, 06:00 PM
The guy generates 8 pages of posts in a place where his picture isn't even showing, and you wonder why he did it?

To be honest, six pages of that were people responding with incredulity to oDDity saying "That's nothing special".

It's like throwing petrol on a fire, really.

But yeah, given that this is this particular LightWaver's second ever published artwork (and I thought his first one was pretty stellar as well - the guy's got a thing for flash-bulb renders, but if it's his schtick, more power to him - and I can't wait to see what he'll come up with next.

It's not just about the mesh. It's also not just about the subject matter. If it was the former, to reiterate, we'd be doing CAD. If it was about the latter, we'd be academics. To be honest, neither of those two beep my radar very much, so it's a non-issue.

Stooch
11-20-2006, 06:12 PM
EXACTLY!

this image illustrates that point perfectly:

http://www.consumptionjunction.com/downloadsnew/cj_62873.jpg

jasonwestmas
11-20-2006, 06:15 PM
Which point Stooch?

Thomas M.
11-21-2006, 01:02 AM
I guess a problem here might be that girls (as far as I have noticed) didn't comment on Infinites work. The subject is utter rubbish and degrading. Unfortunately we are so used to see women posed in these gestures that we (men) hardly notice it or even care. I guess porn is really an interesting subject matter for an artist, but it really takes some brain, talent and experience to find an approach which is artistic (e.g. porn sets are a subject matter for a lot of photographers). This one obviously isn't.

If we try judge Frazetta's work, we shouldn't choose the blind and talentless as a comparisson, but other artists. Among them he's from my point of view neither brilliant nor dull. Average. Although, like I said before, I admire this guys for his routine and amount of output and his experience.

I'm surprised that a lot of members here seem to judge other peoples work just by the craftsman ship which went into the images and not the subject matter. If it's all about the shading and technical aspects calling the creator a craftsman seems more appropriate than an artist.

Thomas M.
11-21-2006, 02:01 AM
P.S.: Skill and talent don't necessarily create art, but skill and talent by themselves are a gift nonetheless.

oDDity
11-21-2006, 02:40 AM
Only ever in the context of what you do with that skill and talent..

Captain Obvious
11-21-2006, 05:42 AM
Only ever in the context of what you do with that skill and talent..
I disagree. In my opinion, skill has a value in itself.

colkai
11-21-2006, 06:42 AM
You cannot say that your talent is only jusedge by what you do with it.
After all, to someone who hates country music, learning to play heavy rock is a waste of talent and of course, vice-versa.

The fact that talent exists is indeed a gift, judgment on it's merit by a thrid party is 100% irrelevant. I could not give a rat's ***** if people consider my music a waste or not, I do it for me. If someone else likes it, fine and dandy, if not, well hey, imagine how little I care.

Likewise art, some folks seem to have the old "Capital A" attitude, but then, it's always been that way and likely always will.

jasonwestmas
11-21-2006, 09:23 AM
In the context of visual communication skills which I am very big on. If my message is made clear I have made something good and full of expression. This is my form of art and there are several. Whether or not someone likes it is an entirely different context which I don't take that seriously, but I certainly enjoy it when someone does enjoy something that I have created.

oDDity
11-21-2006, 09:42 AM
Ok, so if someone does a really skillful CG render of a 5 year olf boy being buggered, thet's fine by you is it?
As long as it's skillfully done, that automatically makes it good, regardless of content or context?

Bog
11-21-2006, 09:44 AM
In the context of visual communication skills which I am very big on. If my message is made clear I have made something good and full of expression. This is my form of art and there are several. Whether or not someone likes it is an entirely different context which I don't take that seriously, but I certainly enjoy it when someone does enjoy something that I have created.


Mmm. Quite agree. 3D graphics is an immensely powerful communications tool. So, of course, is a pencil, and with both things then there's always the ability to do something opaque or uncommunicative, and thereby label it art because it makes people stand around yammering about "Interpretation". I can't help but think that if the job's done right in the first place, the message is clear, but it seems that there's a big distinction between visual communication and Ahhht. Ahhht seems to like being hard to understand.

Me? I like telling stories, and I like imagery that tells stories.

*Edit* You've already got your sculpture thread for talking about rape imagery, oDDIty, I think one of those is quite enough on any given forum.

oDDity
11-21-2006, 10:23 AM
Just proving that the logic of your point doesn't work in all cases, and therefore is bad logic.

Bog
11-21-2006, 10:27 AM
*self-censor*

Never mind.

Stooch
11-21-2006, 10:29 AM
actually odd. your example is horrible since most normal people dont consider raping children a case worth considering. hence the logic is irrelevant. It never crosses my mind to make a statement like that.

and my picture above is an example that people like to have fun at work, 3d is not cad. its self expression, whether it plays off sex, based around a fixation or comes up with some idealistic bullsh|t and tries to elevate onseself above all else...

oDDity
11-21-2006, 11:06 AM
My point that skill in itself cannot be divorced from the context of the work, is proven true.

jasonwestmas
11-21-2006, 11:45 AM
Ok, so if someone does a really skillful CG render of a 5 year olf boy being buggered, thet's fine by you is it?
As long as it's skillfully done, that automatically makes it good, regardless of content or context?

Of course no,

You must be getting me confused with another post. Like I said, I was talking about for myself and I would never talk about or do such a thing as you have described. I was speaking in a context of constructiveness and goodness. If someone were to take something destructive and humiliatingly evil and craft and communicate that idea then that wouldn't be good if the intention was to cause a degeneration of another or one's self.

jasonwestmas
11-21-2006, 11:48 AM
My point that skill in itself cannot be divorced from the context of the work, is proven true. You didn't have to prove that, that is already obvious.

koryhz
11-21-2006, 12:00 PM
AAARRRGGGG
this sounds like a drunken Art School discussion.

ODD it is times like this that your lack of training rears it's ugly head.
Most people who have been brought up with in the context of formal art discussions have move beyond these circular arguments about content vs. technique.
People can and do look past content when evaluating skill.
What's the problem?

Everyone else, goods points and lively examples. It's been a fun read.

Captain Obvious
11-21-2006, 12:15 PM
Ok, so if someone does a really skillful CG render of a 5 year olf boy being buggered, thet's fine by you is it?
As long as it's skillfully done, that automatically makes it good, regardless of content or context?
It doesn't necessarily "make it good," but I can appreciate skill, even if I dislike how it's being used.




My point that skill in itself cannot be divorced from the context of the work, is proven true.
Picking contex is a part of the skill, wouldn't you agree?

koryhz
11-21-2006, 12:26 PM
I would have to say that many, if not a majority, of professional 3D artists don't get to pick the subject matter of their work. So the the ability to judge skill for skill would be a valuble ability as a professional.
Once you are out of school and you work for a studio you become a member of a team working on the vision of some one else. A constructive talk about the merits of a work is needed. I have never heard any of my co workers say...
" Hey that's looks good Kory, But I would have changed the character and location of that illustration. I hate cartoons. Can you make it look real?"
And If I have it was a total joke because it is just not an option.

Sure at home you are your own director and production designer but is that the point of this talk? I have lost track of the point a few pages back.

Thomas M.
11-21-2006, 01:06 PM
Well, Infinte did make the choice of his subject on his own. So we can blame him for that ridiculous male choice. A woman's journey to real skin would have looked different. Why didn't he choose a guy with an errected dick? Probably some male viewers would have felt different then about whether his subject is appropriate or not.

Point with skill is (something I've overseen), that it might be a gift to you, but not for the rest of humanity. What about a talented bio-engineer? He might do good things by preserving seeds or repair stuff which gens have been changed in bad ways. But he also might work for Monzanto ... Whatever he might do for this company, in which ways ever, I neither would call it skillful, talented or artful. I would call it disgusting, never mind how many technical and biological barriers he took.

Images, which took technical hurdles and imitate the "real" thing in fascinating ways, but don't carry any content, but are a mere shell, aren't art. In 99.9% of all cases.

