PDA

View Full Version : The Battle Over "Art"



Pages : [1] 2

agv
08-13-2007, 09:10 PM
What became of Joe Battle's Poser Art Creations? They seemed to have vanished from the forum, along with all of the lively deliberation they roused.

loki74
08-13-2007, 09:22 PM
If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say the mods got rid of it... I imagine the guy has got most of us on block anyway... (well those of us who offered anything other than compliments)

If that's the case, I think it would have been better just to lock the thread, that way its documented and reference-able...and there wouldn't people like us going "huh where'd it go?"

EDIT: just got the pun... "battle" over art..hahaha!

agv
08-13-2007, 09:34 PM
If so, too bad. The ensuing conversations brought up valid artistic issues regarding premade content... and were an entertaining read.

loki74
08-13-2007, 10:24 PM
If so, too bad. The ensuing conversations brought up valid artistic issues regarding premade content... and were an entertaining read.

true, true.

Joe Battle
08-13-2007, 10:36 PM
I requested NewTek pull down all threads I started. They complied with my wish. I simply got fed up with the whole mess. Joe:lwicon:

Captain Obvious
08-14-2007, 05:23 AM
What, I missed all the forum drama again?

starbase1
08-14-2007, 05:50 AM
I requested NewTek pull down all threads I started. They complied with my wish. I simply got fed up with the whole mess. Joe:lwicon:

A very reasonable thing to do - it had turned into the classic example of casting more heat than light.

dsol
08-14-2007, 05:50 AM
Yeah, it's a shame to lose the whole thread. In particular, I though Mr. Rid put in some really good, thoughtful comments defending the use of pre-made content (and poser) for production.

starbase1
08-14-2007, 06:41 AM
Your right, Mr Rid made very intelligent contributions.

I still don't understand why Poser generates such a huge hate reaction. I think it's about a lot more that use or pre made content... There are plenty of examples you could find round here of people using presets that came with the program, surface maps, or lighting setups or all kinds of things. Look at the demand for a surface library!

Why not demand people make all their own stuff for that too?

In the astronomical area, I know a guy who makes superb image maps for planets - better than stuff NASA releases. (yes, literally that good). I use them - they are better than anything I would come up with. Mine would be less accurrate. He takes it to the extreme of even writing his own planetary renderer, it will cope with all sorts of light scattering that you don't tend to get much in other circumstances. Should I follow his lead there too?

Even at the more basic level, why is it Poser that is attacked and not Daz Studio?

Vue users seem to expect to buy bundles of pre made skies and atmospheres, landscapes and buildings, they don't have this hatred of pre made content.

It seems to overlap with some peoples deep dislike of showing scantily clad women - even in cases like the one where the thread lead to getting Oddity kicked out, nothing that would stop a film getting a U certificate. It may be cliched, and sometimes tasteless, often badly done, but it really doesn't justify the explosions of indignation we sometimes see...

Maybe it's the overlap of pre made content and women that does it...

Nick

Captain Obvious
08-14-2007, 06:47 AM
I've used Poser for paid work a couple of times. Heck, one thing I used Poser for even ended up in the Luxology gallery!

On the whole, I tend to dislike Poser stuff, because most of it is, quite frankly, crap. If you manage to produce something worthwhile while using Poser, that's great, though. Of course, keep in mind that using JUST pre-made content and then claiming the work to be your own is slightly dishonest. If all you do is load up a pre-made Poser model, stick a pre-made Poser pose on it, it's not your "art," since the focus of the piece is something someone else made. However, if you create a piece that merly contains pre-made content as a part of it, it is still, arguably, your work. Of course, there is a very gray and fuzzi line here...

flakester
08-14-2007, 06:58 AM
Understand where you are coming from Nick. Some good points well made.

I think some of it comes from people feeling that apps like Poser and Facegen tread on their toes as an Artisan - a threat of sorts if you will.

I personally don't have a problem with anything of that ilk that allows people to realise what they visualise. We have to remember that these are just tools for the artist to use.

As in, you will find people making wonderful art with the most meagre (by the usual industry standpoint) of programs, others will be using the multi-thousand Pound (or Dollar!) apps to create their work - ranging from the poor to the absolutely outstading, and by the same token - you will still have people creating mind-blowing masterpieces with something as simple as a pencil and a sheet of A4.

I'll just carry on doing what I do, and I'll also take the time to appreciate others works, no matter what app was used to create them, as well as those created while on the learning curve - I am of the opinion that artistic development never stops, least I hope mine doesn't!!

My two pence worth.

flakester.

::EDIT:: Capt Obvious raises a darn good point about claiming premade content as *yours* yes, grey fuzzy lines indeed - personally, not something I'd be happy doing.

Iain
08-14-2007, 07:14 AM
Maybe it's the overlap of pre made content and women that does it...



No, in this case it was the use of a pre made model (could have been any sex or kind of model but it was a female Poser model) as the main focus of a composition which contained little else other than someone else's space backdrop and proclaiming it as your own art.

That's all.

ben martin
08-14-2007, 07:22 AM
I believe that the bad reactions about pre-made content are wrong interpretation of concept and I understand that some people can't imagine using pre-made content in certain circumstances.

For instance, at the moment I'm producing a short-story movie using characters fully modeled/textured in Lightwave.
The characters are cartoon style stylized and probably you won't find them in any pre-made content set anyway.

The next project I'm preparing it'll be something bigger and using human anatomy characters.
I have no problem to tell you that my team is going to use pre-made content extracted from (Poser or DAZStudio figures) to build bodies to every character.
The idea is to shape the base bodies using Poser/DazStudio morph tools to get the most accurate shape to each character and finally export the mesh to OBJ. Then in Lightwave modeler we'll finish the final details and add the photo ref. modeled faces and finally the expression endomorphs and UV textures.
Where is the problem of getting a pre -made mesh to the body?

Is that so wrong to avoid a full body mesh modeled from zero?
I truly believe that this method is an intelligence signal rather than… what ever you wish to call it!

It's almost like:
I need a standard screwdriver, but I don't think is professional to buy one.
I prefer to build one all by myself!
Cum'on, you must be joking! :screwy:

ben martin
08-14-2007, 07:34 AM
Eeeewww....

:) :hey: Come'on :hey: :)

lol

pumeco
08-14-2007, 07:38 AM
Wow, I think it's really sad that folk are driven to the point of requesting that their thread be removed.

Joe, you should post your stuff on renderotica.com I know and understand that your work isn't pornographic, but that place is obviously better suited to getting a response on what people like and dislike about art in a sort of fantasy/erotic kinda sense. You'll likely get more feedback on the overall feeling you're wanting the image to give. Not everything on there is pornographic anyway, and there are many talented artists posting there.

You're bound to get technical comments as well, but I doubt there'd be many (if any) "ditch the ready-made" type comments.

Not once did you claim to be a great LightWave artist, you were always up-front and gave the impression you were totally up for learning it. For that reason, I think the respone in general was a raw deal. Anyway, I wish you the best of luck in learning LightWave, and whatever you do, don't let it stop you posting others.

Joe Battle
08-14-2007, 09:00 AM
It's almost like:
I need a standard screwdriver, but I don't think is professional to buy one.
I prefer to build one all by myself!
Cum'on, you must be joking! :screwy:

Thanks Ben :thumbsup: Joe

Joe Battle
08-14-2007, 09:10 AM
"If a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, did it make a sound?
If an artist creates an image that doesn't provoke a wide range of emotions, is it art?" :) SeaCay

loki74
08-14-2007, 09:55 AM
It's almost like:
I need a standard screwdriver, but I don't think is professional to buy one.
I prefer to build one all by myself!
Cum'on, you must be joking! :screwy:

erm, no. That is quite simply a flawed analogy.

Buying a screwdriver would be like buying an essential program. There's no problem in that. It's just a tool you use to accomplish the greater goal.

Furthermore, I think it is incredible foolishness to apply a general rule to all situations. There are some situations where premades are appropriate. There are some situations where only certain types of premades are appropriate. There are other situations where no premades of any kind are appropriate.

Situations with clients, for example, have deadlines and money involved--premade models may be the most feasible solution. Also, it has to do with the original-to-premade ratio if you will.

Joe's thread generated so much heat because he did not extensively alter the premade models. Mr. Rid, the best (imo) defender of premade content, as well as Nick, posted some very interesting images in that thread. However, all of this defense relied on the extensive modification of premade content--using those models merely as primitives, a basis or starting point for something truly original.

Joe frustrated me particularly because he shunned most of the advice given in the thread (iirc, Stooch gave some very good advice very early in the thread, without mentioning premades or naked women at all) and this advice was completely ignored. Joe--if you don't have me blocked--I hope you understand that none of us mean you harm. I still stand by my original statement that you are limiting yourself by using premades, and that with your experience in traditional art you should seriously give Mudbox or ZBrush a try.

I should note though--the part of that thread dedicated to attacking his website was completely uncalled for. So what if the site isn't freakin amazing! He wasn't even mentioning (much less "plugging") it at all. Heck, I'm pretty sure it was someone else who suggested he put it in his signature!

parm
08-14-2007, 11:57 AM
There are other situations where no premades of any kind are appropriate.

Very few situations, I would have thought. I can certainly think of none when the work is for personal projects.

Even in commercial work. Such as architectural visualisation. Pre made furniture, cars, trees and people are used regularly, with no modification to their geometry whatsoever.

I agree with what starbase1 said earlier. There's little difference between using surface presets and pre-made objects in your artwork, both are equally valid.

*Pete*
08-14-2007, 12:28 PM
It's almost like:
I need a standard screwdriver, but I don't think is professional to buy one.
I prefer to build one all by myself!
Cum'on, you must be joking! :screwy:


nah..its more like buying IKEA furniture, putting it together (very easy instructions, fool proof setup) and then claiming you BUILT that piece of furniture.

as for Joe Battles pictures, i wouldnt know...i didnt see them, only saw this thread about them.

pumeco
08-14-2007, 12:30 PM
Actually, it was me that suggested he should put a weblink in his signature.

Unless I missed something before the thread got deleted, he didn't mind me doing so. In fact, he was pleased I'd taken the time to visit his site from what I remember. And I only plugged his site for him because I wanted people to see that he's not producing the images for the reasons some of the members seem to be suggesting.

To be honest, I'm actually quite annoyed that he's had his threads deleted.

One of the reasons I stood by him in the thread, was because I have respect for those that are able to ignore and go forward - even when it seems the majority might be against you for whatever reason. Having his thread's deleted have lost him a little of that respect. It's almost as if he's saying OK, you guys win. My work is wrong, and I'm ashamed to have shown it here in the first place.

He should have left his threads up, and stuck to his original attitude (the right attitude), which was more along the lines of; If you don't like it, hard luck, it's gonna be a bumpy ride! - if I remember correctly.

Joe Battle
08-14-2007, 12:45 PM
I agree with what starbase1 said earlier. There's little difference between using surface presets and pre-made objects in your artwork, both are equally valid.

I also agree.

Some Artists cut their own trees, mill their own lumber, air dry it themselves (1 yr for each 1 inch of thickness), Use hand tools to build, and brushes to finish lacquer.
These Artists may make one or two pieces a year.
On the other hand an Artist who allows others to do some of the initial work and uses modern tools to fabricate may produce 100 pieces a year.

The will be no difference in quality. The only difference is held within the artist's working process.
Which is most satisfying to the individual? The journey or the destination?
Each will make their own decision as it relates to their own circumstance.

If you must insist on modeling first, why not insist on scripting your software first? For that matter why not build your own computer first or fabricate your own memory chips first?

And so you see to an intelligent person the discussion is moot.

I understand now that this community is centered around modeling and the use of self made models to construct scenes, lighting, and animations. This is appropriate. That of course is why this whole tempest began around my first LightWave Image using pre-made elements. It was my mistake.

Peace, Joe Battle :lwicon: :thumbsup:

Joe Battle
08-14-2007, 01:14 PM
To be honest, I'm actually quite annoyed that he's had his threads deleted.

One of the reasons I stood by him in the thread, was because I have respect for those that are able to ignore and go forward - even when it seems the majority might be against you for whatever reason. Having his thread's deleted have lost him a little of that respect. It's almost as if he's saying OK, you guys win. My work is wrong, and I'm ashamed to have shown it here in the first place.

He should have left his threads up, and stuck to his original attitude (the right attitude), which was more along the lines of; If you don't like it, hard luck, it's gonna be a bumpy ride! - if I remember correctly.

Sorry about that my friend Pumeco. I just got sick of all the negative energy in my threads. I still have the same attitude about producing. I just got tired of being a target for every juvenile mind around. What was the point of holding myself up for constant scorn to individuals whose 3d art work was either non existent on this site or no better than my own. The good technique crits. came early and I've incorporated that knowledge in my current work.

Regards the website link......thanks for the positive remarks.
Unfortunately that also turned sour when NewTec members began leaving insulting and vulgar remarks on my website comment page. That's the first time that's happened by the way. And my site has been international for 6 yrs.

What I've learned here so far is darn little about the use of LightWave and more about the petty side of human nature. That's why I asked NewTec to pull down my threads and I glad they did.
I will continue to read the technique information contained in this community. There is a lot of it. As far as posting more images......I'm not really eager to re-enter that vitriolic mix again soon.

Peace, Joe :lwicon:

*Pete*
08-14-2007, 01:21 PM
If you must insist on modeling first, why not insist on scripting your software first? For that matter why not build your own computer first or fabricate your own memory chips first?


Artists make models.
Programmers make programs.
Technicians build computers.

A persons whould would build himself a computer, write the software and then make an anatomically correct model would get my admiration. :thumbsup:

he would have to be a genious!!

but....

a person who would use a bought computer, bought software, bought model and simple press the "f9" button, will not get my admiration....he will not even get my attention.

I didnt see your pictures, Joe..becouse i saw on the thumbnail image of them a easily recognisable Poser model and...well, not much else.

it didnt trigger my intrest.


As for using premade models, computers and software...it is not a problem.
Does a photographer plant the trees he takes pictures of, does he raise the people, or create the sea or the sky??..no, its all premade.

But the things the photographer shoots, are almost always things/people i have never seen before...I have seen poser models, i even have the program, even if i never use it..posermodels are not intresting for me.

the art of photopraphy is not an art of "creation" as 3d is, but it is about catching a mood, or perfect composition..or many other things where the photographer really has to try his best.

as someone said earlier..to put a premade poser model in front of someone elses star image is not art, it is not art becouse there is very little skill or talent needed to do so.

ben martin
08-14-2007, 01:31 PM
Ok, let’s clarify something because I know that written messages are always problematic and tend to lead to misunderstandings and wrong ideas.

I start saying that my team had to model full characters from zero to a specific project.
Even if we wish to use pre-made characters it would be almost impossible to find the ones we planned/concept for the project.

So yes!
Like you said,
I think it is incredible foolishness to apply a general rule to all situations. There are some situations where pre-made are appropriate. There are some situations where only certain types of pre-made are appropriate. There are other situations where no pre-made of any kind are appropriate.
I’m only talking about human figures/bodies nothing else!
In fact I hate to use props or meshes in my projects that everybody can use anywhere!
I defend specific original and unique concepts to my projects, now, this does not mean that it’s not intelligent to use pre-made mesh bases to make easy the creation processes!


nah..its more like buying IKEA furniture, putting it together (very easy instructions, fool proof setup) and then claiming you BUILT that piece of furniture.
So… I see… using that line of tough I can also claim that the cool object you once created based on that Lightwave primitive 3d box mesh “ box modeler button” is not yours after all!
In fact you only deformed and changed the primitive box, right?
So the real author behind you master piece is the programmer that designed the 3d Box logarithm button, right? No, I don’t think so!
Just open any 3D application and try to steer at it all day.
If it create something without your intervention just let me know!

All this philosophic idea just reminds me a well known sculptor that once said:
“No, I didn’t create anything! This beautiful figure always was inside the stone block; I just removed the stone in excess to reveal the figure”!

Ok, let’s not make a fuss on this.
I guess you all understood pretty well what I meant about not being smart refusing to use tools already available (screwdrivers).

To me the body mesh extracted from Poser or DAZ content it is a simple tool that I can use to achieve my human character concept faster than do it all from scratch.
I can even use blender or Zbrush to digital sculpt that base figure later and I know that in the end it’ll be my creation not Poser creation.

What I mean is:
It doesn’t matter if the base mesh was pre-made or not… the final result is what really matters and since you are not stealing final art you are not doing anything wrong!
In fact Victoria, Michael and all the Poser figures sell agreement does not state that you can’t change or use the figure in any project. It’s the other way around, they encourage doing it!

Finally they are selling a product, it’s like a pre-modeled block of clay… from there you can change it to the limit of your imagination.

To finalize:
I believe we are all right!
The ones that don’t like to use pre-made based meshes!
The ones that like to use it and the ones that don’t care about it!
We are free to follow our own ideas and no one have the moral ground to state someone is wrong or not being professional just because he does not do things the way I do!
That kind of state is more immoral than moral from my point of view, which obviously is as questionable as yours!

CMT
08-14-2007, 01:32 PM
erm, no.I still stand by my original statement that you are limiting yourself by using premades, and that with your experience in traditional art you should seriously give Mudbox or ZBrush a try.

This is assuming he wants to learn and grow and create his own content. Judging by the number of images on his website of the same nature as he's posted here, he's content with what he's doing now.


If you must insist on modeling first, why not insist on scripting your software first? For that matter why not build your own computer first or fabricate your own memory chips first?

And so you see to an intelligent person the discussion is moot.

An intelligent person would see that argument as flawed.

Modeling is part of creating the digital 3d artwork. Scripting the code for the program or making memory chips is the tool building process. 2 totally different things.

CMT
08-14-2007, 01:41 PM
So… I see… using that line of tough I can also claim that the cool object you once created based on that Lightwave primitive 3d box mesh “ box modeler button” is not yours after all!
In fact you only deformed and changed the primitive box, right?
So the real author behind you master piece is the programmer that designed the 3d Box logarithm button, right? No, I don’t think so!

Quite a bit of a stretch. A six sided poly is equal to a model someone may have spent a few hours on.... yeah,.....


All this philosophic idea just reminds me a well known sculptor that once said:
“No, I didn’t create anything! This beautiful figure always was inside the stone block; I just removed the stone in excess to reveal the figure”!

Yeah, that's exactly how I see using a premade model. It was just a block until I decided to point a light at it and hit F9 to "reveal" it.

*Pete*
08-14-2007, 02:08 PM
Ok, let’s clarify something because I know that written messages are always problematic and tend to lead to misunderstandings and wrong ideas.


True..and most of us arent even native english speakers and we are making things even worse than need to be ;)




In fact you only deformed and changed the primitive box, right?


well...i think you misunderstod me.
Art can be many things...i have seen wonderfully detailed statues made from piece of wood that once were only "looking like" a certain form or shape...nature does the first part of the statue, man does the rest with the fine tuning and detailing.

i still call it art...but if someone would simply find a stick that "looks like" something, take it to art gallery as it is, and call it art..i wouldnt agree with that person.

art is difficult to define..it is very much based on personal opinion.



All this philosophic idea just reminds me a well known sculptor that once said:
“No, I didn’t create anything! This beautiful figure always was inside the stone block; I just removed the stone in excess to reveal the figure”!


see abowe...that artist saw the piece of stone block, and simply fine tuned and detailed it to be what he wanted it to be...he is correct, he didnt create any of the stone for the sculpture, he just removed (very carefully, with loads of artistic talent and patience) the excess stone...but how many of us could do the same??



To me the body mesh extracted from Poser or DAZ content it is a simple tool that I can use to achieve my human character concept faster than do it all from scratch.


its all fine with me....it is the end product that matters.
not everything we make is art anyway..and not everything that comes of poser models is automatically crap.

it is all about what you personally do with them, in order to create the image you wish to make.