Art by the expression itself is something elitist. Otherwise we wouldn't need this expression. You can't write down the rules how to distinguish between art and non-art, but you will see it.

First rule of art is not talk about it as art.

jasonwestmas
11-21-2006, 01:54 PM
Picking contex is a part of the skill, wouldn't you agree?

I would totally agree with that one. I for one lump every context into two categories, one is constructive and the other destructive. As long as the constructively good design/ pattern overruns the destructively evil pattern then the design is a good one and vice versa. I believe that different levels of skill in the context of good or evil are infinite and therefore can only be judged as dominantly progressive or recessively inferrior in respect of overcoming constructive or destructive energy. Everyone chooses one direction or the other for their work consciously or not, but the truth is always debatable. so yeah, this is a good foundation for story telling and it is something I enjoy reguardless of the skill level and whether or not I have succeeded in my communication.

BTW, I would call this my form of art.

colkai
11-22-2006, 04:06 AM
Picking context is a part of the skill, wouldn't you agree?

I'd be more concerned about when thinking of skill and context, that a person could come up with such an idea to illustrate their point. Makes me more concerned about the person giving the example.

Skill is a gift, full stop. It's use, lack of use, or misuse is immaterial and has no bearing on if the person is skilled or not. Peoples own take on life, perverted or otherwise, is not the subject, the quality of the work as a render is really the only thing under scrutiny.

It doesn't even matter about the poly structure if it is a still, it comes more into play if it is to be animated.

For me, I do not care if the polys are dense and super detailed, heck, i'd imagine an animator would be far less than thrilled if that were the case.

If you don't texture or animate your work, then fine, put every nuance and detail into the model, it may be overkill, but if it isn't going to be textured or moved, what the heck!

But put every nuance and high detail into a production model, forcing the texture artist and animator into corners from which they cannot escape and I doubt you'd be asked to do a second model.
The flow of a muscle is great, until you shift the model from that pose, that is where rigging and texture play a much bigger part.

As others have stated, the only obvious thing for me is the feet, the lack of weight on the toes. I also have some question over the face but cannot quite put my finger on what is telling me it isn't 100% real, or maybe, knowing it isn't real, I am projecting what I know onto the image.

I may try showing the wife, she's a 'trad' artist, so be interesting to see if she spots anything, she has a great "eye" for this sort of thing.

B-S_hater
11-23-2006, 07:24 AM
Oh my god, I have been following this piece on another forum and when I saw it here I thought I would have a look at the kind of comments its getting. If you don't consider it art then you obiously have never actually tried to make something this detailed, TRUST me, perversion is NOT present here, if you spend 6 hours modeling that bit of labia and getting it to look perfect you are not seeing something sexual, you are seeing your creation take shape. If there is a rule on these forums prohibiting nude works being posted then fine, a moderator should simply delete the offensive material or even the thread. Seeing as this thread is still active after pages of abusing the poor artist for his subject choice though, I highly doubt thats the case. The female form has LONG been considered the epitome of art, not only by males but by females as well. If he had chosen a male model with a full errection I would STILL appreciate the art. If you are still seeing parts of the body as perverted then you are one of too things, immature (most likely) or some religious nut, either way, you should have taken one look at this thread and left it alone. You have ruined this poor guys thread with STUPID childish comments. The pose is not even all that provocative, shes not doing anything pornographic nor is it leude. It is a fine piece of modeling that a lot of time and effort has gone into and I for one appreciate that he shared his hard work. If you don't like it then say "I don't like it because its nude" then leave the thread alone, don't destroy the thread for people who see it for the art that it is.

The feet comment follows for me too, other than that, beautiful work.

Bog
11-23-2006, 07:40 AM
B-S_h

Well said. Welcome to the forum. I do rather hope Infinity doesn't read this thread, because it's been ... well. Crap, really. Bit of a shame.

B-S_hater
11-23-2006, 07:44 AM
I didn't see an edit button.

Just to add, art has always been controversial and always will be. I personaly hate modern art with its formless composition and haphazzard appearence (from my point of veiw) but I would never post in a thread showcasing it. You see, I appreciate that it IS art so someone and am not so immature as to post my oppinion in their thread, let alone continualy argue about it.

B-S_hater
11-23-2006, 07:45 AM
Thanks Bog, appreciate the welcome.

oDDity
11-23-2006, 07:57 AM
Christ, the two people who apparently want the thread to die are the ones keeping it going...

Bog
11-23-2006, 07:58 AM
The tiny bits of the thread which are people actually making constructive comments about the bit of work in question are fine, IMHO.

Thomas M.
11-23-2006, 08:06 AM
I just wonder where's the threshold of pain with you guys. As long as the execution of the job fascinates you, the creator of the images seems to get along with any subject he chooses. And you'll still call it art, as it seems to be a problem to differ between skill and talent to recreate something and art, which is something completely different.

I just wonder if you'll try to shush people commenting on image threads if your so-called artist depicts child pornography or splatter images, as long as the technique makes your jaws drop.

I'm not for censorship and the thread on the other forum is interesting (in terms of the technique), but the choice of the subject is miserable and can only emanate from a pubertal male brain.

If you'll forget about the way this image has been created, you'll probably realize how primitive it is.

Bog
11-23-2006, 08:13 AM
Good God why is it always kiddy rape with some people? What's wrong with your brain that anything that you don't agree with suddenly gets you dragging such a hideous subject out of the nightmare regions of your minds?

My pain threshold pretty much starts and ends at this line here, marked "Consensual". In terms of "splatter imagery" (I'm assuming you mean dismemberment and ultra-violent images) I'm not a big fan, thanks. So I can look at a CG naked woman and not have prurience boil over in my head. Wow. Hey, you know what? It STILL doesn't make me want to look at raped children. And as for "splatter images" I saw WAY too many during various atrocities performed for real all over the world.

You should try my nightmares sometime.

colkai
11-23-2006, 08:38 AM
Couldn't agree more Bog old bean.
If you, GASP, don't mind images like this, people suddenly feel the need to compare it to raping children and other atrocities. As I said previous, I worry far more for the mental state of the people making such a sudden link in their mind than I do for the other folks. To me, they are the very people I'd be wary of, because in no way, should the two be linked and if that link comes so fast and unbidden, I'd suggest some therapy, good and quick.

B-S_hater
11-23-2006, 08:46 AM
Pornography and nudes are not the same thing, any REAL artist can tell you that. Sure, prepubesant boys might see both as errotic, but, porn showcases sex, nudes showcase the beauty of the human body. Besides, how "realistic" would a model be if it was modeled without reproductive anatomy?

Is a male gynecholgist a pervert? I know a few and the answer is NO though there may be few who are but that is the same with everything. This is NOT an image of child abuse or of someone being gibbed, its an artistic nude and one done very well considering the artists experience.

Look up "artistic nudes" on the internet and then look up "porn", if you can still honestly say its the same thing then you have no place on a forum dedicated to art.

This thread is already WAY past usefulness.

I have nothing against people who find this kind of thing repulsive, you have a right to think what you will, what I dissagree with is insulting a piece purely because you don't agree with its subject. If you don't like it then don't support the thread by posting in it. I'm sure you guys realise that you have just drawn more attention to it rather than shut it down. If none of you had posted here, chances are the thread would be dead by now. By making stupid comments all you do is brook arguement by those who DO like the piece. The sad thing is that if Infinity ever posted on these forums again he would now be viewed as contraversial instead of an artist. Give the guy a break, HE liked the subject and his last work was amazing. Almost every male idolises the female form and when it comes to modeling, the greatest challenge is creating the thing you find most beautiful, I give him 5 stars for trying and another 5 for how well it turned out. Its one thing to model a clothed female where you can hide poor UVs in the clothing, its another thing to model a nude where you have to have flawless seems and perfect textures for it to look good. The work involved in modeling a nude is far greater than that required to model a clothed model.

Bog
11-23-2006, 08:47 AM
To me, they are the very people I'd be wary of, because in no way, should the two be linked and if that link comes so fast and unbidden, I'd suggest some therapy, good and quick.

Hadn't thought about that. That really is bloody disturbing.

Thomas M.
11-23-2006, 08:48 AM
Reading seems to be a problem, too. I asked where your threshold of pain is and didn't compare the image with raped children. I gave an example and wondered whether you'll still go hip-hip-hurry or finally get some stomach aches.

If you don't realize that the way the woman is depicted is degrading, and I'm the last one who gives a s**t about political correctness, than I'm not surprised.

Like I said before: Why didn't he choose a guy with an errected dick?

Bog
11-23-2006, 08:52 AM
Like I said before: Why didn't he choose a guy with an errected dick?

Skipping everything that's phrased in a way that more invites an ejection from any given polite gathering than an answer, maybe he's straight and likes the appearance of naked women more than he does naked men.

What, we all have to balance out every naked woman model with a naked man now? And you say you're not politically correct?

I missed a memo somewhere, I'm sure of it.

B-S_hater
11-23-2006, 08:58 AM
Simple, he does not find a guy with an errect penis beautiful. Art is created to please its creator so naturaly the subject should please them too, yes? If a woman were making the arguements you guys are I would understand a bit more but even my wife reading over my shoulder says you're taking s##$. She says that its good that people make things like this, women have a body that drives men crazy and that is a tool she believes is there to exploit. God knows she leads me arround by the pants. Women mostly don't comment in threads like this because people like you see them as impropper for saying what they think. If anyone is trying to force females into a mold its people like you.

jasonwestmas
11-23-2006, 09:36 AM
I hope infinite does see our reactions. Negativity is just as constuctive as positivity, there is a little bit of truth to what everyone has said here afterall, there doesn't need to be a supreme ruler.

Bog
11-23-2006, 09:41 AM
I hope infinite does see our reactions. Negativity is just as constuctive as positivity, there is a little bit of truth to what everyone has said here afterall, there doesn't need to be a supreme ruler.

Nah, but to be honest, some people have used this thread simply to push their own agendas and to perpetuate their constant search for an argument or an anthill to kick over. It's deathly boring.

jasonwestmas
11-23-2006, 09:43 AM
That's true too Bog old bean. ;) Except the part about it being boring. I also could have gone without the part about being buggered.

B-S_hater
11-23-2006, 09:46 AM
Yeah, I'm done here. I like the model and the renders and thats all I should have said from the begining. I just get bothered by intollerant behaviour.

Medi8or
11-23-2006, 11:29 AM
Why didn't he choose a guy with an errected dick?Are you saying that wouldn't be art either, or is it just nude females you have a problem with?

Odd Nerdrum, self portrait in golden cape. (http://www.nerdrum.com/works/index.php?id=49)

jasonwestmas
11-24-2006, 02:23 PM
An errected anything has nothing to do with what the piece as a whole is trying to say, if it's saying anything at all.

bobakabob
11-24-2006, 04:07 PM
Why is there such a problem on this thread about debating the representation of women in CG art? It's surely healthy that the issue of women being depicted as sex objects is being discussed in a largely male forum.

The "intolerant" here are those who find it impossible to engage in constructive debate. In my own experience my female artist colleagues and friends are often dismayed by imagery they see as the product of "adolescent geeks".

So how do I go about convincing them CG is a worthy art form when much of what they see consists of idealised images of women as sex toys (frequently with oversized mammalian protuberances dressed in flimsy "erotic" outfits?).

The worship of technique shouldn't make the female form a taboo subject and no-one here is coming on like "Disgusted of Cyberspace" or Kenny Everett's Angry of Mayfair (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8q_AGKn_hE). Infinite's technical skill and generosity in sharing his ideas is beyond question and it would be unfair to derail his thread on CGTalk. He's produced some genuinely poignant images of the female nude - the sleeping girl image is a wonderful combination of composition and technique.

The pure female form has always been one of the great themes of art. The Renaissance masters saw human anatomy as the ultimate medium of artistic expression.

But... as soon as you dress the female nude in corset and frilly knickers with legs akimbo, no matter how skillfully the modelling and SSS is executed... there's always the danger it's closer to Benny Hill than Michaelangelo.

Bog
11-24-2006, 04:38 PM
Well put, Bobakabob, though I do have to say we did have a bit of Disgusted from Tunbridge Wells, naming no names.

As to the girl? Well, she's only wearing fishnets. Surely the known fact that stockings tend to accentuate the shape of the leg would at the very least make any dodgy modelling stand out?

Anyway. Naked chicks. Let's be honest, if I wasn't a lucky, lucky man, then I'd be the same as a lot of guys who're marrried to their art. I don't get anything like "normal" levels of socialisation, most of my friends are art geeks, CG geeks, game programmers or gamers. Not really the most ... balanced... of crowds. ****, let's cut to the chase, a lot of us have girlfriends whose last name is "Jaypeg".

So any post-adolescent construction of attractive feminity is probably healthy. **** sight healthier than convulsively modelling men with erect wangs because they're worried about keeping their Dong Quota satisfied, lest they be judged, or as a couple of disturbing people have mooted doing art of kiddies being raped.

Now even just typing that last sentence makes me want to reach for a gun, frankly. Gahhh!

Anyhooooo. I'm not calling us - as a genre - a bunch of sad geeky gits or anything. Maybe I'm just heaving a sigh of relief in being really lucky to have found a lass who's not part of that very extended family of Jaypeg (and their cousins, Giff) ;)

oDDity
11-25-2006, 03:23 AM
Look, stop defending this drooling pervert. I'd be surprised if the guy wasn't a serial rapist producing this filth from a hideout strewn with the shoes of is victims..
He's obviously smart enough not to show his numerous images of women with knives in their face, but he's trying to get better at making realistic CG representations of them so he can make perfect plans of his forthcoming crimes by doing realistic CG pre-constructions of them.
Supporting him almost makes you guys complicit in the crimes.

Bog
11-25-2006, 03:24 AM
Mmm. Shoes.

oDDity
11-25-2006, 03:39 AM
Exactly, it's as serious as that, and while I'm not actually suggesting that he's producing this stuff from a room where he's scrawled the word 'kill' on the walls a thousand times in his own faeces, you have to consider it as a possibility, that's all I'm saying.

Bog
11-25-2006, 03:41 AM
Daubing the word "Kill" over and over in one's own poo doesn't worry me overly. I remember one party in Islington... but no, that's a tale for another day. A huge collection of teddy-bears, though, all their little beady eyes staring - now that's a sign of a diseased mind.

oDDity
11-25-2006, 04:20 AM
Exact; in Japan, where it's perfectly acceptable for grown men to have collections of cute 'lil dollies, there are even dedicated shops to buy their clothes in.

Bog
11-25-2006, 04:24 AM
Then again, I hear there are vending machines in Japan where you can buy panties.

I'm undecided as to whether this is good or bad.

jasonwestmas
11-25-2006, 07:45 AM
Look, stop defending this drooling pervert. I'd be surprised if the guy wasn't a serial rapist producing this filth from a hideout strewn with the shoes of is victims..
He's obviously smart enough not to show his numerous images of women with knives in their face, but he's trying to get better at making realistic CG representations of them so he can make perfect plans of his forthcoming crimes by doing realistic CG pre-constructions of them.
Supporting him almost makes you guys complicit in the crimes.

I didn't realize this was what you were getting at. I for one wasn't defending this kind work. It could be art or it might not be. It doesn't look like it, it really just looks like a study and mabey the stripper theme keeps him awake at night :P

Bog
11-25-2006, 08:04 AM
He was joking.

EmperorPete
11-25-2006, 08:33 AM
Exactly, it's as serious as that, and while I'm not actually suggesting that he's producing this stuff from a room where he's scrawled the word 'kill' on the walls a thousand times in his own faeces, you have to consider it as a possibility, that's all I'm saying.
It's also a possibility that you're a 60 year old woman named Beryl, who has 16 kids by 4 husbands, all of whom you're still married to...

oDDity
11-25-2006, 09:49 AM
Well, we all have our little secrets. That's what makes having anonymous conversations with complete strangers so appealing.