To finalize:
I believe we are all right!


quoted for agreement :thumbsup:

starbase1
08-14-2007, 02:35 PM
CMT I am intrigued by your distinction between tools and content... It works quite well in the examples you use, but what about:

1. Surface presets.
2. Other peoples HDR images for illuminating a scene.
3. Animated Character rig that an be applied to any roughly humanoid figures.

Even with human figures, I think few would argue about using stock figures to populate a background. Indeed, in architectural renderings it's fairly normal (I think?) to use 2d cutouts.

I seem to be leading myself towards a foreground / background distinction here!

My own problems with using Poser content is that I do not often feel much sense of ownership of the images that come out. It does feel more like flower arranging, where the quality of the output depends more on the quality of the stock materials, even if the end image looks good.

starbase1
08-14-2007, 02:47 PM
I'm also a little unhappy about the focus on geometry of the models...

Ask any photographer about the importance of lighting a person to control the final image. I have a friend I consider a brilliant photographer, and he once volunteered to do a set of publicity shots for an amateur dramatics group. They were delighted with the results.

What he did NOT show them was the other half of the project - to take a set of photos at the same session making them look as ugly as possible without telling them, or letting them pick up on it... The paired images he kept private were awesome!

Nick

CMT
08-14-2007, 03:33 PM
CMT I am intrigued by your distinction between tools and content... It works quite well in the examples you use, but what about:

1. Surface presets.
2. Other peoples HDR images for illuminating a scene.
3. Animated Character rig that an be applied to any roughly humanoid figures.

Even with human figures, I think few would argue about using stock figures to populate a background. Indeed, in architectural renderings it's fairly normal (I think?) to use 2d cutouts.

I seem to be leading myself towards a foreground / background distinction here!

My own problems with using Poser content is that I do not often feel much sense of ownership of the images that come out. It does feel more like flower arranging, where the quality of the output depends more on the quality of the stock materials, even if the end image looks good.

Good question.

Let's talk about material presets. I'll admit I've used them plenty of times. Downloaded them straight out and applied them to a model. Still do to some extent. But I also want to dive in and see how they work. Learn the craft of making my own.

"Why put in the effort if you can just use someone else's work?" you say? Answer: Because there's a good possibility that I can make it better or to alter it to suit my concept better. A true artist won't settle for something less than what they are looking for. A lot of us do, however, because it's easier to use someone's preset glass texture than to spend a couple hours trying to make one themselves. And that's OK. I doubt someone would say that an artwork revolved around that glass material (unless the image had to do with a glass sculpture or something. But in that case you can bet I'd be tweaking that glass material to get the best results I could!) This applies to HDR images, rigs, lighting setups, etc... as well. You can use them as is and your piece might look good, but how much better could it look if you tweak them to fit your vision rather than let those presets dictate the final look?

And premade models are a bit more substantial in importance to an image than the other examples. They are what defines the form and composition of an image, and how it flows.

Joe Battle
08-14-2007, 03:36 PM
Joe--if you don't have me blocked--I hope you understand that none of us mean you harm. I still stand by my original statement that you are limiting yourself by using premades.......

You are no longer blocked by me. Or are any of the others. Because this thread is where it should be. That is focusing on issues of technique.

I thank NewTec for deleting my image threads at my request. Thereby they helped me to get you people to focus on the issue of premades in LightWave. And got you off of obcessing over me.

Joe :thumbsup:

Joe Battle
08-14-2007, 03:56 PM
To be honest, I'm actually quite annoyed that he's had his threads deleted.

One of the reasons I stood by him in the thread, was because I have respect for those that are able to ignore and go forward - even when it seems the majority might be against you for whatever reason. Having his thread's deleted have lost him a little of that respect. It's almost as if he's saying OK, you guys win. My work is wrong, and I'm ashamed to have shown it here in the first place.



Hey friend, I haven't left or capitulated. I'm still here. I simply took the emphasis off my renders and put it on the topic of using premades in Light Wave. This is the focus of the issue which produced such "a lively discussion".
My "First Light Wave Render Queen of the Sky" was merely the catalyst. Afterwards it began to get in the way.

That particular type of image wasn't wrong......just not suited for this community. As I said eariler I know now that this community's focus is on modeling first and then using those models to build scenes. I'll post images again when they fit the format here.
I probably still make some ripples in the pond here.
I seem good at that.

Joe :lwicon: :hey:

parm
08-14-2007, 04:45 PM
as someone said earlier..to put a premade poser model in front of someone elses star image is not art, it is not art becouse there is very little skill or talent needed to do so.

Sounds like a well established art form called 'Collage' to me. Practiced by very well respected artists for nearly a hundred years.


Art can be many things...i have seen wonderfully detailed statues made from piece of wood that once were only "looking like" a certain form or shape...nature does the first part of the statue, man does the rest with the fine tuning and detailing.

i still call it art...but if someone would simply find a stick that "looks like" something, take it to art gallery as it is, and call it art..i wouldnt agree with that person.

art is difficult to define..it is very much based on personal opinion.

The sentiment behind statements like this is uderstandable. Even if it does ignore the events, of an entire century of artistic research and practice.

It's very easy to confuse the subjective vagaries of taste and personal preference. With a well ordered and objective description. of the varied, and sometimes bewildering, observed phenomenon, known as Art.

loki74
08-14-2007, 05:52 PM
Starting a mesh from a box is NOT the same as using an unmodified poser model!!!

I think the other thing has to do with what the art was supposed to be. The feeling I got (and I assume many others got as well) was that Joe's images were intended to be sci-fi style pinup type work. If he had stated he was doing a sort of 3D counterpart to collage, trying to build an interesting scene out of elements from a variety of other pieces of art, then I don't think the discussion would have been nearly as heated as it was.

Also--I've never done collage, but I assume that the collage artist has to consider a lot of the compositional stuff all other artists do--balance, movement, color, focal point, etc etc. In all honesty, I was not terribly impressed with the composition in many of Joe's pieces. This is a valid criticism I have made against MANY pieces of art! This has nothing to do with pre-mades!

Joe--Thank you for unblocking me. I realize you may have been very turned off by the way your last thread went. I, for one, would like you continue to see your work. If you really do want to improve, you should keep at it. If you want to make "collage" type stuff--next time say so, that way we'll all know what to expect. At the same time, I HIGHLY encourage you to try and model something from the ground up. If you enjoy what you're doing in LW with the premades, I promise you, doing something completely original will be even more rewarding!

Mr Rid
08-14-2007, 08:35 PM
You pretty much nailed it, Chris.

Poser models can be great for ArchViz and probably even for other projects. But using standardized women doesn't make a personal image.
...

P.S.: Still wishing to see an image which makes me think, "Mmmh, what a nice idea ... !

In creative matters, I dont believe in ever telling someone, 'never do this or that.' 'That tool or process is not respectable.' That type of statement can be proven as complete ******** by endless examples of artists successfully heading against tradition, expectation or status quo.

How could a simple, mass-produced print depicting nothing more than a premade, commercial brand soupcan be art? Yet we all know how successful Warhol's distinct example was. It's ok for someone to argue it is 'pointless,' 'took only a few minutes to come up with,' 'unoriginal source,' is 'not art,' etc, but that is just their opinion, as others will see an intriguing statement about pop/consumer culture by an original thinker. In fact, limiting time, or using only premade or 'unprofessional' tools may greatly enhance a specific idea. I imagine I could take base Poser models with no textures or rigging, with their goofy t-shaped stances and animate them jumping around, dancing or beating each other up for comic effect. If people laugh, then mission accomplished with nothing more than stupid Poser base models. A blanket generalization about the use of all Poser models as detrimental to creativity is just a limited perspective.

For instance, in '87 there was a toy 'Pixelvision' camera put out by Fisher Price (I have one) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PXL-2000 that recorded a blocky, 15fps, B&W video on any audio cassette for kids to play with. Not remotely 'broadcast quality' or for respectable professionals by any stretch. But then years later, avant-garde filmmakers were discovering these (and still searching them out today) novelties for the unique look of the image and Ive seen a surprisingly poignant short film shot with one of these 'unprofessional toys,' as well as it being used in the Lynch produced Nadja and other features. In the early 80s I argued that there was no reason why any individual could not shoot a feature length on home video gear, get it distributed theatrically and make a profit. 'Pro' film and video makers always argued how ridiculous this was, it isnt 'broadcast quality' (ever meaningless term), the range and resolution of film is so much more... blah blah. Of course that all changed, and in 2000, Dancer in the Dark was shot on mini-DV and took the highest film honor at Cannes. Now 'video' is poised to replace film entirely because of an essence I realized since '79, it is a lot cheaper and easier to deal with. 'Cost and ease' are why CG has likewise replaced so much of old school FX, stunts, and infiltrated every aspect of movies. And automation is always inherent evolution of expensive tech.

Here are some good ideas presented by CG artists on RuntimeDNA. http://www.box.net/shared/yxmfsjkom7 But they have all commited CG treason by expounding on a Poser model so the whole idea is lessened or rendered worthless according to some of the previously posted opinions. But the moment you attempt to limit or exclude what is 'art or not art,' you are really just stating what you personally 'like or dont like.' Either end being equally valid. But these examples express distinct themes, characterization, storys, humour, and individual style, unlike many of the more tech oriented renders that permeate LW gallerys. As is obvious, the artists having evolved a character from a premade figure does not not limit expressed ideas or moods in any way. Even in less developed images where it was obvious that an unmodified Poser model was used, I still see sincere attempts at personal expression that I am glad Poser/Daz presents a channel for. And unfortunately, I see no gallery search on RuntimeDNA to locate these artists or credit them properly (note: should always put name or address on posted works).

I also notice so many great looking characters that someone went thru a lot of trouble to make, but then only ever renders as a still ... but curiously, few ever seem interested in actually animating them (?).

The work of Ark FX was posted earlier as a counter example of LW art. As realistic as some of it appears (although I was shocked at some of the low grade stuff on their demo?), keep in mind these are the results of teams working on commercially driven projects as opposed to an individual just doing their own thing.

Fact is, there are WAY more personal ideas presented on Poser sites like Runtime DNA than on LW forums where it is tends to be more about tech.
I am not trying to belittle the LW examples but rather to make clear that Poser/Daz associated art can convey complex ideas as well as anything else done in CG. And it makes it easier for anyone to express themselves, not just individuals with high-end gear, considerable art and technical experience. Yes, like with YouTube, this means there will be a glut of mediocrity to the eye of more experienced artists. But the ease of building worlds and characters presented by these lower end apps (Poser artists using stuff I had never heard of- Dreamlight, Wings3D, Headus) also sprouts innovative new ways of thinking. Ive seen genius occuring with no money on a webcam.

I saw Sky Queen as an earnest, simple, awkwardly arranged fantasy of unattainable superwomen and the adventurous possibilites of outer space. Not technically profecient, but the 15 year old in me understood. When I look at radiosity renders of empty rooms or a glass on a table, I see technical skill in mimicking reality and atmosphere... but that's about it. Maybe the models were well designed. But I dont see any personal ideas motivating most of what you see on LW forums. I wonder why so many empty rooms and lifeless objects- are the artists so socially disconnected? I think even a personalized poser figure doing something in that well lit room, or holding that beautifully surfaced glass may only increase the possibility for engaging the viewer. And if the artist suddenly had a specific idea to depict an event, then modeling and texturing characters/creatures from scratch would be a commendable but greatly time-comsuming undertaking that may not be that artist's particular thing, and it may not be necessary in order to convey an idea just as effectively by utilizing a premade model.

I say, do whatever the muse dictates. And surprise everyone.

Joe Battle
08-14-2007, 09:15 PM
I saw Sky Queen as an earnest, simple, awkwardly arranged fantasy of unattainable superwomen and the adventurous possibilites of outer space. Not technically profecient, but the 15 year old in me understood. When I look at radiosity renders of empty rooms or a glass on a table, I see technical skill in mimicking reality and atmosphere... but that's about it. Maybe the models were well designed. But I dont see any personal ideas motivating most of what you see on LW forums. I wonder why so many empty rooms and lifeless objects- are the artists so socially disconnected? I think even a personalized poser figure doing something in that well lit room, or holding that beautifully surfaced glass may only increase the possibility for engaging the viewer. And if the artist suddenly had a specific idea to depict an event, then modeling and texturing characters/creatures from scratch would be a commendable but greatly time-comsuming undertaking that may not be that artist's particular thing, and it may not be necessary in order to convey an idea just as effectively by utilizing a premade model.

I say, do whatever the muse dictates. And surprise everyone.

Thank you. Mr Rid
You concisely put words to my feelings about this community.
Your maturity and experience give you confidence and stature.

Joe Battle :lwicon: :thumbsup:

loki74
08-14-2007, 11:51 PM
Mr.Rid--We all know how much you dislike the whole technical test of lifeless rooms and inanimate objects, and that you like things that are more expressive. And you're entirely right--all the technical stuff is NOT art, while Joe's stuff may defensibly be construed as such. But then, I do not think that there are any technical renders claiming to be pieces of art.

However, reading your posts, one would imagine that the technical and the creative are mutually exclusive!

What about the CG Choice gallery at CGTalk? There is an incredible amount of creativity and expressiveness there. But the quality of the work there is incredible--these artists know the technical aspect inside and out.

In good, quality art, the two MUST coexist. The harmony and balance of technical quality and creative insight, to me, is what defines good art.

Thomas M.
08-15-2007, 02:04 AM
OK, you guys win. My work is wrong, and I'm ashamed to have shown it here in the first place.

Wrong is the wrong word. But replace it by sucks/fails.

Yes, actually that's what I can expect by grown up persons who call themselves artists. They should be able to judge their images first and realize that they aren't doing anything nice (yet).

These images shouldn't have been posted in the first place (as long as they've been in this rough or sketchy state) or at least in the W.I.P. thread.

To Mr Rid: Your completely right about art. There are no rules. But you can tell what is art or not. This thread for me has never been about the Poser content. The Poser objects just made it more clearly that this isn't anything nice one can appreciate.

Cheers
Thomas

Mr Rid
08-15-2007, 02:47 AM
The harmony and balance of technical quality and creative insight, to me, is what defines good art.


But you can tell what is art or not.

Thomas

I understand what you mean. But again, these statements attempt to restrict what is or is not 'art' when you are really only expressing your personal preference. There is no definition for art or the process for achieving it. There is only what you like or dont like. The moment you say, 'this is, or is not art because of this or that reason' there is always an example of effective art that goes directly against any limited definition of it.

'Good' art can certainly come from poor technical skill or virgin perspective. In fact, an individual or artist in some area unrelated to CG can walk in and generate a fresh approach to a render precisely because they are unencumbered by enchrenched technical ways of thinking.

Ive had a night janitor make a valid observation on what would make an aspect of a shot I was working on more effective. A pianist girlfriend noticed what would improve the camera shake Id been using for years. My musician brother thought the LW4 'pointilist' preview was more interesting to look at than the final render...it made me consider rendering shots for a video with a really unique look. At one production company, the writer or the editor would come and ask me to opine on their work because I had a perspective informed by a different area of creative experience, and because they were 'too close.' Sam Raimi and other filmmakers will tell you how they never would have made their first films so successfully if they had actually known what they were attempting to do. Good ideas can come from anyone, no matter what their experience as lack of 'know-how' can be 'wiser.'

colkai
08-15-2007, 03:00 AM
To Mr Rid: Your completely right about art. There are no rules. But you can tell what is art or not.

Actually, surely the whole point is, you can't?
For me, Damien Hurst, Warhol et al are not artists, because all I see are cheap gimmicks.
People say art is simply something that evokes a response, in which case, I'd say anyone who manages to rile someone into emotion is an artist of words. ;)

My art is not your art, so how can you possibly "recognise" art if, to all intents and purposes, art is different for everyone.

In fact, I often feel that "Art" is an overused word, creativity is more likely, but even then, what some people think is junk others say is "creative use of materials". Thinking 'unmade bed' and pile of bricks in the Tate here.

I don't see how any agreement can be reached on this subject, the Gods know it's gone round enough.

You could take that Queen of the Sky picture and apply really good lighting pose and texture etc and it would take on a whole new look, Poser model or no.

I don't give a rats rear end whether someone slaved for 84 hours to produce a 100% realistic human or grabbed a high-def Poser model.
I don't look at a picture and see meshes, I look and see an overall image, how it came together really is immaterial to me.

No-one thinks any less of the so called modern artists because they use teams and a lot of readily available 'pre-made' items, (such as beds, bedclothes, bricks, sheep etc), hailed as visionaries they are.

You also wouldn't get any brownie points for insisting on modelling everything from scratch when a perfectly suitable pre-made object was available which worked out cheaper.

As someone already pointed out, seems only Poser gets hit with this "labelling", not the likes of MakeHuman, very strange.

Mr Rid
08-15-2007, 03:10 AM
Thank you. Mr Rid
You concisely put words to my feelings about this community.

Just speaking as a right brain struggling in an occupation predisposed to left hemis. I can only see difficulty in applying your sho training to CG (I only have a book on the subject). Even after illustrating since childhood, I feel I was able to generate only one drawing from shonen shozoku... that was when I pretty much stopped drawing and picked up LW. Have no idea how to maintain 'no mind' in the frustrating technicality of CG.

Trulsi
08-15-2007, 04:01 AM
... actually that's what I can expect by grown up persons who call themselves artists. They should be able to judge their images first and realize that they aren't doing anything nice (yet).

I agree with this.

Thomas M.
08-15-2007, 04:33 AM
In fact, I often feel that "Art" is an overused word, creativity is more likely, but even then, what some people think is junk others say is "creative use of materials".

Right! Art in this forum has no meaning anymore as anybody uses it to describe a six-sided cube made by himself or others.


You could take that Queen of the Sky picture and apply really good lighting pose and texture etc and it would take on a whole new look, Poser model or no.

But it wouldn't necessarily get better as an image. Different, better in technical aspects (3D, lighting, pose, etc.), but not better as an image. So far there's no heart and soul in it. An E-guitar is pretty without soul, until Mr Hendrix picks it up and plays on it. This image could have the best 3D hair and skin textures ever, but unless there's something to be expressed and worth sharing (a thought, a feeling, an idea) it's just a rendering. It doesn't even make me smile because there's at least some humor in it.

Just bought "Men's adventure magazines" from Taschen. Now, that is kitsch!!! And I can enjoy almost each of these images as they are far beyond the point of being art. They are so crappy that you just need to love them for all this nonsense depicted.

Cheers
Thomas

Kuzey
08-15-2007, 04:34 AM
The only thing that concerned me was those images were posted in the wrong forum. Yes, Joe use LW 9.2, but as far as I could see, he didn't use any of it's features....they could have been rendered in LW 5 with the same results.

So....to me they belonged to the wip forum instead :D

I always thought the LW9.2 gallery was there to show case it's cool features with experiments and final renders etc.

As far as the premade v handmade objects go, I don't think there is a right or wrong answer. Just be sure to give credit where it's due or people will think you made everything in the image and then it'll go down hill fast from there. :hey:


Kuzey

Thomas M.
08-15-2007, 04:35 AM
Art is probably a bit like Fight Club.

1. Rule: Don't talk about art.

2. Rule ...

...

But yet there is art. Somewhere.

Edbittner
08-15-2007, 04:40 AM
Artists make models.
Programmers make programs.
Technicians build computers.


Anytime someone sits down and creates something for arts sake, it is art. For good or for ill. Period. (Get 'em Joe).
E.

Glendalough
08-15-2007, 05:04 AM
Here are some good ideas presented by CG artists on RuntimeDNA. http://www.box.net/shared/yxmfsjkom7 But they have all commited CG treason by expounding on a Poser model so the whole idea is lessened or rendered worthless according to some of the previously posted opinions. But the moment you attempt to limit or exclude what is 'art or not art,' you are really just stating what you personally 'like or dont like.' Either end being equally valid. But these examples express distinct themes, characterization, storys, humour, and individual style, unlike many of the more tech oriented renders that permeate LW gallerys. As is obvious, the artists having evolved a character from a premade figure does not not limit expressed ideas or moods in any way. Even in less developed images where it was obvious that an unmodified Poser model was used, I still see sincere attempts at personal expression that I am glad Poser/Daz presents a channel for. And unfortunately, I see no gallery search on RuntimeDNA to locate these artists or credit them properly (note: should always put name or address on posted works).

I also notice so many great looking characters that someone went thru a lot of trouble to make, but then only ever renders as a still ... but curiously, few ever seem interested in actually animating them (?).

The work of Ark FX was posted earlier as a counter example of LW art. As realistic as some of it appears (although I was shocked at some of the low grade stuff on their demo?), keep in mind these are the results of teams working on commercially driven projects as opposed to an individual just doing their own thing.

Fact is, there are WAY more personal ideas presented on Poser sites like Runtime DNA than on LW forums ...



Mr Rid, you are at it again....

The trouble with these new pictures you have posted is they are not original compositions, not the Poser models.

These ones are all collage or tableau so original content does not come into play. The middle one is pretty much a complete rip off of Blake. The first one is, i can't think who, but I'm sure people here could say, as with the rest. This kind of thing is using premade compositional formulas. I'm talking about the lighting and mood not just the positioning of elements.

Glendalough
08-15-2007, 05:40 AM
Blake's Newton

colkai
08-15-2007, 05:52 AM
You could argue that that is also very reminiscent of "the thinker", or any picture of anyone sitting down looking at something.
I mean, think of all those old master, oh the horror, each copying poses with similar lighting.

There is nothing new under the sun.

Iain
08-15-2007, 05:55 AM
There is nothing new under the sun.

Yes there is-I've got a cracking picture of a shaved cat.

Please, not another "what is art" debate! :tsktsk: It's not due for another week yet.

*Pete*
08-15-2007, 06:34 AM
Anytime someone sits down and creates something for arts sake, it is art. For good or for ill. Period. (Get 'em Joe).
E.

true...but you quoted a reply for Joe's comment about why satisfy with only modelling, why not make the computer and software as well.....

my intention with that sentence was that it is not required that an artist would create the software and hardware to create his images..but part of an artists "job" is to create the models he is using..atleast in 3D art.

again...it is not necessary to make own models, but i wanted to simply separate the "who is supposed to do what (model, build hardware, software etc etc)"

or to put it in a different way..a writer is not "cheating" if he is using pens or typewriters manufactured by someone else, but if the text he is typing is simply "copy&paste" stuff...it will not impress many.


also, as i mentioned earlier..i havent seen Joes pictures (more than the thumbnail), so i dont really want to critisize the images he made.


my opinion about all what the thread is about, in short...

the more talent, skill, time and patience I will need to make the same..the more impressive is the picture i am watching.

Art or not art.

*Pete*
08-15-2007, 06:36 AM
Yes there is-I've got a cracking picture of a shaved cat.




no there is not!!

i have the same picture..i also have a picture of shaved Kiwi fruits!!

colkai
08-15-2007, 06:44 AM
Yes there is-I've got a cracking picture of a shaved cat
...and I'd wager that it's not the only one floating around. ;) :p

pumeco
08-15-2007, 06:58 AM
Hey friend, I haven't left or capitulated. I'm still here...That's true, but the point I'm trying to make is; your art - isn't!

Had the heated discussions not started, you'd have still had them up, good or bad, as a testement to your progress. As you improve your ways with LightWave, people are no longer going to be able to look back at your first postings and see how you've evolved - because you've removed them. At the end of the day, if it's because of other people, then you've let them win - period. As has been pointed out particularily well by Mr Rid, ready-mades are acceptable. They're certainly not a reason to cause a thread removal.

It's no big deal. It's just that after the battle (sorry :D) you put up, I couldn't believe you did that!

I'm working on some 'art' myself right now. I'm putting some effort into it, and I hope that when I post some renders, people will respect it, and not turn it into a nudity debate (because there 'will' be nudity). Those that do, will be ignored. But those that crit' in the appropriate manner will be respected. What I'm saying though, Joe, is that no matter how many people sh*t on it, I'll certainly not be removing it.

If it's bad, it's bad. But at least people will be able to look back when I improve, and 'see' that I've improved.

As for the rest of you peasants :D

My opinion is that this whole discussion thing about "Art", really isn't about art at all - it's about nudity. You can wrap it up in the mask of using ready-mades and such if you like, but the fact is that if his work hadn't contained nudity, then most of this discussion would not even be here. If he'd posted his image of the spaceship against the planet, but excluded the nude babe, the discussions that followed would not have been quite so... errr... let's just say - interesting!



I'll post images again when they fit the format here.
Good, and remember that nudity IS allowed no matter what impression you've been given. Don't change your subject because of others - that's all.




I probably still make some ripples in the pond here.
I seem good at that.

Joe :lwicon: :hey:
lol - I think you're right on that one, mate :D

Iain
08-15-2007, 07:16 AM
You know, I've never seen anyone here react negatively to nudity as long as the presentation of it goes above "See, I rendered this Poser chick that I put absolutely no thought or effort into, other than showing some tits for 15 year olds (or like minded) to gawk at".

I most certainly don't see anything wrong with nudity in images, real or CG.

But I despise generic looking, badly rendered Poser images that lack any kind of imaginative, creative or technical effort.

Quoted for agreement.

But you know what? In three posts' time someone will accuse you or I of being against nudity or premade content.
There's no shades of grey on these forums. People don't actually read what you say - they just decide what you mean after reading the first three words. You're either a cool, free minded dude or a puritanical religious fundamentalist.

*Pete*
08-15-2007, 07:27 AM
there is an idea for the next challenge!!

render a poserchick, without making it look cheap!!

personally, i can imagine that a lot can be done with a premade poserchick, in right hands..(no, im NOT a pervert) :D

pumeco
08-15-2007, 07:44 AM
there is an idea for the next challenge!!

render a poserchick, without making it look cheap!!

personally, i can imagine that a lot can be done with a premade poserchick, in right hands..(no, im NOT a pervert) :D
Yeah, actually I think that's a good idea :thumbsup:

starbase1
08-15-2007, 07:45 AM
Right! Art in this forum has no meaning anymore as anybody uses it to describe a six-sided cube made by himself or others.
Cheers
Thomas

Err....

a) No-one has done that, have they?
b) What other kinds of cubes have you got?

CMT
08-15-2007, 07:58 AM
'Good' art can certainly come from poor technical skill or virgin perspective. In fact, an individual or artist in some area unrelated to CG can walk in and generate a fresh approach to a render precisely because they are unencumbered by enchrenched technical ways of thinking.

That's right, it can. But the fact is, is that it won't happen with vanilla Poser models placed in generic lighting and erotic poses. That's been done to DEATH and has zero originality. I'm really tired of seeing it all over the place. Every CG forum has them pop up now. It's not like you can avoid it anymore. Then when you speak up about it, people come running to it's defense and tell you to keep quiet about it and deal with it.

Sure, good art came come from those with out technical training. That's how folk art started. But not when it's combined with poor lighting, posing, texturing and premade models. Because what's left to admire? The concept? Oh! A nekkid chick? How original. More please!

Let me be clear before all the comments come back to me about me hating nude art. Not at all! I love seeing the nude human figure in art when it's done correctly. When it's done in the most lazy way possible - with Poser and about 15 minutes of work, then upload it expecting some Ooos and Ahhs. That's when I have a problem with it.


there is an idea for the next challenge!!

render a poserchick, without making it look cheap!!

personally, i can imagine that a lot can be done with a premade poserchick, in right hands..(no, im NOT a pervert) :D

Could actually be a good challenge and prove (or disprove) the point some of us are trying to make. But I would wage the better entrees would be those who heavily modify the figure and have the other skills to back up the concept.

ben martin
08-15-2007, 08:07 AM
Simple question to the “pure art definition” defenders on this thread.
Is this image art or not?

I would like to know your evaluation on this one.

jameswillmott
08-15-2007, 08:13 AM
Simple question to the “pure art definition” defenders on this thread.
Is this image art or not?

I would like to know your evaluation on this one.

Yes it's art, that's almost a pointless question.

The harder question is, is it good art or bad art?

loki74
08-15-2007, 08:21 AM
I understand what you mean. But again, these statements attempt to restrict what is or is not 'art' when you are really only expressing your personal preference. There is no definition for art or the process for achieving it. There is only what you like or dont like. The moment you say, 'this is, or is not art because of this or that reason' there is always an example of effective art that goes directly against any limited definition of it.

That is why I included the two words "to me," in my statement. It is definitely not a new concept that the definition of art is more or less arbitrary.

However, I do not think it is wrong to say a certain thing is not art for a specific reason, or even for no reason at all. This, of course, is because of the arbitrary definition of what is art.

For example, I would not consider a person with AIDS giving themselves small cuts and using wires to fly over an unsuspecting theater audience a legitimate piece of performance art (I don't know the details, but IIRC that actually DID happen, and was NEA funded).


'Good' art can certainly come from poor technical skill or virgin perspective. In fact, an individual or artist in some area unrelated to CG can walk in and generate a fresh approach to a render precisely because they are unencumbered by enchrenched technical ways of thinking.

Ive had a night janitor make a valid observation on what would make an aspect of a shot I was working on more effective. A pianist girlfriend noticed what would improve the camera shake Id been using for years. My musician brother thought the LW4 'pointilist' preview was more interesting to look at than the final render...it made me consider rendering shots for a video with a really unique look. At one production company, the writer or the editor would come and ask me to opine on their work because I had a perspective informed by a different area of creative experience, and because they were 'too close.' Sam Raimi and other filmmakers will tell you how they never would have made their first films so successfully if they had actually known what they were attempting to do. Good ideas can come from anyone, no matter what their experience as lack of 'know-how' can be 'wiser.'

Perhaps. But poor technical skill or virgin perspective can also result in terrible pieces that are total crap. So, what now? Shall I end my pursuit of knowledge and skill? Should I no longer try to hone my abilities? Instead, should I seek a lack of know-how to achieve this great wisdom?

You can't invalidate having great technical skill merely by pointing to the validity of some layman advice. Do you really think Zack Snyder would have done a better job with 300 had he not attended ACCD?

I have a friend who is, like me, very interested in film. He would make all sorts of home videos with his little DV cam and edit in some generic Windows program (Windows Movie Maker? idk, something to that effect). Everything was pure improv. There was, of course, some merit to his films and his approach.

Then he met me, during our junior year of high school. I enlisted his assistance in my project for the Film History class I was in. You may have guessed that I am a very technically-oriented person. I strive for professionalism. My projects would be edited in FCP, sound-edited in Soundtrack Pro, composited in Combustion, and burned to DVDs with DVD Studio Pro. I am not trying to brag here, I'm making a point (I'll get to it in a moment).

From the moment we finished our film, it became very clear how turned off he was to the whole process. So many people just want to go out, be "expressive," and have fun. While film is certainly fun and expressive, it is also very hard work. Technical work. He was still into film, but he no longer sought it out as a career.

So this past year (our senior year), he took the Film History class. The entire point of his film was to see how much blood he could cram into 20 minutes. So he went on his merry way, and neglecting the nitty-gritty technical aspect of the film, he ended up with loads of pink blood, poor lighting, guns without muzzle flares (that is, they couldnt make muzzle flares, so they decided to use all the gun props as clubs), and dizzying, shaky pans because he refused to cut as much as he should have.

Being as modest as I can, I must point out that (from what I understand) under my strict, perfectionist, technical direction, my film came out with a better grade. And my approach to film was not limited to that class--I did production design for documentaries our computer guy wanted to make for the sports teams, commercials (to be aired on the school's CCTV) for the drama department's plays, as well as a Bollywood-style musical for a chapel service (the school has chapel once every week). In all instances, my approach got me recognition and respect; I've established a reputation at that school as someone who creates work that is "a cut above." I would still maintain that I didn't earn such a reputation--all of my work has been mediocre at best, but people recognize it as the closest they've seen a high school kid get to the "real deal." They see my pursuit of excellence and recognize that in spite of the generally lackluster quality of my work.

So what's my point here? Simple--its fine and dandy that laymen may, from time to time, have excellent advice and incredible vision, unfettered by technical knowledge. But in the end, professionals are professionals, and laymen are laymen. One cannot hope to excel in any profession by the idealistic notion that technical skill is somehow less important that "muse" or "creativity." They are equally important.

starbase1
08-15-2007, 08:25 AM
Please, not another "what is art" debate! :tsktsk: It's not due for another week yet.

:D

CMT
08-15-2007, 08:49 AM
Simple question to the “pure art definition” defenders on this thread.
Is this image art or not?

I would like to know your evaluation on this one.

I'm no art purist as I know there's so many different kinds of art and what some people like is different than what others may like. And I've learned that I can definitely be surprised sometime by what I find I like. I tend to be drawn to images with extreme detail and complex themes. But then I also like minimalist designs as well when it pertains to functional items.

Most minimalist art however doesn't do much for me. It doesn't say anything to me. Some good pieces can be pleasing to look at. Particularly with regard to figures. But for the most part, I don't care for it.

That particular piece doesn't do anything for me either. It looks like more of an elementary study in composition - A 3D version of a project I did in high school art class with cut out cubes and circles.

But what's the point of having these "what is art" and "is this piece art" debates? Let's get back on track with the subject of using premade models. It isn't a discussion on whether it's art or not. It's a discussion as to whether it's good practice. And whether or not they can be a restraint for creativity.

ben martin
08-15-2007, 09:07 AM
Looks like some new-age inspired nonsense from the 80's. Worthless.

It's badly lit, badly surfaced and has a lens flare for the sake of it being included.
Yes, you are right on almost everything.

Like you said “Looks like some new-age inspired”
INSPIRED is the word associated to art.
It really doesn’t matter how bad was light or surfaced because art lives inside the image representation.
If I tell you what it means than (even if you don’t like it or agree with it) is all makes sense as art.

This is the representation of summer.
You have the cube wave – Ocean wave.
The glass sphere – The wind that shapes the ocean wave.
And the post added flare – Represents the sunlight.

This is a form of expression dear friend.
It doesn’t matter how technical you can go on it… it’s art.

Second most important part:
This was all done with cubes, sphere, and a plane.
All these elements are pure lightwave primitives (no modeling works what so ever) pure pre-made objects.

The composition was done in 5 min.
It’s was bad light with a propose; so you could de-classify it as art based on that because that argue only proves how much technical the art evaluation can become and yet that can collide with a free creation spirit.
Sure, there are techniques to help your ideas to become more interesting to the looking eye but without the ideas/imagination behind those representations techniques, those learned concepts are void and empty as you surly know for sure.

This is my only point based on this 5 min image and I arrest my case here.
It does represents an idea to me… what makes it art is that it can represents another completely different concept to the next viewer.

Some one could argue:
To me it represents the fire (flare) the water (the glass sphere) and the ice (the blue cubes).

This is where art rules and no one can argue other way!
Like some one said… “you can like it or not but that it’s merely your esthetics evaluation talking”.
Even it can “inspire” you to produce something else correctly illuminated etc… etc… but the main representation idea was there and “inspired” you!

Hope this can help to demystify some common mistakes when people confuse art and other values appreciating someone’s ideas/creation/representation/feelings (art).

Specially to “neverko”
Thank you very much for your opinion; it helped me a lot to express my point! :thumbsup:

loki74
08-15-2007, 09:35 AM
lets not get all touchy-feely and philosophical here. "This represents that, bladdy bladdy blah."

I don't mean to invalidate that kind of thinking--it definitely does have merit, however, it is exactly that mindset that many people use as an excuse NOT to develop their skills and do the hard work. They are too lazy to put in the real effort and learn the technical side, so they hide behind this "anything/everything is art / I'm being expressive" mentality.

So while the definition of art is arbitrary, good art, IMO, MUST have creativity AND technical skill.

Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp? Again I point to CGTalk. You can't deny the creativity and expressiveness of their work, but they also exhibit loads of technical skill.

CMT
08-15-2007, 09:40 AM
Like you said “Looks like some new-age inspired”
INSPIRED is the word associated to art.
It really doesn’t matter how bad was light or surfaced because art lives inside the image representation.
If I tell you what it means than (even if you don’t like it or agree with it) is all makes sense as art.

Yes, but I can also reserve my right to dislike an artwork because I think an artwork was half-assed and that I know the artist could have pushed the concept much further by putting more effort into it. That 5 minute image is a perfect example for that reason. It's about as much effort that was put into the art that started this discussion.

And yes, it is important on how it was lit and textured. How else but with color and material is one to get that these primitives represent spring? Color the cubes red and the ball black and you don't get a water wave.... you get a demolition of a brick wall.

But what does this all have to do with the argument at hand of using pre-made models?


Just saw your post, Loki and totally agree!

Glendalough
08-15-2007, 09:50 AM
You could argue that that is also very reminiscent of "the thinker", or any picture of anyone sitting down looking at something.
I mean, think of all those old master, oh the horror, each copying poses with similar lighting.

There is nothing new under the sun.

There is plenty new everywhere. Don't think it matters to what degree its art or not, talking about effective images and original content. The Renaissance people harked back to the classic age but their stuff was different. Blake's work relied on the old masters to some degree but he created a new and original vision.

These Poser galleries are just plagiarizing other peoples work. To define original or unique work in words is hard but a large percentage of people react pretty immediately to fakes. This is like describing body language which most people react to as much as the words some one is speaking.

Maybe lots of work on these and other 3D forums is not high art, more commercial art, but it does have original content in that many digital 3D images compare to nothing say created 15 or 20 years ago. Some of these images may be just like studies of light or form (created with polygons) but so were things like Rembrant''s etchings, actually, I think he got kicked off the XSI forum and is actually working in Blender at the moment.

Jim_C
08-15-2007, 10:30 AM
Geez,

I would hate to think of what some of you guys think of us editors for using Digital Juice content.

Jim

loki74
08-15-2007, 10:54 AM
Geez,

I would hate to think of what some of you guys think of us editors for using Digital Juice content.

Jim

eeeeeeeewww, digital juice!!! lol!

I always find it amusing when I see stock animation in one commercial and then the next day in another. Especially when I'm like "hey, I know where I could get that same thing..."

Is it just me or do they always seem to be used in commercials for those get-rich-quick schemes?

Joe Battle
08-15-2007, 10:55 AM
In some of these last few comments we are again coming to the reason I posted "Queen of the Sky LW9.2" here in the first place. For evaluation of technique . Weather it is art of not is up for grabs. To me it is the art I produced in that moment with that particular beginning understanding of Light Wave. In the long run and even now that image appears awkward and infantile to me in it first faltering steps to birth my knowledge about Light Wave.
I agree with all the comments that primitive art is just that primitive.

As an example (since others have shared some beginnings) in the 7th grade I built model cars and spray painted them inside of a cardboard box that our family's new washing machine came in. After a time the bottom of the box was layered with different colors, metallic's, thick textures, and even some small model parts stuck in the paint. My elementary art teacher asked for some stuff from her students for a city wide school art competition. As a lark, instead of giving her some of my class drawings which she expected, I cut the bottom out of that spray box and framed it. Voila!! It was a winner and became my first piece ever exhibited in a major museum. Of course this was the 1950"s and abstract art was all the vogue. I was 12 yrs old! Very Primitive Art indeed!

"Queen of the Night Sky" was for me like that cardboard box bottom. That is to say a totally primitive image assembled with enthusiasm and presented here with naiveté. Hey I took a dirty licking from you guys for it. It hasn't been my first! But I wager most of the community knows who I am now.

For some reason, call it pride, when I think of all the fuss I stirred up posting "Queen of the Sky",
I think of some lines from the theme of one of my favorite Light Wave driven shows...........

"Burn the land and boil the sea, You can't take the 'Sky' from me".......Firefly

Thank you all for this spirited and heartfelt debate.
Even those who were still pooping it their diapers when I was surfing Maui in the day and painting large abstracts at night.
I'm on your turf now. Too bad my first offering wasn't done with better technique or more mature theme. But that is after all why I came here. To listen to what others with more experience in Light Wave have to say. It's kind of cool being the new "kid" on the block. I should expect some of the neighbors might be upset.