Captain Obvious
11-25-2006, 12:43 PM
Then again, I hear there are vending machines in Japan where you can buy panties.

I'm undecided as to whether this is good or bad.
Used panties, even!

Bog
11-25-2006, 01:58 PM
Used panties, even!

Yeah. Jury's still out on that one.

Mmm. Panties.

Mmm. Shoes.

Mmm.

I'll be in mah bunk.

RTSchramm
11-26-2006, 08:17 PM
I finally saw the image that everyone is raving about, and it doesn't look quite right to me. The textures used in the face don't seem to match the tones of the body, like the head was pasted in the body, and the body also looks like it was pasted in the scene. Has anyone seen a wire-frame rendering of the model. As least that would confirm that it is really modeled and not just another Photoshop CS2 wonder designed to mess with our heads.

By the way, I think some of you guys are reading WAY TOO MUCH into this image. Everyone sees art in their own may, but I seen must better quality images than this on CGChoice top picks, but this is my opinion. If you want photo-realistic images, take a photo. Use CG to create something that can't created or may be too difficult to produce photographically.

Just my opinions.

Rich

WizCraker
11-26-2006, 09:15 PM
Anybody notice the spill of green by the feet, shoulders, hair and in the shadows?

jasonwestmas
11-26-2006, 09:45 PM
mmmm greeeennnn

Titus
11-26-2006, 09:52 PM
Has anyone seen a wire-frame rendering of the model.

Just look at the rest of the thread, you'll find more images.

voriax
11-26-2006, 10:26 PM
I can't really see the point in the exercise.. Photorealistically recreating a photo using parts of that photo to replace the parts you cant recreate? ..
Especially pictures as tawdry as these. At least try and inject a semblance of artistry into it.
Indeed it is, in theory, technically well done. The face is useless, though, as I don't think he can change the expression on it, hence the multitude of blurred-faced models. It's funny how even a poorly modelled face can look good when it has a photo projection-mapped onto it (from a distance, anyway).

What I would be impressed by is a photorealistic rendering of the same model in a realistic stance and realistic (different) expression that wasn't taken as a photo.

Puguglybonehead
11-26-2006, 11:07 PM
Ummm...there are no photos in that thread. It's all CG.

voriax
11-27-2006, 12:03 AM
Mmm, ok.. confusion on my part, because all I see when I look through the thread is some woman's face photo mapped onto a mesh.. I stand by my comments about questionable content and facial problems :D

Oh wait, the guy says himself that it's a photo of hair.. and you can see in parts where when he's comped the hair onto the rendering, part of the face from the hair photo is showing through in exactly the same pose..?

StereoMike
11-27-2006, 05:11 AM
It just the hair. Everything other is geometry, textures and lighting.

StereoMike
11-27-2006, 05:14 AM
tho... on some photos he seems to use an image for the background.

Cageman
11-27-2006, 07:34 AM
tho... on some photos he seems to use an image for the background.

Yeah...some stuff in the BG really does look like photos, however... I think in one of his WIP-posts he stated that he had not updated the girl, but the environment. So, I'm pretty sure it is all CG..

voriax
11-27-2006, 08:08 AM
The background is a photo (or photos to be exact), I'm sure. He changes the lighting conditions but it's still a photo.
Also, i'm seeing a lot of digital image grain on the woman's face, exactly like on the hair, which leads me to believe the face is not always rendered. Regardless, he HAS modelled the head, no question.. my point? I can't remember anymore.

jasonwestmas
11-27-2006, 08:28 AM
"I can't really see the point in the exercise." That was your point Voriax ;)

CMT
11-27-2006, 08:48 AM
You can easily add grain to any part of an image. Likewise, if you REALLY want a rendering to look like a photo, you just have to observe the imperfections a photo can create - like photo grain, color distortions (green halo around figure), flash bloom on the door, flash bulb lighting, etc.... All these things contribute to the "real" look cuz it makes it look like a "real" photo.

Props to the guy for making a great model and skin material and for faking a realistic bad photo. Although I don't condemn anyone's vision of "art", I don't care for 3D CG erotica in the least. Just seems too cold and detached cuz something alway seems off. Painting or photography are more effective mediums to use for creating good erotic art.

jasonwestmas
11-27-2006, 08:52 AM
CMT, but Oddity says. . . ;)

Infinite
11-27-2006, 09:45 AM
Hello there,

Thought I would pop in and say hi, Infinite here. Some other cheeky user got Infinite before i did...... 8Infinite8 it will have to be.:D

I really wanted to jump into this thread ages ago but held off for awhile. So cool of Proton to spread the link here. There has been some very strange and some very cool feedback here. This is 'Art', no it aint this is 'Art' sort of stuff :help: ( very amusing ) Guys all I wanted to do with this scene was recreate for my own benefit a few images of a realistic female. Thats it. If you like them thats great, if you dont then cool. There was a tag to the post warning of offensive material. And it wasnt done to get major hits, as many other posts in the WIP forum do the same thing. Plus I started the thread along time ago this year, and it didnt get much attention until recently.

I have read over every post here and there and it has been so so helpful, I cant wait to post the final images with all the new changes that have been made through the crits.

I would like to repeat as I have a few times in my posts on cgtalk. The hair in all images is 2d ( will be 3d even if it ruins the real look of everything, all will be 3d ) there may be a few pixels here and there that stray over the 3d face that are 2d, but the face and body is all 3d. In only 2 images is the background 2d and thats the last 2 images posted, its not finished yet. The only effects added are grain which is rendered from G2 in LW, then PTlens a great filter distortion plugin, then some more grain and slight blur in PS.

Anyways, I still have a great deal of work to do on this scene, including Material setups. It is a WIP after all.

Thank you for visiting the thread and for all the very interesting things said :hey:

I hope that my anatomy skills will improve when the images are done. :lwicon:

Look forward to any more comments and please keep checking the thread any more crits are greatly appreciated!

Cheers

I N F I N I T E

jasonwestmas
11-27-2006, 10:12 AM
Uhh. . .thanks for playing and good luck to you.

oDDity
11-27-2006, 11:38 AM
He'll need more than luck where he's going.

tonybliss
11-27-2006, 01:06 PM
u 4king cynical bastards, relevant to our personal beliefs, the guy expressed himself as a developing artist, who yet is willing to share his research with the community. Please ladies, have a little bit of flexibility in such cases.
There are those who obviously and purely do this to get boingeers from w4nkers out there, but this does not seem like the case ....
Oddity your work is genuinely fantastic IMHO, and I as a developing artist look towards pieces such as yours to inspire my professional and personal projects. I am also VERY blunt in my opinions, but sometimes it is necessary to share candor with sensitivity, which you my dear fellow artist seem to miss.
Remember open minds allow growth to flow, closed minds as with all other closed orifices lend resemblance to smelly sphincters.

Cheers !!!

Bog
11-27-2006, 01:20 PM
In keeping with the reactionary, over-reacting tenor of this thread.

MORE N3KK1D CHIX NOW PLS KTHXBYE!

Oh, I feel soiled now...

oDDity
11-27-2006, 01:22 PM
Well that's because I'm not actually a limp-wristed artiste you see, I'm just a craftsman doing a technical job of work, and sensitivity is one one of the requisite skills :)

Bog
11-27-2006, 01:27 PM
Well that's because I'm not actually a limp-wristed artiste you see, I'm just a craftsman doing a technical job of work, and sensitivity is one one of the requisite skills :)

Yeah man, you should give sensitivity lessons. Thought of working for The Samaritans?




;)

Captain Obvious
11-27-2006, 02:04 PM
MORE N3KK1D CHIX NOW PLS KTHXBYE!
++

CMT
11-27-2006, 02:09 PM
Well that's because I'm not actually a limp-wristed artiste you see...