Peace, Joe

Note: Here's an image done using premade content in Vue Infinite. I quite like it. I can't recall who the artist might be or I'd give him credit.:hey:

Jim_C
08-15-2007, 11:01 AM
Is it just me or do they always seem to be used in commercials for those get-rich-quick schemes?

DJ stuff is everywhere. All the nice moving graphic background on the Daily Show and Colbert Report is DJ.

But yeah you're right it's used(overused) a lot in that kind of stuff also.

The trick to using DJ content is to use just a little and embellish.
Don't just throw up a DJ background, with a DJ lower third and type some text over it.

Gotta make it your own.

Jim

Joe Battle
08-15-2007, 11:18 AM
Again, it's terribly cliché and very badly executed from a technical standpoint, with the horrible masking etc.

Ok Bo! Talk is cheap! Show me one of your's that makes me gasp in wonder!:)

Steamthrower
08-15-2007, 11:26 AM
Seen his site? Neverko is sometimes *ahem* biting, but he's a decent artist.

I agree with his assessment of that latest pic you uploaded.

colkai
08-15-2007, 11:28 AM
lets not get all touchy-feely and philosophical here. "This represents that, bladdy bladdy blah."

I don't mean to invalidate that kind of thinking--it definitely does have merit, however, it is exactly that mindset that many people use as an excuse NOT to develop their skills and do the hard work. They are too lazy to put in the real effort and learn the technical side, so they hide behind this "anything/everything is art / I'm being expressive" mentality.

Hey it works for the likes of Pollock, Hurst, Warhol, why not in 3D? :devil:

Jim_C
08-15-2007, 11:30 AM
Seen his site? Neverko is sometimes *ahem* biting, but he's a decent artist.

http://www.aether.dk/

Top notch stuff

CMT
08-15-2007, 11:37 AM
Ok Bo! Talk is cheap! Show me one of your's that makes me gasp in wonder!:)

Someone hit the braking point.....

ben martin
08-15-2007, 11:45 AM
It helped nothing but dig a deeper hole for your arguments.

To me this represents one of the lowest forms of art. I simply can't stand pocket-philosophical musings over badly executed "art". It's too easy to slap something together and add a little "deep" meaning to it. It's trash to me. But then again that makes it another person's art. And we have the endless moronic discussion that we are currently sullying our intellects with.

Anyone can practice this, it doesn't require any kind of craftsmanship, which is something I base my definition of "good art" around, a lot.
Judging by your statements you must be an amazing artist.

You now, I don’t want to make this personal and I never enter in pis* contests in forums but you are almost crossing that respect tenure line about other people ideas.
You can call other people art/images trash or whatever but if you can’t understand that I just made an (fast and maybe poor) example to illustrate art concept (and it is art like it or not) then you have a lot to learn and to understand in life.

Here stays some reading to help you to define art meaning:

“Art is a (product of) human activity, made with the intention of stimulating the human senses as well as the human mind; thus art is an action, an object, or a collection of actions and objects created with the intention of transmitting emotions and/or ideas. Beyond this description, there is no general agreed-upon definition of art, since defining the boundaries of "art" is subjective, but the impetus for art is often called human creativity.

An artwork is normally assessed in quality by the amount of stimulation it brings about. The impact it has on people, the number of people that can relate to it, the degree of their appreciation, and the effect or influence it has or has had in the past, all accumulate to the "degree of art." Most artworks that are widely considered to be "masterpieces" possess these attributes.

Something is not generally considered "art" when it stimulates only the senses, or only the mind, or when it has a different primary purpose than doing so. However, some contemporary art challenges this idea.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extracted from wikipedia.
If you don’t agree go and correct the definition to suit your will!

Joe Battle
08-15-2007, 11:50 AM
I'm fairly confident in my modeling and rendering abilities, I certainly have nothing to prove to you.

As should you listen when people who don't practice what you do, tell you their honest oppinions about your work.

I'm listening!

Also I went to your site. Beautiful clouds!!

But nothing to show here to me. Oh well. I guess that takes more than rhetoric. Maybe some real Light Wave renders. Come on please. I want to be impressed.:) :)

And I did truly like and appreciate the beauty contained in your website.

Steamthrower
08-15-2007, 11:52 AM
But nothing to show here to me. Oh well. I guess that takes more than rhetoric. Maybe some real Light Wave renders. Come on please. I want to be impressed.

I'm guessing you're bitter here? Like you said in reference to Neverko, is your nerve touched?

colkai
08-15-2007, 12:02 PM
http://www.aether.dk/

Top notch stuff

A bugger to navigate, all I could find was photographs, I hate sites like that with a passion. All flash and clever titles which don't help at all to figure out where you want to browse. Sorry, but nothing puts me off quicker than having to randomly guess and click.

Maybe be a top notch 'artist' but egads, could do with a lesson in straightforward web design.

dsol
08-15-2007, 12:04 PM
It's starting to seem like some people are trying to dodge criticism of the quality of their work by claiming that it's "Art" and therefore beyond criticism.

As some of the wiser folk here have already pointed out, Imagination and Execution (ie. Technique) are both equally vital in the creation of compelling imagery. There's little point in having a great idea, then failing for technical reasons to enable it to make the journey from mind to screen.

The tools used to make that possible (premade content, poser, lightwave, zbrush) are largely irrelevant - such knowledge is only useful insofar as it can provide you with ideas to improve your own work.

This reminds me a bit of an argument I had with a friend when I was MUCH younger. He'd drawn a picture of an alien space pirate, but the perspective was clearly really wonky. But rather than just admitting it, he was so precious about his work he claimed that "it's an alien - they might not exist in the same perspective dimensions as us!". To which I, like any other reasonable person would say "B*llsh*t" :)

rqe3bc
08-15-2007, 12:22 PM
Something can be come "Art" when the sum is greater than the parts; the culmination of media, technique, style, color, lighting, etc. work together to elevate it's parts to evoke an emotional response to the viewer. It really doesn't matter what "parts" are used - premade or otherwise.

The problem I have with some using premade models is that they do little to integrate them into the entire work. I suppose this is where artistic knowledge comes in - and yes, there are "rules" of art (formalism) that can be used as a basis for discussing art.

Sure, there are a lot of opinions about what is "art" - the only difference is some are educated opinions and some are not - just like anything else. Sort of like me throwing together a bunch of math stuff like:

(x+2)/2 +(y-2)/(z*d*4)

and saying "well, in my opinion it's a great math formula". Anyone who understands math will know immediately that it's nonsense - art is no different.

Joe Battle
08-15-2007, 12:28 PM
Wow this is actually starting to be FUN for me!
I think I'm starting to get the hang of this.
When someone posts a biting critic of a render, I just ask then to step up to the plate and show me one better they have produced. This so I might learn by example.

Guys let me say with no reservation I adore "Hot Women". I will doubtless spend the rest of my life trying to capture their many moods. When I learn to model my own some of you are going to be even more outraged I'm sure. But again that will be more a theme thing than a Light Wave competence thing.

I can just see it now.......One of my Super Hot Babes in one of you guy's impeccably constructed and lit interiors......Bam!

Note: Anyway I said I couldn't remember the artist's name remember? Must be all that LSD I did in the '60's.... Children don't do drugs!:boogiedow

Also I designed, wrote, and maintain my own website. You will find it easy to navigate. Peace!:)

Steamthrower
08-15-2007, 12:34 PM
Joe Battle, the point is, they're not your "Super Hot Babes".

That's the entire point of this thread.

Just because you render in Lightwave doesn't mean that you "create" in Lightwave. Anybody can set up a light, throw in a model, and hit render.

CMT
08-15-2007, 12:37 PM
Joe Battle, the point is, they're not your "Super Hot Babes".

That's the entire point of this thread.

Just because you render in Lightwave doesn't mean that you "create" in Lightwave. Anybody can set up a light, throw in a model, and hit render.

Quoted for turtuh!


Also I designed, wrote, and maintain my own website.

It shows.

Jim_C
08-15-2007, 12:44 PM
Personally, I do not think someone has to be able to produce something of better quality themselves to be able to critique or comment on something of someone elses.



I can't 3d a lick, but my opinion is that the image of the chick with the car and the gun is not very well done.

I can't cook a thing, but I can eat a plate of food and tell you , in my opinion, that it does not taste good.

I can't paint a car, but I can look at one and tell you if it has a poor paint job.

The whole 'Well let me see you do better' arguments is a bit of hogwash in my opinion.

Joe you are lowering yoursef a bit in your last few posts. Leave snide attacks for others. That was never your thing before.


Jim

CMT
08-15-2007, 12:44 PM
Quoted for turtuh!
Damn keyboard..... Bout time I get a new one... :p

byte_fx
08-15-2007, 12:47 PM
Oh boy.

Oy vey.

Gee whiz.

And any other way you can think of the say "Oh my gosh" - or words to that effect.

Before I continue let me just say that if anyone gets their feathers ruffled or has their fur standing on end - just relax.

The following observations are generic and not directed at any one or any group in any way.

Ok - on with the show.

Art - like beauty - has always been and always will be in the eye of the beholder.

If a panel of 'experts' calls something art - providing they can actually agree on something - doesn't make the item 'art' any more than some everyman calling an item art.

The only real difference is that some people will accept the panel's judgement but not everyman's. Once the panel of experts' judgement is accepted and the item is 'officially' art the purchase price skyrockets.

In the end it comes down to the human trait of letting someone else do one's thinking without questioning anything.

We all do it to some extent - some people just get more involved in thinking for themselves than others.

At least that's the way I see it.

byte_fx

Thomas M.
08-15-2007, 12:57 PM
I wouldn't be suprised if J. Battle is in fact Oddity who wants to punish us.

Unfortunately the last image posted just showed the whole drama of the story again. No idea, no life to it, just a pose seen thousands of times before (gun with half-naked chick, oh my god). One hour in Vue and your done.

I can't bring these renderings anywhere near together with my expectations for the work of an artist. Artists usually want to express something.

The most horrible thing is that these renderings aren't even a parody, as the quality and skill of these renderings is far below the "real" kitsch.

Autsch!

byte_fx
08-15-2007, 12:59 PM
Personally, I do not think someone has to be able to produce something of better quality themselves to be able to critique or comment on something of someone elses.





I can't 3d a lick, but my opinion is that the image of the chick with the car and the gun is not very well done.

I can't cook a thing, but I can eat a plate of food and tell you , in my opinion, that it does not taste good.

I can't paint a car, but I can look at one and tell you if it has a poor paint job.

The whole 'Well let me see you do better' arguments is a bit of hogwash in my opinion.

Joe you are lowering yoursef a bit in your last few posts. Leave snide attacks for others. That was never your thing before.


Jim

See - one doesn't have to be an expert or be able to do something fantastically well to know what they like and what they don't like.

For example - I'm not a good cook either. But I've eaten - or rather tried to eat - food that supposedly was wonderfully, awe inspiring great.

I suppose it was to someone. To me it tasted like yesterday's garbage would most likely taste.

So it came down to my preference versus their preferernce. And since the food was assaulting my taste buds my opinion ruled.

byte_fx

colkai
08-15-2007, 01:07 PM
You know...ahh forget it...
I'm outta here.
:bangwall: :bangwall: :bangwall:

Joe Battle
08-15-2007, 01:12 PM
Fellow community member DMT....... I visited your site to inform myself. Your are indeed a very talented modeler. I hope to use my tools as well as you some day. Your Conan the Barbarian is very impressive original modeling job.

It does seem however to look very similar to Arnold S. in face and form. And all the impeccable modeled garments seem to be exactly those he wore in his movie of the same name.

I prefer my mentor Frank Frazetta's portrayal of Conan for Robert Howard's Paperback release of the mid 60's. Frank copied no one. He truly created his characters.

It seems you and I are still caught up in copying others creations. You by modeling from movie stills. Myself by taking premade V3 figure meshes and morphing them to shape my own female figure. I suppose we both have a long way to go before we reach that rarified air of true creative individuals.

But don't worry buddy I'll be here to help you along the way. :boogiedow

Attachment is Frank Frazetta's Conan........a real original.

dsol
08-15-2007, 01:14 PM
I wouldn't be suprised if J. Battle is in fact Oddity who wants to punish us.

Ha! If it is him, he's even more fiendish than I ever dared suspect! :)

Jim_C
08-15-2007, 01:14 PM
Attachment is Frank Frazetta's Conan........a real original.


Could I get that on the side of a 76 Chevy Van please?

starbase1
08-15-2007, 01:15 PM
Come on guys, lets not start getting personal here... There's some good points coming out on both sides...

pumeco
08-15-2007, 01:16 PM
Hey Joe, I like that creature wrapped around his leg :D

Joe Battle
08-15-2007, 01:20 PM
Could I get that on the side of a 76 Chevy Van please?

Only if you promise to install hydraulics to make it bounce up and down.

Maybe this one also by Frank might be even better.....

Peace, Joe

Warning: these attachments might shake the furniture, or spill some translucent glassware contained in the nice radiosity lit interiors here which I love so much.

pumeco
08-15-2007, 01:23 PM
Ah, there she is again :D

BTW, who is the woman in your photography gallery "Island Beauty"?
If that is your woman, you're an incredibly lucky guy!

ben martin
08-15-2007, 01:30 PM
You know...ahh forget it...
I'm outta here.
:bangwall: :bangwall: :bangwall:
Guess what!
This was the most intelligent post I saw in this thread. :hey:
I’ll join you! :dito:

Joe Battle
08-15-2007, 01:30 PM
Ah, there she is again :D

BTW, who is the woman in your photography gallery "Island Beauty"?
If that is your woman, you're an incredibly lucky guy!


She is my first daughter. No lie. And I am very blessed for sure in that regard. I took the base photos of that series for her when she tested for a modeling assignment.

She's a woman now. Probably a little grown up for you my friend.

Thank you for the pleasant comment.:)

You can find a photo of my wife with my youngest daughter in the "Portraits" gallery. Look to the image titled "Mother and child"

Joe

Jim_C
08-15-2007, 01:30 PM
When I was a kid in the 70's I use to love to go over to my brother's apartment because he had a big Frazetta art book that I wasn't allowed to look at by mom and dad due to the nudey chicks.

Brother Bill didn't mind a bit.

(and he did have a 76 chevy van)


Cheers,
Jim

CMT
08-15-2007, 01:31 PM
Fellow community member DMT....... I visited your site to inform myself. Your are indeed a very talented modeler. I hope to use my tools as well as you some day. Your Conan the Barbarian is very impressive original modeling job.

It does seem however to look very similar to Arnold S. in face and form. And all the impeccable modeled garments seem to be exactly those he wore in his movie of the same name.

Thanks, Joe.

My Conan was part of the hardcore modeling challenge on CGTalk. The idea was to pick from the list of movie characters and model them. I picked Conan. That's why he looks like Arnold, because it's supposed to be him.

Frazetta is the man....

pumeco
08-15-2007, 01:40 PM
She is my first daughter. No lie. And I am very blessed for sure in that regard. I took the base photos of that series for her when she tested for a modeling assignment.

She's a woman now. Probably a little grown up for you my friend.

Thank you for the pleasant comment.:)

You can find a photo of my wife with my youngest daughter in the "Portraits" gallery. Look to the image titled "Mother and child"

Joe

Wow, you must be proud - she's incredibly beautiful :thumbsup:
Anyway, I'm in my very early thirties, just in case she's interested!

Very nice.

Joe Battle
08-15-2007, 01:42 PM
Thanks, Joe.

My Conan was part of the hardcore modeling challenge on CGTalk. The idea was to pick from the list of movie characters and model them. I picked Conan. That's why he looks like Arnold, because it's supposed to be him.

Frazetta is the man....


See there! That wasn't that hard was it? Faced with a stiff critic I complemented you where you deserved. Now I have a friend not an adversary. How simple.

I'll look forward more now to your comments. Joe:)

Attachment: CMT maybe you haven't seen this one by Frank. He painted it straight from a scene in one of Howard's novels.

Joe Battle
08-15-2007, 01:46 PM
Wow, you must be proud - she's incredibly beautiful :thumbsup:
Anyway, I'm in my very early thirties, just in case she's interested!

Very nice.

Sorry she's married to a Kiwi Olympic Swimmer. New Zealand that is! :) Joe

pumeco
08-15-2007, 01:50 PM
Aaaaaaaaah - bummer :D

Joe Battle
08-15-2007, 01:50 PM
When I was a kid in the 70's I use to love to go over to my brother's apartment because he had a big Frazetta art book that I wasn't allowed to look at by mom and dad due to the nudey chicks.

Brother Bill didn't mind a bit.

(and he did have a 76 chevy van)


Cheers,
Jim

Here's one I bet Brother Bill didn't have at the time......

Menmbers please don't click on the thumbnail if you are at work ......Warning Nudity!!

This is an oil Frank did of his wife......

Joe Battle
08-15-2007, 02:07 PM
Any Anyone here ever used "Modo" or "Hexagon"?

Should I look into those as better for a beginner. Maybe quicker results than Light Wave? Or should I stick with my LW9 from the very start.

Some of you have mentioned "Mud Box" for a sculptural approach to modeling. Is that correct?

Joe:)

*Pete*
08-15-2007, 02:11 PM
As an example (since others have shared some beginnings) in the 7th grade I built model cars and spray painted them inside of a cardboard box that our family's new washing machine came in. After a time the bottom of the box was layered with different colors, metallic's, thick textures, and even some small model parts stuck in the paint. My elementary art teacher asked for some stuff from her students for a city wide school art competition. As a lark, instead of giving her some of my class drawings which she expected, I cut the bottom out of that spray box and framed it. Voila!! It was a winner and became my first piece ever exhibited in a major museum. Of course this was the 1950"s and abstract art was all the vogue. I was 12 yrs old! Very Primitive Art indeed!



intresting.

I also have a story...from when i was in the first grade in the school.

I always had problems with listening to teachers and coming to the class in time...
One day i came, late as usual, and saw all the other kids busy drawing pictures...everyone was making the typical house with sloped roof and curtains behind the windows, for a moment i thought it was a drawing lesson to teach us to draw houses.

but i, as usual, did my things without listening or following others, started to draw a huge metropolis, with superman flying in to stop a bridge full of crashed and burning cars from collapsing.

at the end of the day the teacher collected all the pictures and put them into a drawer...weeks went and i forgot about the lesson completely.

suddenly, one day, the media and other well dressed people entered the school and i found out that i had won a drawing competition...i was the best drawing first grader in all of sweden!!


i learned that originality wins over standard, boring houses drawn by kids. :D


Joe...i didnt follow the other threads about your pictures, but i understand that you are new to LW...wellcome to a special (but not as evil as it seems) community. :D

Joe Battle
08-15-2007, 02:11 PM
Guess what!
This was the most intelligent post I saw in this thread. :hey:
I’ll join you! :dito:

You have some great things to say. In particular about the real basis for creativity and the foundations of producing art.

Joe:lwicon:

starbase1
08-15-2007, 02:13 PM
Any Anyone here ever used "Modo" or "Hexagon"?

Should I look into those as better for a beginner. Maybe quicker results than Light Wave? Or should I stick with my LW9 from the very start.

Some of you have mentioned "Mud Box" for a sculptural approach to modeling. Is that correct?

Joe:)

I picked up Hexagon for $2 from Daz! At that price it was an essential purchase. I've not got stuck into it yet, but the documentation looks absolutely first rate, the best I have seen. Lots of small animations embedded in the docs, to show you exactly what the tools do.

Not sure if they have any special pricing at the moment, but at that price its well worth a look, though many organic modelers swear by mudbox.

Nick

Joe Battle
08-15-2007, 02:22 PM
Sweet story Pete.......

Once when I was in collage a teacher emptied my drawing drawer to blot up the water from a dripping air conditioning unit.
I came to class to find my work covering the floor like rags to clean up a mess.
I look at him and he said with a smile....."You really don't consider that serious work do you"

Ten years later the same style of work by me, done larger and using better materials, hung in Grand Venues.

Life is funny sometimes, right Pete.

loki74
08-15-2007, 02:28 PM
Any Anyone here ever used "Modo" or "Hexagon"?

Should I look into those as better for a beginner. Maybe quicker results than Light Wave? Or should I stick with my LW9 from the very start.

Some of you have mentioned "Mud Box" for a sculptural approach to modeling. Is that correct?

Joe:)

I downloaded the trial version of Modo, but I didn't get to use it all that much. Modo is incredibly powerful. The controls are a little different than what I was used to in Modeler, but the concepts behind modeling tasks were pretty similar. Well, except for all the stuff that Modo has which is completely unique to it. It's got a helluva reputation and a beautiful UI, however, Modo is very expensive last I checked.

Mudbox looks very nice. Unlike LW Modeler or Modo (or most other modeling apps) it uses a "clay" approach, where instead of pushing and pulling points and building, beveling, and extending polygons, you carve, shape, smooth, and paint on a piece of "digital clay." I'm pretty sure the price point is moderate, and they have several "tiers" if you will of the program (ie you can get a cheaper license but it has less flexibility). Unfortunately, I've never touched it because a the moment it is Windows only (and with the Autodesk acquisition, I imagine that may never change).

Another one worth mentioning is ZBrush. AFAIK, ZBrush kind of pioneered the whole "3D clay" thing. It's concepts are a little odd and first, because of its other functionality as a 2.5D paint app, but once you get used to it, I really think you'd appreciate the 2.5D features of ZBrush, Joe. Price-wise, its fairly expensive. There are some pretty big savings going on right now, but it ends at the end of the month!

I actually bought ZBrush just last night, instant download. But I'm waiting for them to email me my license... arrgghh!! (>_<)

If you go with a sculpting program, I'd also recommend a Wacom tablet. That will do a lot to break down the digital/traditional barrier you may be facing, and help with your 2D digital work (if you do any) as well.

*Pete*
08-15-2007, 02:38 PM
Once when I was in collage a teacher emptied my drawing drawer to blot up the water from a dripping air conditioning unit.
I came to class to find my work covering the floor like rags to clean up a mess.

what an incredible lack of respect!!

some people, will always be ignorant fools.

you can replace money, or massproduced items..but never a drawing.

even if you would do your best to make a new one, it would never be the same...its not possible to replace what she/he used to clean uo with.



when i was 14, and had my first job...i worked really hard cleaning ventilation in a rockwool factory (if you know what it is, you know what i went through :D)
they sent my paycheck, the first ever earned money i made in my life, by post...and my parents found it before me, took the money and bought alcohol and was drunk for a week.

the money was later replaced...but i never was able to get the feeling of getting my first salary.

some things can be replaced, some things can not...its sad when fools dont know the difference.

Joe Battle
08-15-2007, 02:38 PM
If you go with a sculpting program, I'd also recommend a Wacom tablet. That will do a lot to break down the digital/traditional barrier you may be facing, and help with your 2D digital work (if you do any) as well.

I have a Wacom tablet I've used for photo manipulation. Most of the photo compositions on my website make use of the W. tablet. I liked it. I haven't plugged it in for Light Wave Yet. Would it be good for Modeler?

Thanks for all the info. I'll check out Z Brush prices. Is it directly from them you bought it? Can you give me a link?:)

I own Hexagon but never used it yet. Figured I'd work with Light Wave First. I've just seen so much great stuff come out of Light Wave.

Joe

loki74
08-15-2007, 02:41 PM
I look at him and he said with a smile....."You really don't consider that serious work do you"

(O_O) What?! Dude, I would have freakin lost it!! Probably get myself expelled!

Haha, everyone here may have a different opinion as to what defines art, but I guess we can all agree that whatever it is, it's very valuable.

loki74
08-15-2007, 02:45 PM
I have a Wacom tablet I've used for photo manipulation. Most of the photo compositions on my website make use of the W. tablet. I liked it. I haven't plugged it in for Light Wave Yet. Would it be good for Modeler?

Nice. I don't know how well it works with modeler, but I do know there is a UI preference, so modeler is designed to work with one... might be worth a try.


Thanks for all the info. I'll check out Z Brush prices. Is it directly from them you bought it? Can you give me a link?:)

yep, directly from them is the fastest way to buy (otherwise they have to verify your purchase from with the vendor you got it from before they send you your license, which takes extra time).

www.pixologic.com

is their site, just click on Store>Buy Now and select your option.

Joe Battle
08-15-2007, 02:51 PM
you can replace money, or massproduced items..but never a drawing.

some things can be replaced, some things can not...its sad when fools dont know the difference.


You know it actually made me stronger because I quit looking for that teachers approval.
On reflection maybe he was wiser than I realized.
What better way to get your student to stand independently than to tell him you think his stuff is crap.
That always made me want to prove people wrong when they speak about my work poorly.
More to show myself they aren’t right than to show them.
(Sound familiar)

As far as your parents go...........mine were drunks also!!
It was sort of the thing you did back in those days. It was kind of the cross they had to bear.

The important thing is to learn from their mistakes. And try not to repeat the same ones.
Anyway it must have been a cracking good pay check if they stayed drunk for a whole week from it.
Good job buddy!:thumbsup:

*Pete*
08-15-2007, 03:02 PM
Anyway it must have been a cracking good pay check if they stayed drunk for a whole week from it.
Good job buddy!:thumbsup:

LOL

yeah.and while they were drunk, i was scratching my self for a month!!

Rockwool is a material, that will get inside your skin and irritate it, kind of glassfiber material.

mainly used for isolation between the exterior and interior walls in buildings.


hey, this thread has turned out to be very positive :thumbsup:

as for your pictures joe, the first i saw..with the naked chick in space, pretty much branded you in my eyes...but the later ones posted here are much improved.

still..you would do well if you would learn modelling your own modells..if not better results, so atleast you can have the creative process last a bit longer...thats what is for me, the fun part.

a complete image is always a little sad...there is nothing more to add to it and you have to start a new image in order to get creative again :(

if there is anything you wonder about the functions within LW, just ask.

Joe Battle
08-15-2007, 03:06 PM
(O_O) What?! Dude, I would have freakin lost it!! Probably get myself expelled!

Haha, everyone here may have a different opinion as to what defines art, but I guess we can all agree that whatever it is, it's very valuable.

And there you have it don't you.
Maybe I've upset so many at first because making art is valuable to all present.
All seem to put their best effort into their production.
I'm sure they felt I took the easy way out on that first image.
I admit it I'm a lazy artist. Throw some paint, call it abstract. Pose some premades, add a light, hit render, and viola a cgi master piece.
I'm sure you guys won't let me sleep on the job much again.

Joe

Attachment: Another render done in Vue Infinite which I particularly like. Again I can't seem to recall the artist or I would surely give him credit. :stumped:

Joe Battle
08-15-2007, 03:12 PM
LOL
hey, this thread has turned out to be very positive :thumbsup:



Whew!! it took me long enough! :dance:

Yes I will ask my questions.........and DUCK!!.... for the incoming responses.

Joe

*Pete*
08-15-2007, 03:25 PM
Perhaps the most fitting description of you Joe, is "3D photographer" and not "3D artist"

generally seen, this forums is very kind and helpfull...you WILL get solutions to your problems with LW if you ask for them.

you just happened to walk into one of the two "themes" that trigger a negative reaction.

one is "what is art" other is "application Y vs application X"

pumeco
08-15-2007, 03:40 PM
Any Anyone here ever used "Modo" or "Hexagon"?

Should I look into those as better for a beginner. Maybe quicker results than Light Wave? Or should I stick with my LW9 from the very start.

Some of you have mentioned "Mud Box" for a sculptural approach to modeling. Is that correct?

Joe:)
I can't tell you anything about Modo. But I've got Hexagon, LightWave, Silo, and ZBrush - so this would be my advice. There are mainly two areas of modeling, those being organic and hard-surface. So you need to decide first on what will be your main use, and secondly on how serious you are about doing it.

If you're wanting hard-surface only, then all but ZBrush are very capable in that sense. Then again, if you want to do organic then Silo and ZBrush blow the rest to pixel-dust! ZBrush is much more expensive than Silo, but it's without a doubt, the most incredible piece of organic modeling software I've ever seen. It has an edge over Silo in that respect, but then again, Silo wins over ZBrush in that it's also an incredible hard-surface modeler, an area where ZBrush falls flat on it's face. As for Hexagon, I was a fan of it initially, but now that I have LightWave with LWCAD, it seem lost in the wilderness somewhat.

You should consider looking at it the way I'm doing:

Use LightWave as your hard-surface modeler, animator, and renderer. But invest in either Silo or ZBrush for your sculpting requirements if you're not happy with Hexagon. One other thing to remember is that 3D painting is also a must have these days, and by investing in ZBrush, you'll also have a 3D painting tool at your disposal.

If you want ZBrush though, get a move on, they intend to raise the price shortly ;)

achrystie
08-15-2007, 03:41 PM
Well this is an interesting thread indeed. I don't think the question has ever been whether or not any work can be considered art, it's really just a question of:
a) Do people find something of value in the final image?
b) What is there to critique?

The problem with using pre-made content for everything (and I am not necessarily against it by any means) is that it leaves very little for people to "grab onto" and admire. When people see an image or sculpture or whatever, they want something they can latch onto and admire about that image.
This could be a multitude of things:
1) Technique
2) Use of color
3) An underlying message
4) Overall composition
5) Original idea
6) All of the above and more
...and I could probably come up with an endless list of things to add to that, but hopefully I've made my point.

That said, when you use pre-made content, it's still art, but you're setting yourself up for being held to a much higher standard than if you made everything yourself from scratch. If someone produces a mediocre image (and this is where 90% of ALL art most likely falls), if they've started from scratch, at least there is something to latch onto and admire it for, such as modeling skills, or improvement in skills, texture painting ability, etc.
If everything is pre-made, the overall image pretty much HAS to strike people in other ways such as composition, underlying message, or completely original idea...which...IMHO...is a far more difficult road to take, and also a road that typically doesn't lead to attainment of much in terms of traditional art "skills", and in the vast "majority" of cases, seldom leads to any notoriety for ones work, people like Warhol being exceptions to the rule, rather than the rule itself.

Now that said, it's still "art"...it's just not necessarily art that is going to impress very many people unless you truly attain some great original "overall" imagery. This is even more true for people in this CG field where technique and skill are held in such high regard. Additionally, using so much pre-made content, and such a "broad" definition of art doesn't allow for much to critique other than "I like it or I don't like it", which inevitably leads to these types of discussion and/or some hurt feelings. It also, if you think about it, eliminates a lot of the purpose of posting on these forums. If there is nothing to critique, and everything is equally wonderful and valid...what is left to say about it other than, thanks for sharing?

That said, I went to your site Joe, and while I'm not really a large fan of the composited images, some are nice, I did like your furniture designs. I would of course be even more in awe of the designs if you built them yourself. :)

Keep posting and learning Lightwave. Buy ZBrush if you want something more like traditional media in the CG world, and there is nothing wrong with using pre-made content, for sure, especially if it's primarily to learn the program.

ABC

agv
08-15-2007, 03:53 PM
I briefly tried ZBrush, was stumped by the 2.5D concept, and probably didn't give it a fair chance. Anyone have enough experience with both ZBrush and Mudbox to make a comparison?

pumeco
08-15-2007, 03:58 PM
I wouldn't go anywhere near MudBox for the price (especially with the takeover), ZBrush is superior.
ZBrush is so good it ought to be standard issue for 3D artists!

Joe Battle
08-15-2007, 04:04 PM
That said, I went to your site Joe, and while I'm not really a large fan of the composited images, some are nice, I did like your furniture designs. I would of course be even more in awe of the designs if you built them yourself.

ABC


Thanks, I must note this.......
All furniture and doors on my website were designed and fabricated by me.
When I spoke earlier of craftsman milling their own lumber from trees........yes that was me. Alaskan chain sawmill and all.
I hand carved the curved drawer faces of the walnut chest, also the sculptural desk, and many others not shown.
I understand modeling for it's own sake.

Many architectural suppliers pleaded with me to have some of my carved furniture massed produced in Thailand or Formosa.
I declined. The unique individual piece of finely crafted artwork has always been my priority.

Hopefully soon I will be able to take my sculptural experience and with the use of Light Wave create a personal statement in this medium also.

Joe

Attached is a photo of a desk I designed and hand built.

pixeltek
08-15-2007, 04:05 PM
Maybe a slightly different slant on art. Some of you may know that I too have a website. No art anywhere on there. I don't do art. I do images that serve to entertain me, and by chance, some of the many people who come to visit. I also do information. No art there either. In my opinion, art is a rare thing, and even at that, it needs to 'hit the spot'. I walk by a Picasso with a yawn, but may be found loitering in front of a Vermeer or Raphael. It's all in you own perception. The guy who buried cars in the desert, did not make them either. He bought premade old cars and used them in his idea of artistic expression. I think those photos could be seen all over the world. On Renderosity, for one, I have seen people who are telling stories and do wonderful things with Poser or Vue etc. If I like what I see, it worked. But is it art? Who cares what you want to call it - did you like it?! Will it suddenly, once you find out that a Poser character has been used, become less, even though the individual who created that image has slaved over the pose, the composition, the modification/morphs, the textures, the clothes, the backdrop, the atmosphere, the lighting etc, etc, for weeks. To me it's the result that counts, all else is really unimportant. Yes, I have 'sinned', I have two Poser images on my website. Well, received, btw. They're not art either. I used those characters inside of LW scenes. Works for me, because I know my way around LW, and like most, I seek the path of least resistance and pain. Actually, I find lots of, what I would call art, in scenes painted for anime movies, such as Inuyasha, for example - I also like Japanese woodblock paintings. They may not be art either, since those guys were often just depicting everyday life, in a certain given style. But that's me, a simple, uncultured (compared to most of you) guy with probably no taste at all. Did you know they used Vue6 with mods in Pirates of the Caribbean? D*@n their eyes! Those are premade mountains and flora. We should not permit such unholy quackery, right? Or maybe it really didn't matter? Maybe, we enjoyed the scenes and didn't care if they contained premade models or not? Since so much, maybe most, of cg is used for VFX, probably none of it art, but all of it attempting to entertain, IMO we might be flogging a dead horse here. It's all virtual, it's all inside of digital memory circuits, and none of it is real, and very precious little of probably can be considered art, IMO, and yet, I appreciate much of it without trying to tear it apart with unecessary criticisms.

I either linger, or I walk by with a yawn.

So art, as it has long been stated, 'is in the eye of he beholder' - and that's a fact.

Karl (definitely not an artist)

http://www.cosmic-pearl.com/

Mr Rid
08-15-2007, 04:21 PM
Being as modest as I can, I must point out that (from what I understand) under my strict, perfectionist, technical direction, my film came out with a better grade.

At filmmaking technique, I ran self-taught-on-home-video rings around people with advanced film degrees. I didnt pass many classes in high school, slept thru them a lot, and didnt graduate. Yet my SAT met Harvard spec, and USC, the number one film school in the world was quick to accept me on my film interest (they turned down Spielberg twice). A good grade is meaningless in creativity. As I said in the education thread, a phD in CG wont get you hired over a self taught kid with a killer demo. Likewise, profitibility, popularity, and quality are mutually exclusive aspects of filmmaking.



--its fine and dandy that laymen may, from time to time, have excellent advice and incredible vision, unfettered by technical knowledge. But in the end, professionals are professionals, and laymen are laymen. One cannot hope to excel in any profession by the idealistic notion that technical skill is somehow less important that "muse" or "creativity." They are equally important.

Creativity is in no way restricted by particular tech savvy or access to gear.
Even name filmmakers start out not knowing technically what the hell they are doing. The tale of Sam Raimi, David Lynch, or Orson Welles beginnings are great examples. The lack of knowledge of the 'correct' way to do things, lack of resources are restrictions become precisely what forces innovation and vision. Of course, not everyone exposed to the same situation or tools will evolve the same way.

agv
08-15-2007, 04:28 PM
Another one worth mentioning is ZBrush. AFAIK, ZBrush kind of pioneered the whole "3D clay" thing. It's concepts are a little odd and first, because of its other functionality as a 2.5D paint app, but once you get used to it, I really think you'd appreciate the 2.5D features...

It's been a while since I tried it, but I was confused how to rotate around the model. How exactly is the 2.5D thing working? It just seemed like painting on a flat surface. Once you get the hang of it, is it as good as working in 3D (as far as organic modeling goes)?

Mr Rid
08-15-2007, 04:33 PM
Unfortunately the last image posted just showed the whole drama of the story again. No idea, no life to it, just a pose seen thousands of times before (gun with half-naked chick, oh my god). One hour in Vue and your done.

Autsch!

I see an improvement over Sky Queen.

ben martin
08-15-2007, 04:49 PM
I have a Wacom tablet I've used for photo manipulation. Most of the photo compositions on my website make use of the W. tablet. I liked it. I haven't plugged it in for Light Wave Yet. Would it be good for Modeler?

Thanks for all the info. I'll check out Z Brush prices. Is it directly from them you bought it? Can you give me a link?:)

I own Hexagon but never used it yet. Figured I'd work with Light Wave First. I've just seen so much great stuff come out of Light Wave.

Joe
About software,
I tested almost every software around since I was 14 years old.
I’ll turn 41 next September.
I tried and still trying along the years:
Imagine 3D - (from Impulse - Amiga2000 old times), 3DMax, C4D, Maya, XSi, ZBrush, MudBox, Modo, Houdini, Blender, Silo, Hexagon, Carrara, DazStudio, Poser… all the ones I could get my hands on and I try to follow the new recent developments on them all.
That’s why I stated for several times that Newtek needs to wake-up about Lightwave development.

My actual pipe line is based on Lightwave, xStream 6, Motion Builder and Daz3D / Poser products to generate humanoid body mesh.

My conclusion is simple:
Sure, you can use Lightwave to model everything unfortunately Lightwave is not the best software (today) to model characters easily.
It’s possible but there are others approaches.
The best one is Digital Sculpting.

ZBrush is indeed a reference but if you are not sure (or not in the mood) to buy software (beside try the demos available) I can recommend Blender 2.44.
It’s free and it offers all the needed tools to do Digital sculpting and it is very easy to use.

Don’t get intimidated by the not so standard UI.
There are some Video Tutorials that can help you to ride the strange beast in 5 minutes.

My team uses Blender 2.44 to digital sculpting very effectively.
We export the base OBJ mesh from Lightwaver (or Poser) to Blender.
There we do our digital sculpting export it back to LW (OBJ) to finalize.

If you need any help, tutorials or tips on how to use Blender feel free to ask.
I’m sure you won’t regret trying to use it.
I heard recently that a 3D studio in Germany turned from Maya to Blender… wow.. I was stupidified with such incredible decision!

When you feel confident and that is time to spend some money then just go to ZBrush if Blender is not what you need to Digital Sculpting.
MudBox presented some OBJ/re-scale problems and crashed on me for several times.
Definitively ZBrush is around for several years now and is the "top" Digital Sculpting recommendation.

ben martin
08-15-2007, 04:53 PM
I only noticed now that you have Hexagon… well if you don’t have the last version just get it and use it to Digital Sculpting. It’s also very useful to start with!

Joe Battle
08-15-2007, 05:18 PM
I see an improvement over Sky Queen.

Thanks Mr. Rid, actually it was done before "Queen of the Sky, LW9" in Vue 5 Infinite. I have a better understanding of Vue.
I thought if I had some renders which, to me, were successful in Vue5I I might try to make them in Light Wave . Hence the tempest in a tea pot over here.
Of course Vue supports Poser import. There is a whole school of knowledge at Vue forums to help the artist accomplish this.

Quite honestly I came to Light Wave for the render engine, not the modeling.

Joe

Here is the original Vue render "Queen of the Night Sky"
Warning Nudity!!! and the use of a base Poser figure mesh!!

Note: She is not a stock figure I built her myself from a V3 base. I prefer my babes more muscular. Also her pose is not a stock pose.
The lighting is not that justifiable natural photographic light you guys love. It is much more theatrical in nature.