............nah.... I'll leave that one alone!! :p

*Pete*
11-27-2006, 02:36 PM
[QUOTE=oDDity]...because you didn't.
As I say, it's a fantasy, and fantasy means dreaming/hoping, or for the purpsoes of art, depicting something which you want.
QUOTE]


I think the guy who made that picture said that this was something that happened to him some years ago, so perhaps its not a fantasy but a recreation of something that happened some time ago, made out of memory, unless he had a camera at that time (or was too shy/busy at the moment to use one).

so it is not at all necessary that the guy is a pervert with a computer, doing pornographic images for own personal use..ahem.

either way, fantasy or reality, it doesnt make it less of a quality image.

for me, it doesnt even matter what techniques he used to made it, whether he is the best modeller or not..the picture is convincing enough for 99% of all people to believe that it is an actual photography...the last 1% being us, who already heard that it is made in 3d.

Bog
11-27-2006, 02:52 PM
so it is not at all necessary that the guy is a pervert with a computer, doing pornographic images for own personal use..ahem.

Yeah 'cause that'd be SO much worse than me using my computer to make spaceships 'splode.

Mmm. Splode!

;)

bobakabob
11-27-2006, 03:43 PM
Infinite,

Glad you have a balanced pragmatic view of the somewhat exuberant flame wars here :D You're bound to get heated reactions uploading such pieces onto the net. Gotta say, it's great to see you pushing the software in modelling texturing and rendering and raising Lightwave's profile on CG Talk.

I just hope you use your skills to do more classical nude studies like your earlier poignant sleeping girl image and IMHO avoid the soft porn connotations of this latest - technically accomplished - model. What reactions have you had from your female friends / colleagues?

Nevertheless I can see what you're doing is akin to 60s / 70s photorealist work - like Duane Hanson's amazing lifelike sculptures. (http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/artists/artpages/duane_hanson_sunbather_traveller.htm)

bobakabob
11-27-2006, 03:58 PM
Well that's because I'm not actually a limp-wristed artiste you see, I'm just a craftsman doing a technical job of work, and sensitivity is one one of the requisite skills :)

Heh. I knew it. You're no beret wearing workshy fop with gender issues posing as an artiste.

You wouldn't be seen dead at an art school associating with mincing popinjays who call themselves artists.

You're a fully fledged macho heterosexual testosterone fuelled craftsman.

Which clearly explains your avatar where you're admiring your manly self in the mirror. Or squaring up for an argument :D

StereoMike
11-27-2006, 04:21 PM
Wow, the sleeping girl was also from Infiniti? Was my fav character so far. Stunts with flash light rigs are obviously very convincing. Great work.

btw. I wait for the day when Oddy gets banned cause he wasn't able to control his sarcastic diarrhea. Then he starts whining and slandering on other boards about how unfair all people at NT are etc...
He seems to ask for trouble, but if he gets some, there are already folks who speak in his favor... dunno why...

Mike

Bog
11-27-2006, 04:35 PM
btw. I wait for the day when Oddy gets banned cause he wasn't able to control his sarcastic diarrhea. Then he starts whining and slandering on other boards about how unfair all people at NT are etc...
He seems to ask for trouble, but if he gets some, there are already folks who speak in his favor... dunno why...

He's had a one-week ban (and another one of our members found out he didn't have any aneurysms from the conniption he threw.)

I'd love it if oDDy made his jokes more obvious, and moderated his own smackdowns. But, to be honest, if you eat a ban oDDity... *sighs*

You will have earned it. Again. I respect the hoowa-hey out of your talents, but I can't hack the fact that you use your own self-criticism to blast everyone around you. It's rude. Y'know?

Anyways, what the hay. I'm a pain the rump my own self.

tonybliss
11-28-2006, 12:23 AM
Bog said - "Anyways, what the hay. I'm a pain the rump my own self."

yeah but at least people don't disfavor you for it ....

pero ... donde esta infinite ? maybe to crazy here :s

oDDity
11-28-2006, 02:06 AM
btw. I wait for the day when Oddy gets banned cause he wasn't able to control his sarcastic diarrhea. Then he starts whining and slandering on other boards about how unfair all people at NT are etc...
He seems to ask for trouble, but if he gets some, there are already folks who speak in his favor... dunno why...



Probably because most people really want to speak their mind and say exactly what they think, but social conventions that they've carried forth to the internet prevent them from doing it, and deep down they're grudgingly happy to see someone who does.

How about an 'honesty day' here, on which everyone says exactly what they want to say, and give 100% honest opinions on everything, without first putting it through the 'generic social conventions' filter, then the 'political correctness' filter, then the 'will people think I'm a total dick if I actually say that' filter, then the 'I'll be perceived as more of a nice guy if I phrase it this way' filter, and finally the 'will I get banned if I say this' filter.
Of course, those are only the common filters, you no doubt all have your own personal little neurotic filters that have to be traversed as well.
It's give you all a chance to get it all off your chests.

Red_Oddity
11-28-2006, 03:07 AM
When people would do that you'd end up with forums that look like Buesnews forums or MegaGames forums, fun to read for 10 minutes, but the use of such said forums goes down the drain very quickly.

hrgiger
11-28-2006, 04:26 AM
Probably because most people really want to speak their mind and say exactly what they think, but social conventions that they've carried forth to the internet prevent them from doing it, and deep down they're grudgingly happy to see someone who does.

How about an 'honesty day' here, on which everyone says exactly what they want to say, and give 100% honest opinions on everything, without first putting it through the 'generic social conventions' filter, then the 'political correctness' filter, then the 'will people think I'm a total dick if I actually say that' filter, then the 'I'll be perceived as more of a nice guy if I phrase it this way' filter, and finally the 'will I get banned if I say this' filter.
Of course, those are only the common filters, you no doubt all have your own personal little neurotic filters that have to be traversed as well.
It's give you all a chance to get it all off your chests.

Yes, a lot of people don't say exactly what they want and they do put their words through a fair amount of filters as you describe. Then there are some who are on the opposite end of the spectrum who go beyond saying exactly what they want to say and say things specifically to incite a response and then pass that off as somehow being socially liberated which is really no more then an attempt by that person to shock and awe to make themselves feel somehow superior to those who attempt to behave within social norms. So basically somewhere between being a worker bee and being a total and complete A-Hole is the range I'm describing. You can place yourself whereever you want on that scale. I know I have.

StereoMike
11-28-2006, 04:26 AM
How about an 'honesty day' here, on which everyone says exactly what they want to say, and give 100% honest opinions on everything, without first putting it through the 'generic social conventions' filter, then the 'political correctness' filter, then the 'will people think I'm a total dick if I actually say that' filter, then the 'I'll be perceived as more of a nice guy if I phrase it this way' filter, and finally the 'will I get banned if I say this' filter.
Of course, those are only the common filters, you no doubt all have your own personal little neurotic filters that have to be traversed as well.
It's give you all a chance to get it all off your chests.

Haha, good one. You don't even have as much social skills as I have dirt under my fingernails if that post was meant seriously...
The outcome is exactly what red_oddity says.
Obviously you don't have many of the mentioned filters (e.g. the 'will people think I'm a total dick if I actually say that' filter).

Mike

kopperdrake
11-28-2006, 04:30 AM
Nice idea in theory, but it's exactly that, a written theory. In reality everything you do or say can, and often does, have repurcussions in the real world, both mentally and physically. In all honesty, if someone were a great artist but a total plonker with no social skills then I wouldn't bring them into a team as they'd disrupt the whole team dynamic. I've seen teams suffer due to individuals who can't play as a team, and in doing so affecting the lives of the other team members and their families, and I've seen those individuals lose their jobs over it. Social skills and boundaries are there for a reason, else we'd have evolved to this stage in evolution quite well without them. Ignoring others' feelings in an online forum reply can be destructive, when it could so easily be constructive if it were phrased in such a different way.