Jim_C
08-15-2007, 05:38 PM
Geez...
I take a 3 hour nap and come back to all you guys having a big hug fest, stroll down memory lane.....
:angel:

well THAT was a disappointing catch up on a thread.... :D


Jim

loki74
08-15-2007, 05:53 PM
At filmmaking technique, I ran self-taught-on-home-video rings around people with advanced film degrees. I didnt pass many classes in high school, slept thru them a lot, and didnt graduate. Yet my SAT met Harvard spec, and USC, the number one film school in the world was quick to accept me on my film interest (they turned down Spielberg twice). A good grade is meaningless in creativity. As I said in the education thread, a phD in CG wont get you hired over a self taught kid with a killer demo. Likewise, profitibility, popularity, and quality are mutually exclusive aspects of filmmaking.

And that's why I also included the reputation I built at that school--my attention to detail and pursuit of "technical correctness" gained me renown from savvy and non-savvy alike.

I'm not trying to argue the finer points of the value of formal art education here--99% of the time I AM that self-taught kid. All of my knowledge of the digital side of film is self-taught. The only formal film education I've had is the 1/2 semester high school class I mentioned. I don't have a killer demo reel yet, but right now my focus is creating a short which will serve as the primary piece in my ACCD admissions portfolio (if all goes well, I'll be able to apply within the next two or three years).

All I'm trying to argue is this silly notion that you can get by on creativity alone.


Creativity is in no way restricted by particular tech savvy or access to gear.
Even name filmmakers start out not knowing technically what the hell they are doing. The tale of Sam Raimi, David Lynch, or Orson Welles beginnings are great examples. The lack of knowledge of the 'correct' way to do things, lack of resources are restrictions become precisely what forces innovation and vision. Of course, not everyone exposed to the same situation or tools will evolve the same way.

So what you're saying is essentially that necessity is the mother of invention? I can't argue with that, that is very true. If you agree that lack of resources and know-how are restrictions, why are we having this argument? My original stance, and the stance I still maintain, is that Joe can "set his creativity loose" as it were, much better if he taught himself the technical nitty gritty stuff (as in, removing the restriction that is lack of know-how).

agv
08-15-2007, 05:57 PM
I want everyone on this thread to know that, whether you use pre-made content or not, you are a special person and I love you. :heart:

I don't like the people on the other threads though. :thumbsdow

loki74
08-15-2007, 06:02 PM
It's been a while since I tried it, but I was confused how to rotate around the model. How exactly is the 2.5D thing working? It just seemed like painting on a flat surface. Once you get the hang of it, is it as good as working in 3D (as far as organic modeling goes)?

This threw me off HUGE time when I was working with the trial version...


I think what it is, is that you have to enter "Edit" mode. Then you have full 3D rotation, scaling, and translation. That's also where you sculpt.

And your 3D model is not the document you are working in! It is a "tool," something you'd drop into the canvas of a 2.5D "document." So when you save, saving the document won't do you any good, you have to save your changes to the tool!

It seems a little awkward, I know, but I think one could get used to it easily enough.... gawsh, if they would just send me my license already! I'm feeling so impatient... (>_<) lol.

Joe Battle
08-15-2007, 06:05 PM
At filmmaking technique, I ran self-taught-on-home-video rings around people with advanced film degrees. I didnt pass many classes in high school, slept thru them a lot, and didnt graduate. Yet my SAT met Harvard spec, and USC, the number one film school in the world was quick to accept me on my film interest (they turned down Spielberg twice). A good grade is meaningless in creativity. As I said in the education thread, a phD in CG wont get you hired over a self taught kid with a killer demo. Likewise, profitibility, popularity, and quality are mutually exclusive aspects of filmmaking.



Harvard!! isn't that one of those Yankee schools? :tongue:
USC!! isn't that just a surfer dude hangout? :neener:

Rice!! Now that's a real school where we picked mushrooms out of cow chips between class. Made for some iridescent scientific kinetic sculpture classes.:) Oh Yeah!

agv
08-15-2007, 06:11 PM
Thanks Loki (and Pumeco too) for the ZBrush info. I just downloaded Blender and I'm giving it a try based on Ben's comments (more thanks). For a free program, is Blender way, way, behind ZBrush?

And I should qualify my needs; I'm looking to have some 3D painting/sculpting for making my own rocks, canyons and natural arches. Not like in Vue (I have that already), but a little more fine-detail control. Yet I probably don't need as much control as required by heavy duty character work.

Joe Battle
08-15-2007, 06:12 PM
Yeah I just downloaded Blender also. Thanks Ben for the info.:bowdown:

I'm real glad you decided to come back.:)

agv
08-15-2007, 06:37 PM
Hey by the way Joe, you're in Houston, you must have been to The Orange Show or to the Art Car show, yes?

Joe Battle
08-15-2007, 07:57 PM
Hey by the way Joe, you're in Houston, you must have been to The Orange Show or to the Art Car show, yes?

Yeah! For sure.
I know I'm showing my age again but my best friend in college, Ty, helped the orange show get it's first real critical recognition. Straight out of school he bought his first house next door to the Orange Show. The property value was way down cause no body wanted to live by the Show. He was instrumental in bringing the Show to the attention of our Contemporary Arts Museum.
It is a wonderful environment. Totally orange. Reminiscent of the Watts Towers in it's naïve exuberance for construction with found materials . Of course all dedicated to the Orange.
Your recent render is a fitting tribute and really feels a lot like The Show.:)

I'll tell you about the beginnings of the Art Car Parade when I return.

Joe

agv
08-15-2007, 08:07 PM
That's very interesting to hear. Thanks Joe!

Joe Battle
08-15-2007, 10:58 PM
Hey Agv, have you heard of Terragen landscape software. It is a free program for renders up to @ 800 x 600. For larger quality it is @ $100.00 US Dollars. I've seen some terrific landscapes with it. I downloaded the free version but haven't used it yet cause I like Vue's integration with Poser.

agv
08-15-2007, 11:38 PM
Hey Agv, have you heard of Terragen landscape software...

I had heard of it, but haven't tried it yet. Those are some pretty good renders; the first one interests me because of the ridges in the rock. I'm interested in really hand working the rock, almost painting and sculpting in exagerated ways. So I'll have to check it out. Thanks Joe!

Joe Battle
08-15-2007, 11:51 PM
http://www.planetside.co.uk/terragen/

Here's the link I used.:)

Mr Rid
08-15-2007, 11:55 PM
Mr Rid, you are at it again....

The trouble with these new pictures you have posted is they are not original compositions, not the Poser models.

These ones are all collage or tableau so original content does not come into play. The middle one is pretty much a complete rip off of Blake. The first one is, i can't think who, but I'm sure people here could say, as with the rest. This kind of thing is using premade compositional formulas. I'm talking about the lighting and mood not just the positioning of elements.

Who knows what their influences may be. That's fantasy art. Doesnt mean there isnt a personal twist. The Matrix is almost exactly the same story as Dark City- chosen one discovers the world is really a virtual slavefarm run by mysterious men in black, turns their superpowers against them, mentor offers pill/syringe of truth, sultry brunette... but with Kung Fu.

Eragon- farmboy learns how to use a sword and special powers
From left to right, there's Palpatine, Lando, Kenobi, Luke, Princess, Han, Vader... but with a dragon.
49385

Then there's Star Wars-
49383

agv
08-16-2007, 01:29 AM
http://www.planetside.co.uk/terragen/

Here's the link I used.:)

Some neat stuff done with terragen. Thanks again.

agv
08-16-2007, 01:34 AM
I like your Star Wars comparisons, Mr. Rid. I know Lucas has talked about SW being inspired by some of Kurosawa's work, like Hidden Fortress.

I think Blake Edwards once said something to the effect that everything's been done before in comedy.

Mr Rid
08-16-2007, 01:43 AM
I like your Star Wars comparisons, Mr. Rid.


Yeah, Lucas ripped off a lot of more original sources-
49387

starbase1
08-16-2007, 04:50 AM
I'd suggest that...

1. You do not need to be a better artist than the creator of an image to know if it is good or not. Example: I am an apalling guitarist / singer, but I can still spot a flat note when someone (else) sings it.

2. You DO need to be a better artist to give specific advice to get better.

3. You do not need to be a better artist to spot problem areas.

Mistakes vs Artistic Choices

It is perfectly possible for an artist to choose to be unrealistic. It would be silly to criticise Dali because watches are not really floppy for example. Or a sculptor in bronze because people are not really made of metal.

However I think that most of us working in the 3d arena WOULD view it as a mistake if it is something that has been left out due to lack of skill. For example a perfectly flat skin tone with no variation in colour or specularity.

When we recognise such a look as coming directly from the default settings of a graphics program, I think it is perfectly reasonable to assume the artist is not yet skilled in the chosen medium.

It is also possible for an artist to choose a style that deliberately confuses our senses, or judders them. (A good example here might be Bridget Reilly's work - and they DON'T do this in print - if you see one of her best Op Art pieces in a gallery, an original, they really mess with your senses).

But again, when we see things such as an object lit with no light source where the visual cues tell us it should be, we get twitchy and it looks 'wrong', also where a foreground element is not well composited in - the lighting does not match well, and we pick up on the inconsistent lighting. It looks flat, because the only things we have seen like that are one photo stuck on another.

So when we see an image like that in these forums, we assume that the person who produced it does not know how to do better.

I think this is at the heart of the weakness and strength of poser - they are the same thing. It makes it VERY easy for a complete novice to produce a picture of a human figure. The novice is therefore often delighted - they will try a few simple experiments and find that they put the figure in different poses, change the eye colour, twiddle the heroic proportions slider or whatever. They feel in control, and gratified that they are producing images so fast. At this stage they are unlikely to really notice the weaknesses - the expressionless face, the eyes staring straight ahead, the plasic skin.

To those of us here who have seen this sort of thing a thousand times, it's difficult to share the pleasure of the beginner. Also, as it's a lightwave forum, the product by it's nature tends to attract users who want good control rather than easy presets. LW does not operate typically at the level of 'make this figure taller' or (for landscape software) 'erode this landscape'.

LW is much more about 'triple that polygon', 'bevel that edge', 'tweak that point'. Low level control and detail.

Though it's not that long ago that you got people appeariung in these forums terribly confused because they could not find the Babylon 5 toolkit they assumed the program came with...

Posers big strength is extreme ease of use for a complete beginner. The price you pay for that is extreme lack of control, and extreme constraint.

We lightwavers have made our choice - we want to do it all, to control it all, to make images and objects that are OURS. Right down to placing every point, every polygon.

Nick

agv
08-16-2007, 05:06 AM
Yeah, Lucas ripped off a lot of more original sources-
49387

Udderly amazing.

Trulsi
08-16-2007, 05:39 AM
Though it's not that long ago that you got people appeariung in these forums terribly confused because they could not find the Babylon 5 toolkit they assumed the program came with...

I very much agree with what you said! And when you wrote this I had to add that when I bought LW back in 2003 (I think) I was actually a bit disappointed that it didn't come with that centauri shuttle I had seen in some magazine.

voriax
08-16-2007, 07:31 AM
I can't quite wrap my head around your thought processes, Joe. You've said you're a trained artist. You've shown us some impressive pics of furniture you've created with your own hands. But when you get into a piece of software that would let you construct anything your mind can come up with, you end up giving us poser ladies with large breasts.

Modelling in 3d gives huge opportunities to people with constructive minds. You're not constrained by materials, you don't have to wait for wood to dry. I would have preferred that the first few pics you posted on here were a 3d replica of that table photo you posted a couple of pages back.

Throw yourself into that aspect of 3d! Screw the rendering, that comes later. MAKE SOMETHING UNIQUE!

Joe Battle
08-16-2007, 07:35 AM
I'd suggest that...

We lightwavers have made our choice - we want to do it all, to control it all, to make images and objects that are OURS. Right down to placing every point, every polygon.

Nick

Nick, I just want to say one thing in reply to you very verbose answer............

You are RIGHT ON my friend!!!

The way you have carefully broken down the elements of Light Wave and Poser, and how these elements affect the viewer and also the producer, is well thought out and informative.
The manner in which your evaluation relates to all users of these software's and to my renders in particular is both insightful and diplomatic.
I, for one, can not fault this critique.
Rather I come away with a very complete understand of where my own knowledge and experience stand in the moment. And also what direction seems appropriate for me in the future.

Thank you Nick, Joe Battle :)

Joe Battle
08-16-2007, 07:50 AM
Voriax said..........
I can't quite wrap my head around your thought processes, Joe. You've said you're a trained artist. You've shown us some impressive pics of furniture you've created with your own hands. But when you get into a piece of software that would let you construct anything your mind can come up with, you end up giving us poser ladies with large breasts.

So here's what may be happening......

During the 1950's doctors told mothers not to breast feed. For some reason they thought at the time cow's milk was better. Weird!
As a result a generation of men grew up deprived of their first and best experience of a woman's breasts.

The result..... men like Hugh Hefner and Joe Battle

So there you have it...
Maybe... "Queen of the Sky" is a view looking up at the bountiful body of an idealized mother figure.
She has complete control of her universe, and of the viewer, by merit of her grand form and statuesque pose.

Joe

Note: thank you Mr. Freud and Mr. Jung for this meaningful moment!!:cry:

CMT
08-16-2007, 07:54 AM
I just wanted to quote something I saw from oDDity's signature once and I thought it was a great attitude for an artist to have. It was actually a quote from Michelangelo.

"The greater danger is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it."

If you never push yourself to go past what you already know, you'll never reach your full potential.

Jim_C
08-16-2007, 08:29 AM
<snip>So here's what may be happening......<snip>


I think you either missed or ignored his point in that one Joe.

Mr Rid
08-16-2007, 09:26 AM
[QUOTE=achrystie] it's really just a question of:
a) Do people find something of value in the final image?
[QUOTE=achrystie]

Precisely. I dont see any 'art' as a categorization. There is only what you 'like or dont like.' My dictionary defines art as 'anything that can be done.' I think all you may judge is the intent.

[QUOTE=achrystie] The problem with using pre-made content for everything (and I am not necessarily against it by any means) is that it leaves very little for people to "grab onto" and admire. [QUOTE=achrystie]

Its difficult for me to believe anyone is still grinding on the use of premades after all the examples Ive presented, although the previous thread was removed (I happened to have 3 pages saved from cache when it disappeared in mid-post). But I think this collection shows plenty of artistry to grab onto.
http://www.box.net/shared/yxmfsjkom7 (some may need to be downloaded to view a larger file)
'Ease of use' does not make necessarily make the use of a tool less artistic as some have implied. Consider non-linear editing compared to old school film splicing. A tool like Poser juist makes it easier to get on with it. As I have pointed out, there are many more personal ideas being posted on Poser forums than on LW forums since it makes it easier for anyone to express themselves in CG, just as desktop production, digital video, and LW made it easier for anyone to produce their own TV, movies animation and FX. No longer only the domain of 'professionals' who turn their noses up at 'the very idea.'

I assume some still dont realize the extent of what is being created by the artist. Of course, I would prefer to make everything myself that is contained within the frame of every render I work on. Professionally, that is a rare situation. How many of us originated every pixel that appears on our CG demo reel? I knew a great character animator who had no clue how to light or render in LW(!). That didnt make him less of an artist, nor the person lighting and rendering his animations for him. Therefore I have no issue with separating/appreciating the considerable aspects of a work that the artists did originate, as with the examples. We dont scoff at the role of a movie director because he didnt actually act, write, shoot or design the movie himself, but merely orchestrated the work.

I see a lot of stills of cool, original character heads that seem to never make there way into any render with a point other than to show off the modeling (nothing wrong with that!), let alone into an animation that is not part of a commercial project. I think the reason being, who has the free time and skills to model and texture some highly detailed characters and props and an environment, tweak perfect lighting and maybe FX to combine for a complete idea or animation, all on their own? Personally, stills dont interest nearly as much as making things happen in animation. I would much rather get to it, instead of spending so much time making meshes and rigging from scratch when its all been done a billion times before. I think, Look, theres another CG character model... yes the model and texturing are nice... but what is it about, what is it going to do?

And if an objective viewer likes a render... then he likes it and maybe wants it as his wallpaper. He doesnt give a farp if the artist borrowed from some influence or a premade. It just doesnt matter unless you want to specifically critique modeling. Even then, some artists utilizing a Poser/Daz model may do a tremendous amount of personal modifying that really negates judgement on use of a raw preset.

Joe Battle
08-16-2007, 10:26 AM
I think you either missed or ignored his point in that one Joe.

Yes I know, I know, there is other subject matter besides just big breasted woman.

For instance there is....Uhmn...uh.....well..........I know there is..........for sure.....Ah....I can think of something..........I will think of something.......I have to think of SOMETHING!!!:help:

Just kidding guys.
I genuinely admire most of the renders I see here and all the varied subject matter which doesn't rely on the nude human form.
As far as exploring technique in the use of Lightwave, these forums are full of terrific knowledge , if sometimes incomprehensible to a newbie.:)

I really have done some other stuff in 3d.
Attached are some examples.

Please go easy on me ok. You wouldn't want to give an old guy a heart attack would you?
As it is I generally have to keep my bottle of baby aspirin close at hand dealing with you guy's critics.
(Thins the blood, makes it easier on the heart.)
Also to cope with my latest three children all under the age of 9 yrs, youngest 18 mos.:beerchug:

pixeltek
08-16-2007, 10:59 AM
Mr Rid: Exactly the points I was making earlier. I think in the artisans' expression, the end really justifies the means. Most of us by now, so I believe, don't just have a single arrow in the quiver, but are using all manner of plug-ins and supplementary software to get the result we are looking for. When we like it, when we are finished, the final output is done. If the rest of the world hates it or loves it, or even calls it art, is irrelevant - unless you are translating it into currency or recognition and work to please the crowd. Lots of artists in the past worked to please the crowd. They had to live too and make ends meet. Today, those formerly commercial works may be highly prized and sought-after. To the artist of old, they were his meal ticket. That makes a lot of what the art-snobs, who usually are not producing anything themselves, say in their critiques, pretty unimportant, IMO. Did you know some of the old artists were even creating their own pigments? Grinding minerals and all manner of substances to get the colors they wanted (or because they were usualy so broke that they could not afford to buy ready-made paints. In our case, we are using software that we expect to do more and more for us, to permit the final output to come to us faster and easier. Enough said. You see what I'm getting at.
Karl
http://www.cosmic-pearl.com/

Joe Battle
08-16-2007, 11:08 AM
Did you know some of the old artists were even creating their own pigments? Grinding minerals and all manner of substances to get the colors they wanted (or because they were usualy so broke that they could not afford to buy ready-made paints.
Karl
http://www.cosmic-pearl.com/

Yes your right. In fact a very popular pigment in 19th century France was "Mummy Grey".
It was made from ground up Egyptian mummies. No kidding.
The French ruled a lot of north Africa at the time. When building roads or buildings they uncovered many ancient grave sites.
They also used mummies in their locomotive furnaces to power up their supply trains.
A joke of the time was if a mummy burned brighter in the engine's furnace it must have been a "noble man's body".
Gruesome! :thumbsdow

CMT
08-16-2007, 11:10 AM
One last little point....

Sure. OK. Ultimately the image is what counts in the end, right? Fair enough. But overuse of pre-made art in the end will only deprive an artist of the opportunity to grow.

Now I'm done with this argument. I've ran around that circle about 100 times now hearing the same arguments. If people want to continue to have pre made content as the central part of their image, they have every right to. But they are only hurting themselves in the end. I can only hope that they gain the artist's desire to grow and evolve.

But as these types of images will still appear, I will still bring up this point every time in those threads.

Jim_C
08-16-2007, 11:13 AM
Yes I know, I know, there is other subject matter besides just big breasted woman.



Na man.. his point was...... 'CREATE don't COPY'

Joe Battle
08-16-2007, 11:23 AM
One last little point....

But as these types of images will still appear, I will still bring up this point every time in those threads.


As well you should,
To help the artist grow and broaden his understanding of his craft.
In this way you will always give the maker a bump in the right direction.

"The Maker"!!! Oh my God, I'm starting to sound like C3PO! Help!

Joe:)

*Pete*
08-16-2007, 01:07 PM
Yes your right. In fact a very popular pigment in 19th century France was "Mummy Grey".
It was made from ground up Egyptian mummies. No kidding.
The French ruled a lot of north Africa at the time. When building roads or buildings they uncovered many ancient grave sites.
They also used mummies in their locomotive furnaces to power up their supply trains.
A joke of the time was if a mummy burned brighter in the engine's furnace it must have been a "noble man's body".
Gruesome! :thumbsdow

fantastic!..i love history, and the way it keeps on repeating itself.

www.bodyworlds.com

burning mummies to power a train, or slicing up corpses for the sake of art...

edit: there was a heated discussion about a skull of a dead man, cowered with jewels, some time ago here at the forums.

Mr Rid
08-16-2007, 04:33 PM
One last little point....

Sure. OK. Ultimately the image is what counts in the end, right? Fair enough. But overuse of pre-made art in the end will only deprive an artist of the opportunity to grow.

*sigh*

No, it will not. Premade's are just tools. Buying a quality canvas instead of stretching your own does not make you less of an artist.

Joe Battle
08-16-2007, 04:57 PM
*sigh*

No, it will not. Premade's are just tools. Buying a quality canvas instead of stretching your own does not make you less of an artist.

Wow Mr. Rid sweet comparison, because I stretch all my own canvases and build all my own stretcher bars.

This is began of course because I couldn't get the large sizes I use pre-made. The smallest is 3'h x 9'l.
But soon after I realize I started looking with disdain on paintings done on pre-made canvases.
As if the painter was not really totally involved with his work, no matter what the quality of the image.

Seen in this light I begin to understand the reaction of so many of you to "Queen of the Sky LW9"
And your intense knee jerk contempt of the particular process involved in making it.

I think I'm starting to get this whole discussion now. Not just from a "he said she said" point of view. But rather from a more visceral, down deep in the the artist's gut, kinda way. :thumbsup:

Joe

Attachment; 3' x 9' canvas titled "Hymn to the Sun"

Jim_C
08-16-2007, 05:24 PM
Buying a quality canvas instead of stretching your own does not make you less of an artist.

The key words in CMT's post were 'overuse' and 'grow'.

If an artists continually used Paint-by-Numbers canvasses would that not stunt his artistic growth?

CMT
08-16-2007, 05:30 PM
*sigh*

No, it will not. Premade's are just tools. Buying a quality canvas instead of stretching your own does not make you less of an artist.

Had to come back and answer this one.

You don't fill a stretched canvas with brushes, paint palate, an easel or any other tool or equipment. You fill it with paint - the medium that makes the art on the canvas. Comparing pre made models to a canvas is silly.

I guess by suggesting that polys are the medium, you could compare the pre made models to being like paint, but then by using pre made models, you're effectively starting with a painting half finished.

Yeah, I'd really feel a sense of accomplishment when I finished a work that was already halfway finished before I started, not to mention not learning anything new about modeling.

By not modeling most of it yourself, you're not exposing all of the of the creativity inducing problems that may come your way from the start. Many of those decisions were made for you. Ergo, you don't develop as an artist as quickly. It's called experience.

Anyway I didn't say that it makes you less of an artist. I said it hinders the ability for an artist to learn. If all I know is how to place premade models together in a scene and render it, what happens when someone requests something outside of that. "I need you to make a 6 limbed orc type creature. Can you do that for me?" Well, if you can't find one of those models online to buy, then you're SOL, aren't you? You've limited yourself by not learning modeling more complex things. I'd say that would impede your ability to grow in CG art. What kind of serious CG artist these days wouldn't want to be able to model anything they want?

agv
08-16-2007, 05:31 PM
I like "Hymn to the Sun"; rich colors and flow. I have a feeling the rez limitation of this image doesn't do it justice.

CMT
08-16-2007, 05:33 PM
The key words in CMT's post were 'overuse' and 'grow'.

If an artists continually used Paint-by-Numbers canvasses would that not stunt his artistic growth?

Even better said than I! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Mr Rid
08-16-2007, 05:48 PM
... or maybe an artist's thing is not canvas. Maybe they paint on designer pillows, or on walls, or pieces of driftwood, or pinheads or whatever. OMG, she just picked that piece of driftwood, or that bottle off the ground and is painting on it... how can painting on a piece of premade garbage be any kind of real art?!

This may surprise some of the youngins, but In the 70s soda bottles came in glass bottles that were transported in wooden crates 49409
These wound up laying around back storage rooms everywhere. Someone somewhere must have noticed one of these sitting up on end against a wall and that it resembled little shelves. Dont know where it started but people started hanging these on the wall, or sometimes first painting designs on them, and putting little curious objects in the cubbies. I still have one that I use for storing ticket stubs, business cards and whatnots. Simply putting a crate up on end, transforms a worthless storage container into a piece of arty decor. Now they are antiques.

Likewise, I have a 7up bottle on a desk from the 70s when someone would heat them up just enought to soften the glass and stretch and twist it into an odd shape... suddenly, discarded trash is objet dart, creative flower vase, whatever. Creative idea from premade.

CMT
08-16-2007, 05:58 PM
Mmmmmmm.....No. Swapping one canvas for another won't change anything. You could, however, compare the driftwood, pillow, or whatever replacement canvas to the blank background in my render window.

Mr Rid
08-16-2007, 08:12 PM
The key words in CMT's post were 'overuse' and 'grow'.

If an artists continually used Paint-by-Numbers canvasses would that not stunt his artistic growth?


Again, this indicates you are confused about how Poser/Daz is utilized and do not seem to have read my previous posts. Poser isnt a premade idea or concept like a paint-by-number. It is just one of many basic tools, as Ive explained repeatedly, that may be used to varied extent to convey your own original ideas well beyond merely loading a preset base model. As I said in post #171, we dont scoff at the role of a movie director because he didnt actually act, write, shoot or design the movie himself, but merely orchestrated it. And we dont dismiss a demo reel by one who only animates but contributes no rigging, modeling or lighting.

The role of the artist in these images speak for themselves with a varied range of personal expression.
http://www.box.net/shared/yxmfsjkom7

Blackhearted (Gabriel) took the preset model you see here, and made all that you see after, from scratch- the sculpture, clothes, textures, lighting. How do you equate with a paint-by-number?49410

On a very minimal creative level, all I did was drop a preset Daz model and pose into a LW scene to see how it would look. The before is what came from Daz- after is what I did to make it look decent (LW8.3). Some artistry is required even at this very basic level where I present no specific idea. You can see how bare even a purchased model is, requiring a bit of work to make presentable. Then consider what went into more involved renders in the above link.
49413
49414
49411

Mr Rid
08-16-2007, 08:14 PM
Doh, the Blackhearted example insert in the previous post didnt stick for some reason.

Mr Rid
08-16-2007, 08:26 PM
Mmmmmmm.....No. Swapping one canvas for another won't change anything. You could, however, compare the driftwood, pillow, or whatever replacement canvas to the blank background in my render window.

Except your blank background window doesnt contribute in anyway to the final render. The canvas, driftwood, object, or fabric you select directly contributes to the texture and form of the final work. It is part of the expression.

voriax
08-16-2007, 09:01 PM
Some of this "Blackhearted" person's art is quite good - mainly because of the use of light and composition in them. Particularly the picture of the pole dancers where all you can see is the shadows of onlookers and their silhouettes. The ones where it's just a character standing there, I don't waste my time with. Such as the "tomb raider" and naked chick you just posted. There's no feeling, no composition, no lighting. Boring. And I'm not going to analyse the model because I know it's origins.

I can see in the pictures you posted from your LW8 days that you were trying to accomplish something(?) with the lighting and surfacing. The model that the textures and lighting happen to be on, doesn't appeal to me, and there would be no point in critiquing it's deficiencies because you didn't make it in the first place.
In the cases of actually doing something worthwhile, such as learning lighting or texturing, it's not so bad to use premades. To just pose a model and hit render, then post the picture in a public forum ... no. There's no point unless you're going to say "I'm trying to get the lighting to look like such and such" and follow through with it.

Regardless of whether I like the lighting or not, if this was my work I would still feel that it wasn't fully owned by me. But that's just me.

CMT
08-16-2007, 09:01 PM
Except your blank background window doesnt contribute in anyway to the final render. The canvas, driftwood, object, or fabric you select directly contributes to the texture and form of the final work. It is part of the expression.

Sure it does. It's just as important to the concept as any canvas would be. Without the rendering window, where would my art be seen?

The fact that I select a Lightwave rendering window to use is just as significant as selecting any other surface to paint on. It is definately part of the expression.


Also, the thing is, in that last image you posted, I can tell that each model is actually the same model. The same model that thousands of other Daz/Poser artists will probably click, pose and render in 15 minutes with preset skin and lighting. And they will all look almost as good as the renderings in that last image (they are pretty decent for what they are). But they will be lost in the sea of Daz chick renderings just like it.

I've said this before as well. There's nothing wrong with starting from a pre made base mesh. But modify it and make it your own. Don't rely on someone elses vision to create yours.

Joe Battle
08-16-2007, 10:37 PM
I came to Lightwave for it's render engine.
My experience with Poser gave me wonderful skin textures.
My work in Vue gave me expansive environments.
Lightwave I hoped would combine the best of both with it powerful render engine.
I really didn't care about the modeling aspect of Lightwave ,except that I had to use it to get my figures thru into Layout.
But man this is a great example of finding an expansive undiscovered country by hiking thru that first valley.

Attachment: Here is my Poser version of a Tomb Raider theme..
Again my lighting is very "theatrical" as opposed to "natural"

*Pete*
08-16-2007, 10:45 PM
Mr Rid and CMT...you are both talking about basically the same thing, and refusing to read eachothers posts. :thumbsdow

nobody is saying that making art from driftwood or some wooden crates is wrong, or less artistic...tattoo'ing is considered an art form as well and this is pretty much simply painting on premade human modells.

its not a discussion about art as such.


it is to what extent you want to use premade stuff for your art, where the creativity starts, or should start.

use of premade objects, fine...if need to be, fine by me..there is a reason places like turbosquid.com are existing.

but premade, imho, should be used only when you really dont have the time to do it by yourself....if you dont have the skill to do it by yourself, you have to learn the skills.

i have learned something during this thread...

looking at Joes other pictures...the table he handmade, the latest painting he posted, and even some of the vue renderings with premade, show that he does have the heart of an artist...the table specially indicates that he is not a lazy artist, otherwise he would simply have bought an IKEA table, painted it and put it together...and called it art.

but he made the table with love to the art..handmade, everything...nothing premade, nothing has been touched by other hands in order to get what he wanted.

there is less love in the creation process when it involves premade objects...the end result may be good, or even better than if you would make it self.


if both of you, Mr Rid and CMT would take the time to read Joe's latest posts, you will see that he (and the rest of us :D) already understod what all these 12 pages have been about.

its been telling us that an IKEA table, painted or not, will never be the same valued as Joe's handmade table.

defend premades how much you like, use them as much you feel for..but the "worthiness" of images made with them is less than "handmade" stuff.

Joe Battle
08-16-2007, 10:57 PM
i have learned something during this thread...
looking at Joes other pictures...the table he handmade, the latest painting he posted, and even some of the vue renderings with premade, show that he does have the heart of an artist

Thanks Pete for that observation.
It is most welcome.:)
Joe

voriax
08-17-2007, 12:02 AM
but premade, imho, should be used only when you really dont have the time to do it by yourself....if you dont have the skill to do it by yourself, you have to learn the skills.

i have learned something during this thread...

looking at Joes other pictures...the table he handmade, the latest painting he posted, and even some of the vue renderings with premade, show that he does have the heart of an artist...the table specially indicates that he is not a lazy artist, otherwise he would simply have bought an IKEA table, painted it and put it together...and called it art.

but he made the table with love to the art..handmade, everything...nothing premade, nothing has been touched by other hands in order to get what he wanted.


Well said. That's a point I've been trying to make. When someone who does have artistic talent and can do this sort of thing, is playing around with amateurish content instead of trying to exploiting a program's abilities to it's full extent. When a person with obvious patience and an eye for detail is using quick-fix methods to pump out plain 15 minute imagery. It pains me.

Joe, you've just stated that you wanted Lightwave for it's render engine .. does that mean you're never going to learn to model in Lightwave or any other program? You use Poser for your humans and Vue for your landscapes, are you going to put effort into making either of these things yourself or are you going to rely solely on "push-button" object makers? If you're not going to learn to model, let us know once and for all so at least I don't have to bother myself trying to push you into doing it....

In all honesty, if I were in your place and was just after a render engine, I would have downloaded Blender instead and saved myself hundreds of dollars.

achrystie
08-17-2007, 06:17 AM
Also, the thing is, in that last image you posted, I can tell that each model is actually the same model. The same model that thousands of other Daz/Poser artists will probably click, pose and render in 15 minutes with preset skin and lighting. And they will all look almost as good as the renderings in that last image (they are pretty decent for what they are). But they will be lost in the sea of Daz chick renderings just like it.

I've said this before as well. There's nothing wrong with starting from a pre made base mesh. But modify it and make it your own. Don't rely on someone elses vision to create yours.

I will say that I do find some of those images just posted by Mr. Rid appealing for the lighting and composition, but I would probably marvel at them more if they "weren't" from premade content, or were more substantially modified premade content. They're still art either way. :)
Speaking of the same model, I constantly try to determine what it is about DAZ/Poser figures that makes it such that in 9 of 10 instances I can "tell" it's a DAZ/Poser figure, and I think I've boiled it down to, as being the dead giveaway....the shoulders.

What is it that looks so distinct, and dare I say "unnatural" about the shoulders on these figures, both male and female? More importantly, does anyone else see it and if so, why does it seldom seem to get fixed? It seems as though the shoulders always "bow up" in an odd sort of way, even in the more relaxed positions, and the musculature seems a bit misshapen/overdeveloped.
Does anyone have any poser images where someone took the time to modify this particular area?
I think it's a function of the extreme T pose they start in. The shoulders look fine in that position, but then when relaxed they never seem to deform (or be deformed by the user) to a more natural state.

Sorry for the off topic, but we are discussing Poser figures...so it's not that far off. :)

ABC

starbase1
08-17-2007, 06:57 AM
There are several independent issues here, which many are confusing, and it would be helpful to be a bit more specific.

To be specific, the issues I see are:

1. Authorship. Is it really your image if the bulk of the content used to create it is not by you?

2. Quality. Is the premade content good enough?

3. Creativity. How much input do you have to have before you can consider the image a result of your creativity? How much before you might consider it ART.

I think the arguement from quality is very weak - sure the bulk of it is rubbish, and Sturgeons law (90% of everything is crud), applies fully here. But there is good stuff lurking out there, and as with everything from software, it gets better with every generation. Give the much derided poser figures x10 the polys, sub surface scattering, and a better hair system, surely this would address most of the issues.

I suspect because I am most interested in accurate space and astronomical material I am less bothered by the creativity aspects. There's only one moon, and any differrences are errors, not creativity. Similarly with the vehicles.

Saturn would be a good example - you might want to treat it as a sphere with a washer around it,but it took a lot of work to get a version that would convice an astronomer as being realistic. Then I do the sums to work out things like where the camera can go that is consistent with the satellites, (if I want a moonscape forground). Sometimes it feels like exporing more than art as I move the camera around, but the big fiun comes if I can make / find an image that makes ME go Wow!

Or consider photography - absolutely no one seems to think that the photographer should make all the objects they get images of!

Joe Battle
08-17-2007, 08:55 AM
Joe, you've just stated that you wanted Lightwave for it's render engine .. does that mean you're never going to learn to model in Lightwave or any other program? You use Poser for your humans and Vue for your landscapes, are you going to put effort into making either of these things yourself or are you going to rely solely on "push-button" object makers? If you're not going to learn to model, let us know once and for all so at least I don't have to bother myself trying to push you into doing it....

In all honesty, if I were in your place and was just after a render engine, I would have downloaded Blender instead and saved myself hundreds of dollars.


Oh Lord no! Thanks to you guys, (once you settled down), I am totally upbeat about modeling my own figures, and other things.
I have blender now, thanks to Ben. I'm going to take it out for a spin soon. I'm studying tutorials now.
I purchased Lightwave 8 bundled with Vue 5I about 1 1/2 yrs. ago. I purchased the bundle for Lightwave because of the great art I'd seen done with it. But of course Vue is much more user friendly for a beginner. I've using it ever since. Then LW9.2 release gave me some presets for skin shaders and a node editior. I was able to begin to understand the detailed UI of LW from that point.

Anyway I sticking with Lightwave till I get a good handle on it and produce some satisfying renders.
So much has been said here by professionals about "workflow" and having a "toolbox" of different software to get the job done.
This makes so much sense, not only on a deadline based project , but also in a overall quality based project.
I mean It is a joy to spend 1 yr. on a piece of art. But more personal growth happens as production of artwork speeds up.
People who read literature slowly speak of enjoying every word. People who speed read talk of a novel unfolding like a movie in their minds.

When I go surfing I carry a "quiver" of boards. Three to be exact. One for bigger power waves, a second for head high glassy
faced waves, and a third shredder for ripping up smaller fast waves.
I see that 3d cgi production will become similar.:)

Joe

Edbittner
08-17-2007, 09:21 AM
there is an idea for the next challenge!!

render a poserchick, without making it look cheap!!

personally, i can imagine that a lot can be done with a premade poserchick, in right hands..(no, im NOT a pervert) :D

Well, ok I'll give it a shot..............
E.

starbase1
08-17-2007, 12:31 PM
Not bad at all!

Joe Battle
08-17-2007, 12:33 PM
I do like your render Ed.
Was it done entirely in LW. It looks as if it was.
You certainly gave her a very moody look.
I agree with previous posts that she does appear to be a recognizable as a poser base. But you have sure made her your own. Especially in her eyes and expression. :thumbsup:
The next logical step is to put her in a lightwave environment.:)

Joe

Note: OMG I think I've started something! (I hope) You guys can probably knock my socks of regards what I originally tried to do. I better get busy and enter this challenge.

Also she does have live model skin textures right Ed?

starbase1
08-17-2007, 02:28 PM
Well, here's a few of mine based on Poser content...

Joe Battle
08-17-2007, 02:35 PM
Well, here's a few of mine based on Poser content...


Are these all rendered in Lightwave?:)

starbase1
08-17-2007, 03:02 PM
Are these all rendered in Lightwave?:)

Muscleman, not sure to be honest - though I did move him over and animate him floating around flexing his muscles. The flying statue, yes, definitely. That set is the core of a music video I really must finish... The mermaid thingy, yes, again used in a video, though I got serious memory stretch trying to get an entire village into the scene too...

Nick

Joe Battle
08-17-2007, 04:15 PM
Thanks for the reply Nick.
I pulled this very nice Mil. Horse render from your site.
I like the lighting of your image which brings illumination to the shadows under the horse's jaw. Was the rendering done in Poser or Lightwave? Because the textures of his coat look great.:thumbsup:

Here's one of mine Titled "Prayer" using the same horse and pose. I worked on the facial expression of the horse to fit my overall theme.
The Lion is Mil. Lion from Daz. The female figure uses V3 as a base to which I applied my own custom shape morphs. I used hdri light and a gi render in Vue 5 Infinite.:)

Warning!! My render contains Female Human Nudity!! Do Not click on the thumbnail if you are at work!!! Duh!:hey:

pumeco
08-17-2007, 04:50 PM
Warning!! My render contains Female Human Nudity!! Do Not click on the thumbnail if you are at work!!! Duh!:hey:
lol - What Joe Battle render would ever be complete without the babe :hey:
It just wouldn't be the same - it just wouldn't.