To argue and speak your mind in a way without thought of repurcussion is a step backwards as far as I'm concerned and is merely lazy. You will find it so much harder to persuade someone your opinion is right by bluntness, and negate any reason to debate in the first place.

oDDity
11-28-2006, 04:40 AM
Haha, good one. You don't even have as much social skills as I have dirt under my fingernails if that post was meant seriously...
The outcome is exactly what red_oddity says.
Obviously you don't have many of the mentioned filters (e.g. the 'will people think I'm a total dick if I actually say that' filter).

Mike
What's an internet forum got to do with social skills? We're a complete bunch of strangers, no more than avatars and nicknames, we know absolutely nothing about each other and will never meet. You could be a 12 year old girl, or a well programmed bot, or the sort of person I would utterly despise if I met in real life.
It's a completely unnatural situation.
I think you need to discern between internet etiquette, which is a new and strange thing, and social skills, which involve real life situations.
I think these internet conversations are a perfect opportunity to loosen the chains of social convention, not tighten them.
I do have filters, but I try to retain a semblance of the sentence and meaning I intended at the beginning.

StereoMike
11-28-2006, 05:01 AM
With every reply you dig your hole deeper.
I think it's still your "I love to tease meek people" attitude, that you once proclaimed, so I can't say what of the bullsheet you post is meant seriously.
I just can make a statement based on the assumption you meant it seriously.
And in that case, you don't have any social skills, if you think an internet forum, (spelled like "c-o-m-m-u-n-i-t-y") has nothing to do with human social interaction and thus is a space without conventions or worse conventions made by guys like you.

Mike

CMT
11-28-2006, 08:03 AM
What's an internet forum got to do with social skills?

Come on.... You should know the answer to that already. This is a learning forum for the most part and a community. You can't be "brutally" honest with someone and thrash someones work in a condescending way and do so in the name of truth and expect them to say "Oh thank you!" Social skills is exactly what is needed when dealing with someone looking for advice. Because tact is a tool for learning. So is reassurance, motivation and enthusiasm. Qualities you seem to not have when dealing with those who aren't as experienced as you in 3D.

This is also a community. People do get to know one another here and there is an expectation of courtesy. If everyone here had your philosophy on posting, then no one would want to take part in the forums.

oDDity
11-28-2006, 09:15 AM
Again, I think you can tell the difference between blunt honesty, or just being rude for the sake of it - and it is a big difference.
Perceptive people can tell the difference quite easily, and many here do.
I guess it really is time to incldue a smilie when I'm not being entirely serious, sicne some people just can't understand it otherwise.

bobakabob
11-28-2006, 09:52 AM
Come on.... You should know the answer to that already. This is a learning forum for the most part and a community. You can't be "brutally" honest with someone and thrash someones work in a condescending way and do so in the name of truth and expect them to say "Oh thank you!" Social skills is exactly what is needed when dealing with someone looking for advice. Because tact is a tool for learning. So is reassurance, motivation and enthusiasm. Qualities you seem to not have when dealing with those who aren't as experienced as you in 3D.

This is also a community. People do get to know one another here and there is an expectation of courtesy. If everyone here had your philosophy on posting, then no one would want to take part in the forums.

Excellent points CMT.

jasonwestmas
11-28-2006, 10:35 AM
I saw your smilie oDDitiy, very cute. You can honestly puke on my work any time.

CMT
11-28-2006, 10:36 AM
Again, I think you can tell the difference between blunt honesty, or just being rude for the sake of it - and it is a big difference.
Perceptive people can tell the difference quite easily, and many here do.
I guess it really is time to incldue a smilie when I'm not being entirely serious, sicne some people just can't understand it otherwise.

Sure I can tell the difference. Cuz, I know you now for the "critical bastard" that you claim to be. [insert courtesy smilie here]

Brutal honesty is just that. Brutal. It's not motivating, enthusiastic, or tactful. If you really want to help someone improve, you would understand that. You can't help someone when they become discouraged from all negative comments which bring them down. Creativity and craftmanship aren't beaten into someone with brutal critiques. These qualities should be cultivated and reinforced.

Stooch
11-28-2006, 10:42 AM
Again, I think you can tell the difference between blunt honesty, or just being rude for the sake of it - and it is a big difference.
Perceptive people can tell the difference quite easily, and many here do.
I guess it really is time to incldue a smilie when I'm not being entirely serious, sicne some people just can't understand it otherwise.

lol. all i have to say is good luck finding a job. You will need it.

especially if the hiring person read your "blunt honesty". Im pretty blunt myself but you just come off juvenile sometimes and very elitist, i personally cant say that i would look forward to meeting you in person. How many people do you think might get a similar impression? anyway ive already mentioned this before but i guess you need to learn this yourself, the hard way.

jasonwestmas
11-28-2006, 10:42 AM
Well I can always just say, that must be that oDDity guy with the crusty dispositon that nobody likes but always listen to. If that's cool with him, then it's cool with me.

Stooch
11-28-2006, 10:47 AM
listens to? sure, agrees with? Havent yet, im sure the time will come eventually.

jasonwestmas
11-28-2006, 10:54 AM
Yeah, sure does get a lot of attention for being someone no one likes. Must be that redheaded stepchild sydrome that is in every family.

prospector
11-28-2006, 11:28 AM
If oDDity ever wants to trash my stuff, or praise my stuff, that's fine with me.
At least I know where he's coming from.

Honesty never hurt anyone that's not vain.


but it can go to far

"that's wrong, that's ugly, too weird", are fine if 'splained why

"that's wrong and should never be seen in the light of day", with no 'splainin

well that's not right and just creates resentment

oh my smiley :angel:

*Pete*
11-28-2006, 12:19 PM
"that's wrong, that's ugly, too weird", are fine if 'splained why

"that's wrong and should never be seen in the light of day", with no 'splainin

well that's not right and just creates resentment

oh my smiley :angel:

true.

people take critisism in different ways, i like to be encouraged towards the right path, but not harassed away from a wrong the wrong path.

i am stubborn, and if i feel pressed to do a certain thing i will most likely do just the opposite, many are the same as me, but not everyone.

oDDity himself doesnt takle critisism as well as he deals it to others, there was a post with a head modelled in Mudbox ,made by someone(mmm...forgot the artist), oddity showed up with a head he modelled in Zbrush.

when some people kindly posted that they prefer the head made in Mudbox, oDDity became defensive and asked the "critics" to modell a better head than he had done, or else they had no right of an opinion.

oDDity is possibly the best modeller i have seen, but he lacks selfconfidence and that is the reason for his harsh critic.

often i find his posts funny, the guy does have humour...but very often (always?) he goes too far.

koryhz
11-28-2006, 07:28 PM
Editing ones speech is much like editing a model or illustration.
It is for communiating in a more effective way.

Refining your posts in order to make a point clear to the reader is not the same as being timid or sissy. It is being thoughtful and respectful. When being blunt or "honest" as somepeople call it. Is not always the best way of making a point.

Tone and voice is a diffucult thing to master in written form. most of us are visual artists not writers. An extra bit of effort may be required in order for sarcasim or irony to be evident. Is it too much to expect people to do this?

I don't want this to come across as a personal dig, but ODDity often dismises peoples oppinions based on his percieved relitive talent level. Meaning if he thinks he is better than the person stating his or her opinion he off handedly disreguards the comments. It seems to me he thinks he is better than most people on these forums based on his ability to scoff at nearly everyone's personal thoughts.
With this attitude it is nearly impossible to have a reasonable conversation.
Perhaps I am wrong and his wit and charm is lost in the written form. Still there is a leason to be learned here. If you want your opinion heard and concidered, one should listen and concider others. An artisic pissing match is not needed. After all, there is such a great diversity here that it would be foolish to attempt it. In fact, it should be the case that if one feels that they are better than everyone, then share the knowledge and help others grow. There should be no harm in that. It's not like I am going to steal anyone's job if I get better at modeling.
There are only a few hundred people in the entire world who have the opportunity to do what I do and I have no problem with helping others try to get their foot in the door. I have seen it time and time again where an exremely talented young artist is up for review and we won't hire them because of lack of professionalism, NOT experience or talent. It is that filter or editing of ones self that can make a difference in a suturated market.
So finally back to my point( if I had one) self censorship can be useful and ultimatley needed for advancement and growth. But if someone was so outrageously talented that their personality didn't matter, then what I just said is BS. That said, it just doesn't happen that often. And I don't think anyone here, myself included, fits in to that category.