Jim_C
08-17-2007, 04:54 PM
lol - What Joe Battle render would ever be complete without the babe :hey:
It just wouldn't be the same - it just wouldn't.

Or the space ship. :)

Joe Battle
08-17-2007, 05:47 PM
lol - What Joe Battle render would ever be complete without the babe :hey:
It just wouldn't be the same - it just wouldn't.


Hey I resemble that remark!! :tongue:

agv
08-17-2007, 06:11 PM
Here's an example of what you can do when you create a character from scratch. This was modeled and rendered entirely in Lightwave with NO pre-mades. I challenge anyone to produce this kind of result with a Poser model. Crits not welcome.

loki74
08-17-2007, 09:38 PM
Here's an example of what you can do when you create a character from scratch. This was modeled and rendered entirely in Lightwave with NO pre-mades. I challenge anyone to produce this kind of result with a Poser model. Crits not welcome.

:jester: XD

I hate to steer the thread away again, but going back to the software discussion--

I was reading on the ZB forums that Luxology is selling for very cheap an old version (103 i believe) of modo, which, after you pay for the upgrades to the latest version, will have sculpting ability. I think they said that all in all you will get 40% off the original pricetag (800 it think? idk...)

Anyway I havent checked out the details (dont want to see anything that will make me regret my ZB purchase, hahah!) but it might be worth a look!

agv
08-17-2007, 09:51 PM
Hey Loki, did you get your ZB license yet?

I'm still messing around with Blender to see what it does in painting/sculpting.

loki74
08-17-2007, 10:02 PM
yea, I had to resend the request, but I got it today!

The UI and concepts are sooo different than traditional 3D... It's gonna be a while before I'm accustomed to working that way. But the power of the program is incredible!

I don't think my wacom tablet is coming in until monday or tuesday, so I won't be able to do a whole lot until then, but we'll see!

Joe Battle
08-17-2007, 10:04 PM
Maybe I can steer this thread back again.

This render is titled "Sun Salutation"

Joe

Note: Man you guys make me want to do a figure like this of my own from scratch with zBrush!

loki74
08-17-2007, 10:11 PM
Maybe I can steer this thread back again.

This render is titled "Sun Salutation"

Joe

Note: Man you guys make me want to do a figure like this of my own from scratch with zBrush!

hahaha, you totally should!

Once my tablet comes in, I think i'll give this approach a whirl--

http://www.zbrush.info/docs/index.php/Tutorial:_Pinup

I figure that should be right up your alley, eh Joe?

Joe Battle
08-17-2007, 10:21 PM
hahaha, you totally should!

Once my tablet comes in, I think i'll give this approach a whirl--

http://www.zbrush.info/docs/index.php/Tutorial:_Pinup

I figure that should be right up your alley, eh Joe?

Seems that way. :hey:
It sure starts out funky, like plastic tubes then wooden sticks. But towards the end the model starts looking like a figure.
She is way to short and stocky for my tastes however.
I'd make her more statuesque.
Your a bad man, my friend. You're going to make me go spend $500 bucks. You sure you're not working on commission?

Maybe not being all that familiar with traditional 3d UI might work in my favor for a faster zBrush learning curve.
Is it really like sculpting out a shape?
I need to study the tutorials.

Joe

Warning Nudity in the attachment.

Joe Battle
08-17-2007, 10:33 PM
Please.... don't anyone tell me that my last attachment looks like Victoria 3.
I mean really..... Vicky would have to hit the rowing machine hard to get "lats" like my babe.:heart:

Also don't anybody say anything about her breasts. She is only 19 yrs old.!:bowdown:

loki74
08-17-2007, 11:49 PM
Your a bad man, my friend. You're going to make me go spend $500 bucks. You sure you're not working on commission?

hahaha! wouldn't that be nice!

but seruiously though--I'd check out Luxology's Modo deal first... Modo's sculpting probably isnt as advanced as ZB's, but who knows?

As far as the plastic tubes bit--thats a nice feature of ZB called "ZSpheres." The concept is that you block out the basic shape with interconnected spheres, and from that a polymesh is generated.


Maybe not being all that familiar with traditional 3d UI might work in my favor for a faster zBrush learning curve.
Is it really like sculpting out a shape?
I need to study the tutorials.

perhaps... 2.5D is a really strange way of thinking... because it really doesnt have top-side-front viewports, you have to constantly be rotating around the model to make sure that the shape is what you want it to be...and the whole tool/edit thing reaaaaaly throws me off sometimes.. (>_<)


The one thing I'm really miffed about ZB is that it isn't Universal Binary on MacOS. The recommended specs on their page said "Intel," so I assumed it was, but... *sigh* I guess they were referring to the up-and-coming version 3, which will be UB (from what I understand). Luckily, its a free upgrade so I guess I just have to sit and wait...

if you're on windows though, that shouldn't be a problem, and ZB3 is already out on windows.

pumeco
08-18-2007, 03:58 AM
Please.... don't anyone tell me that my last attachment looks like Victoria 3.
I mean really..... Vicky would have to hit the rowing machine hard to get "lats" like my babe.:heart:

Also don't anybody say anything about her breasts. She is only 19 yrs old.!:bowdown:
You must be thinking of somewhere else, Joe. What on earth makes you think people would say such a thing on this forum? :D

I got a crit for your pic though, a personal point of view really. I like most body types, athletic to curvy. But one thing I've noticed is that most of the time, a woman with an athletic hard body often looks better with smaller than avevage breasts. Larger than avarage seems to be more suited to the more curvy types. If you was wanting to represent a 19 year old like was intended in your pic, you'll probably get away with it a lot easier with smaller breasts.

BTW, I'm glad to see you're considering ZBrush. Like I said though, if you're going for it - do it now. Pixologic have said they will raise the price shortly, and there's no point paying more than you have to.

Edbittner
08-18-2007, 05:48 AM
Joe,
About that last one, what's up with her right hand? Looks kinda "off" .
E.

pixeltek
08-18-2007, 09:56 AM
Let's face it, the argument between the purists and those who get stuff done and out there to delight the rest of us, will continue ad infinitum.

So, I goes out to pluck the hair of a pig's ***, tie it into a brush, weave my own canvas, and grind my own pigments (with a touch of 'mummy gray' thrown in, for good measure) and then, to either get laid or some cash for my eating or drinking habit, paint some rich man's wife's portrait.

Or...I model in LW (or any other major app), using algorithms I did not write, take it into ZBrush to create a displacement map (don't want to model all of those fine details in the original app), a wonderful clay type utility I did not write either, port it back into LW, then render the model in F Prime, a fine renderer I did not write, and proudly show off the result as original art. Or maybe even export it to Vue, to let my creation run through the woods, not wanting to model and place 10s of thousands of leaves, and struggle with re-inventing some atmospheric effects, and show that off as my original creation.

This is like a religious argument. The "true believers" on both sides may nod and smile, and in the end never ever agree with each other. Nor should they, nor does it really matter. Both sides contribute one way or the other. Purist and those who use every tool available, both tend to enrich our lives to some extent. Purists, I love them, they often, by their suffering, do advance the state of the art, while the others, produce a constant output of delightful, interesting, or decorative goods that greatly contribute to what makes life enjoyable on a day-to-day basis for the rest of us. We don't always want to wait for six months for the next great work. Purists, in computer arts, write the software, or at least the plug-ins to pre-made software, to make their product as unique and as original as possible. They will also spend massive amounts of time doing this.

Me, I'm not a purist. I happily use other people's products to do the best I can and to please myself and maybe others, and hopefully grow in the skill of the utilization of the software truly gifted people wrote for me. And I am forever in debt to those few bright minds that made all of this possible.

Having said that, I no more disdain those who put virtually no effort into bending and posing and rendering premade characters and produce images on a daily basis, than those who put little or no effort into learning a modeling app and hurt our souls and insult our eyes by producing crude and skill-less imagery.

Karl
http://www.cosmic-pearl.com

loki74
08-18-2007, 10:44 AM
So, I goes out to pluck the hair of a pig's ***, tie it into a brush, weave my own canvas, and grind my own pigments (with a touch of 'mummy gray' thrown in, for good measure) and then, to either get laid or some cash for my eating or drinking habit, paint some rich man's wife's portrait.

Or...I model in LW (or any other major app), using algorithms I did not write, take it into ZBrush to create a displacement map (don't want to model all of those fine details in the original app), a wonderful clay type utility I did not write either, port it back into LW, then render the model in F Prime, a fine renderer I did not write, and proudly show off the result as original art. Or maybe even export it to Vue, to let my creation run through the woods, not wanting to model and place 10s of thousands of leaves, and struggle with re-inventing some atmospheric effects, and show that off as my original creation.

Once again, a flawed analogy.

The whole argument of "oh, well asking a digital artist not to use unmodified premades is like asking a traditional artist to make his own pigments" is TOTAL BS. Analogies have to be equal-set to work--you can't take analogous situations and hyperbolize one or the other to suit the needs of your argument.

The comparison to use of premades with collage is much more accurate.

Joe Battle
08-18-2007, 02:20 PM
Thank you all who have taken part in this lively and heated discussion.:)

I stepped in the deep poo by posting my first image here at NewTec using derivative poser figures.
As a result however I personally have acquired much valuable information about the tools in my field and their different applications.
Knowing where to reach for the proper tool for the job is the first step. Acquiring the experience using those tools is the journey of any artist.
The path to perfecting our craft is ours to walk alone. Many solitary hours are spent in the studio or in front of our monitors.:lwicon:

Those who come before can guide those who follow with knowledge, experience, whit, and support.
No one else can surf the wave for you. But those who have been there before can certainly help you decide which board to use in certain conditions.
When you wipe out expect some laughter. But also expect some respect from your peers for sticking your *** in the lineup.

I've been around on this planet a while now. 57 yrs to be exact. One thing I know is how little I know. (It's a cliché but true.)
When I was 19yrs old I had all the answers and knew I was right. I was invincible and had forever to accomplish what I wanted.
Now I am a mere mortal. I am much more premeditated about things I want to accomplish. As a result I produce more. And my personal growth as an artist has accelerated.
The days are shorter but more productive.:thumbsup:

From out of the acrimonious chaos that defined my entry into this community has come a fruitful discussion and sharing of different viewpoints. For that I am very grateful!

I think I'll go hit the waves. There's a storm brewing in the Gulf. And you guys know how I enjoy being in a storm.

Peace, Joe

Attachments: Warning! Female nudity. Please don't click on the thumb nail if you're at work!

The first...... is not "Art" just a snapshot of my surf wagon loaded up for bear.
The second.. might be "Art", A collage of my super hot girlfriend on a black sand beach.
Just so none of you will be disappointed in the Joe you've come to know and love! (or despise as the case may be.):hey:

pixeltek
08-18-2007, 02:38 PM
Just having some fun, Loki, because at this point, the horse that is being flogged is definitely dead. My point was not so much the two little examples, but rather that we are dealing with two distinct philosophies here: purists, to whatever degree :D , and those who are less strict in their interpretation of what is accpetable and who are willing to use any means to express their ideas. I also pointed out that both of these schools of thought have impact on the state of the art in general, and deserve credit, where credit is due. You and I both know that there will always be those who feel they must belittle some of the sincere efforts of those who are, in their opinion, less of a crafts-person for using premade stuff in their work. So be it. No argument we might make will change that - ever - and I'm perfectly ok with that. Freedom of expression, freedom of speech. The rest is up to each individual's personal likes and dislikes, based on their own experiences and expectations.

That's all folks. :thumbsup:

Have a great weekend,

Karl

loki74
08-18-2007, 03:00 PM
Oftentimes, "purist" is a word used to describe someone who prefers (insists) that something be done in a certain (usually more traditional) way for no good reason. This is also the situation you described in your hyperbolized analogy.

I think it has a negative connotation, and I do not feel that this is an accurate description for those of us who prefer to use mostly original content.

But you do have a good point--nobody is going to convince anybody...

Joe Battle
08-18-2007, 03:20 PM
Oftentimes, "purist" is a word used to describe someone who prefers (insists) that something be done in a certain (usually more traditional) way for no good reason. This is also the situation you described in your hyperbolized analogy.

I think it has a negative connotation, and I do not feel that this is an accurate description for those of us who prefer to use mostly original content.

But you do have a good point--nobody is going to convince anybody...


Theologians often say when gathered together to discuss their different religious views...
If you are here to convert me to your religion we might as well leave now cause that is not going to happen.
But if you are here to have a lively discussion about the nature of religion and the existence of God then let's talk.

Different points of view may not convert, but the exchange will always serve to inform interested participants.

Joe

Attachments: Sorry no nude female attachments this time!:chicken:

pixeltek
08-18-2007, 03:26 PM
By now you know that I do not see the 'purist' in a negative light at all, and that I also believe that they have a definite and important place in the fabric of life. Shaolin monks are purists, probably all monks are. They gave us great martial arts and philosophies, for one, and excellent liquors, as well as gorgeous, hand illuminated books, for the Western types. Nothing negative there. They are, they contribute, and for better or for worse, that's it.

So, obviously, I am tolerant of all sorts of good things coming from both sides of the house and am personally grateful that they exist. While I may be interested in how they accomplished what they did, I refuse the let the result be diminished by the method or technology they used. As for both of them, I'd rather have them spend their time on creating and doing what they do best, rather than sink into the morass of arguments of pros and cons of their assorted methodologies. In the end, it is really the result that counts, and if I like what I see (or hear, or feel) or find the result thought-provoking or useful, then the artist, IMO, has succeeded.

But even that, like everything else I express, is just my opinion, born from my own experiences and expectations.

Thanks for your time and reply.

Karl

pixeltek
08-18-2007, 03:27 PM
Oh, and Joe....congratulations!! Hot, indeed.

pixeltek
08-18-2007, 03:32 PM
Well said, Joe, and funny - the chicken part. :lol:

I'm signing off this now. I'm learning how to bring a Zbrush model back into LW, so that I can take advantage of the goodness of Zbrush there.

Karl

pumeco
08-18-2007, 04:12 PM
Attachments: Sorry no nude female attachments this time!:chicken:
Sorry, dude - but your standards are slipping :thumbsdow
I expected more from you.

Joe Battle
08-18-2007, 05:51 PM
This discussion on some central issues about using existing content seem to have been temporally exhausted.
So I'm posting this image, the type which I really hoped could be advanced in Lightwave, both in character portrayal and lighting.
I am eager to receive your intelligent evaluations in this regard.
(What I meant to say is intelligent to me.)
Seriously though let me hear from you on this one .
And please post any similar renders in Lightwave or combinations using Lightwave you have done which might relate to this theme.

Thanks, Joe

Attachment: This is part of a series I've done on the theme of a "Lost World"
PS. Yeah! Fine! Karl you have zBrush and I don't yet.

loki74
08-18-2007, 07:01 PM
By now you know that I do not see the 'purist' in a negative light at all,

Of course. I was merely explaining how your statement (and many others) struck me


Different points of view may not convert, but the exchange will always serve to inform interested participants.

also a good point.

Joe Battle
08-18-2007, 09:47 PM
hahaha, you totally should!

Once my tablet comes in, I think i'll give this approach a whirl--

http://www.zbrush.info/docs/index.php/Tutorial:_Pinup

I figure that should be right up your alley, eh Joe?


As I've studied this tutorial further what strikes me about zBrush is it's ability to paint directly on polygons.
This attachment I pulled from the tutorial link you supplied.
The skin tones are varied and quite realistic. Note the pinkish tones on her elbows. And also the blue tones along her spine at mid back.
If this technique is valid across the board and enables me to paint object textures. And these textures read in 3d as do uv wraps. I will be able to use all my experience as a painter and apply it directly into computer generated images.
For me personally this is big!
And it's implications are profound for my work.

Thank you gentlemen for sticking it out thru you initial alienation and showing me this software. And also this particular aspect of painting on polygons as it relates to the human figure.:bowdown:

Joe

Joe Battle
08-18-2007, 10:18 PM
I just checked out Modo painting features!
Based on one of you guy's recomendation.
Wow!
Painting textures, Image map painting.
Sweet!
Twice the price of Zbrush.
Is it worth it?
Anyone care to comment who has used both?
There is of course a 30day demo I can take out for a spin.:)

agv
08-18-2007, 11:05 PM
Is there a ZBrush demo? I can't find it on their site.

Joe, don't forget Blender has 3D sculpting. But I don't know that it has 3D texture painting; at least I couldn't find that on the feature list. Without that I'm tempted to look at ZB. Here are a couple Blender videos:

Multires Meshes (http://www.blender.org/features-gallery/features/feature-videos/?video=sculpt_two)

Sculpt Mode (http://www.blender.org/features-gallery/features/feature-videos/?video=sculpt_one)

And it has some nice UV control for textures: UV Control (http://www.blender.org/features-gallery/features/feature-videos/?video=multi_uv)

Joe Battle
08-18-2007, 11:07 PM
I'd didn't see a zBrush demo yet, only the modo 30 day trial I mentioned.

Based on Modo's site polygon painting videos their UI seem very simple to understand and very akin to Photoshop.

Joe Battle
08-18-2007, 11:14 PM
I'd didn't see a zBrush demo yet, only the modo 30 day trial I mentioned.

Based on Modo's site polygon painting videos their UI seem very simple to understand and very akin to Photoshop.


I was trying to say that Modo impressed by it's almost photoshop style UI.:)

agv
08-18-2007, 11:17 PM
Oh. Maybe ZB doesn't have one. I think I remember trying it out a while back and was confused by the interface. (Maybe I'm not the only one and that's why they don't offer a demo anymore.) But golly there are so many that use it, love it, and produce great work with it. If I could just understand the way the interface works I might buy it.

loki74
08-18-2007, 11:19 PM
I do not think ZB has a demo at the moment.

I know they did a while ago, but it seems they stopped that. Along with a lot of other helpful things (=_=). Anyway, the nice thing about Modo is that it has some similarities to LW's Modeler. It hasn't had sculpting for as long as ZB, but it does have many features ZB doesn't, and better Mac support (if that's an issue for you). I also think its UI is prettier.

The most important difference is that Modo is 3D, while ZB is 2.5D with some 3D features. Neither approach is necessarily better than the other, but 2.5D definitely takes some getting used to. The upside to it though, is that you can also work in 2D--I plan on using ZBrush as a 2D sketching program from concept sketches, character designs, and scans of pencil-and-paper lineart.

As for the price--I've read on the ZBrush support forums that Modo is actually on a huge discount--you can get an earlier version for a little over a hundred bucks, and upgrade for a few hundred more. This puts them at more or less the same price point, until the end of the month when ZBs price will up another $100. I do not know when the Modo sale ends or how to access it.

Joe Battle
08-18-2007, 11:20 PM
Apparently based on other's comments here it uses a 2 d view that you rotate.
Not a multiple window view of different sides.

Also a link to the modo sale would be nice if anyone has it.

loki74
08-18-2007, 11:23 PM
Oh. Maybe ZB doesn't have one. I think I remember trying it out a while back and was confused by the interface. (Maybe I'm not the only one and that's why they don't offer a demo anymore.) But golly there are so many that use it, love it, and produce great work with it. If I could just understand the way the interface works I might buy it.

Same deal for me. Exactly the same.

Then I learned of the "Edit" mode, which essentially works like 3D.

I think that if they had two modes--2.5D (for editing documents) and 3D (for editing "tools," which is what they call 3D models), the product would be much more effective at getting new users, IMO. This would give it appeal both to traditional artists, who may be more comfortable in 2D and 2.5D, as well as 3D artists, who obviously are more acquainted with 3D. And really, I don't think there's is anything you can do in 2.5D while editing a model that you cant do in 3D...

oh well...

Joe Battle
08-18-2007, 11:32 PM
Just as a side bar you guys have to check out this site which is just starting to handle Marvel theme items.
http://www.museumreplicas.com/museumreplicas/detail.aspx?ID=1242

They also have this from "300"
http://www.museumreplicas.com/museumreplicas/detail.aspx?ID=1151

These items are made by Windlass sword makers who do it the old fashion way