Alright back to talking about nekkid CG Chicks. Which BTW I totally think are a misuse of time. Because, personally, I have NEVER been on a job where I needed to model a bare lady. And I worked in the games industry. Metal bras and titanium g-strings maybe, but in the buff. NOPE. Which means I think I need to choose my jobs more carefully! You can make the agrument that is is for education. I think that is pretty thin. Clothing would be a greater chalenge. And if you always intended the model to be clothed but never got around to modeling the clothes. Why model and texture the nipples in the first place?

oDDity
11-29-2006, 03:17 AM
Perhaps he isn't after a job int he games industry. Not everyone wants the same career as yourself you know.
...and you accuse me of not looking at things from other people's perspective...

oDDity
11-29-2006, 03:23 AM
lol. all i have to say is good luck finding a job. You will need it.

especially if the hiring person read your "blunt honesty". Im pretty blunt myself but you just come off juvenile sometimes and very elitist, i personally cant say that i would look forward to meeting you in person. How many people do you think might get a similar impression? anyway ive already mentioned this before but i guess you need to learn this yourself, the hard way.

I'm pretty sure I won't be applying for a job through the medium of an internet forum, you complete cretin, and I don't have the slightest problem pretending to be a nice and appropriate guy in real life, or even on messenger chat, so there won't be a problem.
I just can't be bothered making the effort for forums, I mean, what's the point?

MODERATOR NOTE

The point of being a nice and appropriate guy on someone else's forum is twofold: courtesy to the hosts by following the rules against personal attack, and the priviledge of getting to post some more.

This post, and its unwarranted vitriol has earned you a week in the corner.
You are banned for seven days. I thank you in advance for your agreement to abide by NewTek's stated guidelines upon your return, ODDity.

'Da Moderator

Bog
11-29-2006, 03:34 AM
I'm pretty sure I won't be applying for a job through the medium of an internet forum, you complete cretin, and I don't have the slightest problem pretending to be a nice and appropriate guy in real life, or even on messenger chat, so there won't be a problem.
I just can't be bothered making the effort for forums, I mean, what's the point?

1) It's the 21st century. A lot of stuff happens over the 'net, jobwise and otherwise.

2) Anyone can be rude. It's really not very difficult.

3) If you can't be bothered to make the effort, why are you using them in the first place?

4) If you can't be bothered to make the effort, why did you bother returning after you got banned the first time?

Sorry chap - on this one you're just sounding like a petulant 5-year-old being told he can't have his lolly.

oDDity
11-29-2006, 03:41 AM
Sure I can tell the difference. Cuz, I know you now for the "critical bastard" that you claim to be. [insert courtesy smilie here]

Brutal honesty is just that. Brutal. It's not motivating, enthusiastic, or tactful. If you really want to help someone improve, you would understand that. You can't help someone when they become discouraged from all negative comments which bring them down. Creativity and craftmanship aren't beaten into someone with brutal critiques. These qualities should be cultivated and reinforced.

That doesn't make any sense to me, my motivation is to constantly think of myself as absolute rubbish, and therefore need and want to become better. My moments of pride or confidence last a small amount of time when I see I have improved a bit after finishing another piece, but is soon plunges back into inferiority mode and hunger for improvement while I work on the next one.
I don't think that will ever change no matter how relatively good I become.
It works for me anyway, and it's working pretty quickly as well, I've improved a lot just in the last 8 months.
So, even though it doesn't look too pretty to casual observers, it's a tried and true method.
In order to improve quickly and well, the budding modeler must constantly think of himself as absolute worthless trash, alleviated only by brief moments of pride when they have made a genuine improvement.
Unless the recipient is some kind of damp-eyed nancyboy who still feeds from his mother's breast and wets the bed, he'll be great in a matter of a few years.

oDDity
11-29-2006, 03:54 AM
1) It's the 21st century. A lot of stuff happens over the 'net, jobwise and otherwise.

Email, messenger perhaps, but not forums debates for employment..


2) Anyone can be rude. It's really not very difficult.
Exactly why I say I can't be bothered pretending to be nice on forums. I's too much effort. So much easier just to be your normal self, which comes across as a bit too blunt and rude. Thanks for backing me up on that.


3) If you can't be bothered to make the effort, why are you using them in the first place?

4) If you can't be bothered to make the effort, why did you bother returning after you got banned the first time?
You're really not thinking this through, are you?
If I had to make the effort to pretend to be nice, that would be too much effort to bother at all, but since I'm not having to make that effort, and just being myself, it's hardly any effort at all.


Sorry chap - on this one you're just sounding like a petulant 5-year-old being told he can't have his lolly.

Heh, you tried to manufacture a few points for youeslf there, just so you could finish with that statement, which is really all you wanted to say in the first place, but thought you'd better attempt to put in context first.
YOu'll have to try harder than that.

Thunderb
11-29-2006, 03:59 AM
What was this thread about again ?

These forums at Newtek really should be moderated, I wonder why this discussion didnt happen at its original location back at cgtalk?

anyway back on to what you guys were talking about.........:sleeping:

colkai
11-29-2006, 04:52 AM
In his own words...

I don't have the slightest problem pretending to be a nice and appropriate guy in real life
Nuff said really.

jasonwestmas
11-29-2006, 08:09 AM
That doesn't make any sense to me, my motivation is to constantly think of myself as absolute rubbish, and therefore need and want to become better. My moments of pride or confidence last a small amount of time when I see I have improved a bit after finishing another piece, but is soon plunges back into inferiority mode and hunger for improvement while I work on the next one.
I don't think that will ever change no matter how relatively good I become.
It works for me anyway, and it's working pretty quickly as well, I've improved a lot just in the last 8 months.
So, even though it doesn't look too pretty to casual observers, it's a tried and true method.
In order to improve quickly and well, the budding modeler must constantly think of himself as absolute worthless trash, alleviated only by brief moments of pride when they have made a genuine improvement.
Unless the recipient is some kind of damp-eyed nancyboy who still feeds from his mother's breast and wets the bed, he'll be great in a matter of a few years.

I like this actually, reminds me of a lot of artists in the past and present. I don't mind the cranky mood as long as I can understand someone. Improvement is infinite after all and to think you have learned everything in a brief moment of success is a mistake in reguards to improving your skills and creative flow.

CMT
11-29-2006, 08:30 AM
In order to improve quickly and well, the budding modeler must constantly think of himself as absolute worthless trash, alleviated only by brief moments of pride when they have made a genuine improvement.

oDDity's school of bettering yourself.... to think of yourself as worthless. Very motivating....

I don't know about you, but for myself, self improvement comes with knowledge and discipline. Not from thinking less of myself.

This poem is the most motivational piece of poetry I've come across and it sums up, I believe, what it takes to succeed at anything. I printed and framed it in my office.

If you think you are beaten, you are;
If you think you dare not, you donít.
If youíd like to win, but think you canít,
Itís almost a cinch you wonít.
If you think youíll lose, youíre lost,
For out in the world we find
Success begins with a fellowís will;
Itís all in the state of mind.

If you think youíre outclassed, you are;
Youíve got to think high to rise.
Youíve got to be sure of yourself before
You can ever win a prize.
Lifeís battles donít always go
To the stronger or faster man;
But soon or late the man who wins
Is the one who thinks he can.

Walter D. Wintle


Unless the recipient is some kind of damp-eyed nancyboy who still feeds from his mother's breast and wets the bed, he'll be great in a matter of a few years.

Or dead from depression.

Jim_C
11-29-2006, 08:48 AM
In order to improve quickly and well, the budding modeler must constantly think of himself as absolute worthless trash, alleviated only by brief moments of pride when they have made a genuine improvement.


I understand this somewhat.

Anytime I start thinking I am really good at something I like to search out and find someone who is much better to humble myself back into place and back to the drawing board.

ericsmith
11-29-2006, 09:22 AM
I'm pretty sure I won't be applying for a job through the medium of an internet forum, you complete cretin, and I don't have the slightest problem pretending to be a nice and appropriate guy in real life, or even on messenger chat, so there won't be a problem.
I just can't be bothered making the effort for forums, I mean, what's the point?

Do you honestly think that those in a position to hire you have never been to these forums?

I don't know who you are hoping to get hired by, but you should know that the 3d community is pretty tight-knit, and many employers look to their current staff for recommendations on who to hire. The same staff that frequent these forums and see your behavior here.

Eric

beverins
11-29-2006, 09:37 AM
Look, stop defending this drooling pervert. I'd be surprised if the guy wasn't a serial rapist producing this filth from a hideout strewn with the shoes of is victims..
He's obviously smart enough not to show his numerous images of women with knives in their face, but he's trying to get better at making realistic CG representations of them so he can make perfect plans of his forthcoming crimes by doing realistic CG pre-constructions of them.
Supporting him almost makes you guys complicit in the crimes.

I see the problem here.

You fail at using smilies. You see, people are taking you seriously here. :D :twak:

As for the image of the woman - I'm gobstopped - its bloody amazing. Yes, there are nitpicks to be had, but 8infinite8 is still working on it. I am immensely amazed by the photorealism. The pose, nudity, etc doesn't faze me in the least. Those who question his choice of content, I think, cannot be truly called artists. But that's just me. :boogiedow

Thomas M.
11-29-2006, 09:57 AM
Those who question his choice of content, I think, cannot be truly called artists.

Sorry, but don't make yourself ridiculous.

Everybody in the forum uses the word art and artist in every second sentence without knowing what art is or isn't. The word art in this forum is used so inflationary that it hardly carries any meaning anymore.

How does an art look like? Is it big or small, furry or shaved. How much apples does an art eat per day or is art probaly a carnivore?

So many questions and too little guys in this forum who could come up with an answer.

Is a porn actor an artist? Isn't that performance art? A rapist in action on video, is this art if you exhibit it at a gallery?

Like said before: Infinites skill at reproducing something with the help of 3D is impressive, Infinites taste isn't.

It's a shame how easily everybody can be blinded by form, even if the content is utter rubbish ( -> see modern pop music).

Cheers
Thomas

P.S.: I don't feel offended by the content of this image. I'm used to see these images on every TV program nowadays. But I still know that it's degrading in general and empty (no soul).

jasonwestmas
11-29-2006, 11:36 AM
I'm pretty sure oDDity's point was that improvement is an ongoing process and to think that your work has reached its point of perfection is foolish. I suppose "complete rubbish" is the wrong phrase because therefore we are learning from complete rubbish which wouldn't necessarily be the case. If everything we did was rubbish then we wouldn't learn anything. Like oDDity said, there are brief moments of self worth and pride but to remain there doesn't make much sense in terms of an ongoing learning process and must put asside the old and put on the new. There is a time to be confident and a time to be inseccure.

CMT
11-29-2006, 12:58 PM
I've never heard any artist say "That's it! I've reached the point where I'm at the best that I can be".

But, I take pride in my abilities as they are. Even though I know there is always room to improve. Just because there is always more to learn, doesn't mean you can't be at least somewhat happy with your own progress.

Sure, humility is a virtue and every time I see some great new art, I say "Wow, I could learn a lot from that." But you don't need to feel worthless from it. Those brief moments of self worth and pride don't have to be brief at all.

It's funny how in one post in another thread oDDity said something to the effect that he fully intends to be as good or better than DaVinci. How can you feel worthless as an artist, craftsman, or whatever... then turn around and make such an ambitious statement like that? I just don't get it. They are two totally different attitudes at the extreme ends of it.

But, if I had to pick one extreme, it would be the ambitious one to be the best. That's where the motivation, self confidence, and drive to perfect your craft is at. The best attutude is somewhere in the middle but leaning mostly toward healthy ambition and self confidence. But also, a little humility will go a long way.

meathead
11-29-2006, 02:01 PM
Its amazing this thread continues...and carries so much venom still?!?!

The model (especially the artificial-flash bulb-lighted one) is amazingly well done, much better than most of the chracter work I have seen posted, and there has been some great stuff posted. Wether its distasteful or not, some recognition of the talent level must be addressed.

BTW, I notice, when cruising Oddity's website of artwork some time ago, he avoids face/skin detail. His work, although techinically profiicient, is actually nothing like this realistic model. A lot of the work is video game characters, hidden in gowns, and armor. Either he is truly avoiding charcter realism in 3d, avoiding nudity as much as possible, or incapable of doing something of this detail.

jasonwestmas
11-29-2006, 02:15 PM
I've never heard any artist say "That's it! I've reached the point where I'm at the best that I can be".

But, I take pride in my abilities as they are. Even though I know there is always room to improve. Just because there is always more to learn, doesn't mean you can't be at least somewhat happy with your own progress.

Sure, humility is a virtue and every time I see some great new art, I say "Wow, I could learn a lot from that." But you don't need to feel worthless from it. Those brief moments of self worth and pride don't have to be brief at all.

It's funny how in one post in another thread oDDity said something to the effect that he fully intends to be as good or better than DaVinci. How can you feel worthless as an artist, craftsman, or whatever... then turn around and make such an ambitious statement like that? I just don't get it. They are two totally different attitudes at the extreme ends of it.

But, if I had to pick one extreme, it would be the ambitious one to be the best. That's where the motivation, self confidence, and drive to perfect your craft is at. The best attutude is somewhere in the middle but leaning mostly toward healthy ambition and self confidence. But also, a little humility will go a long way.

I don't see poison or snake bites in these forums, I just see misunderstanding and miscommunication about the context of human values, there is truth to what everyone says here and there are also inaccuracies about the time and place for things. I practice balance as much as possible but there is also a time to be extreme and a time to be passive. One might take one extreme or the other but I say lets go beyond that and explore more shades of grey and discover what it is each and every shade/value is trying to show.

I could go on and explain why I don't like something because it is out of the appropriate place and time but I will surely spare all of you from that. Anyway I already spoke my mind and I enjoy these little chats. It helps me focus on what is going on with myself and others.

metahumanity
11-29-2006, 02:45 PM
my motivation is to constantly think of myself as absolute rubbish

:screwy:

jasonwestmas
11-29-2006, 04:55 PM
Ha, Oddity would be contradicting himself if he said "Constantly" I really don't think he means that.

Bog
11-29-2006, 06:18 PM
Ha, Oddity would be contradicting himself if he said "Constantly" I really don't think he means that.

It would hardly be the first time he contradicted himself. He swaps ends so fast he contrails when it suits him, To be entirely honest, as is my wont, I do not beleive I've ever read one honest post from him.

Soz, oDDity - but you've said yourself. You picks fights here. Nothing you say is worth reading, because it isn't truth, it's lashing-out. You want a reaction, not honesty.

If a snake behind glass lunges, a person recoils. That's spinal reflex, not the honesty of the man inside.

Soz. On many levels.

StereoMike
11-30-2006, 02:10 AM
Oddy won't answer for seven days.

*Pete*
11-30-2006, 02:33 AM
Oddy won't answer for seven days.


perfect time to post WIP's and final images to the galleries :thumbsup:

tonybliss
11-30-2006, 03:14 AM
I have well lit pair of mamaries I'll like to show :D

tonybliss
11-30-2006, 03:38 AM
How does an art look like? Is it big or small, furry or shaved.



A- B cup and shaved or stylized shaved preferably. But thats for another forum :devil: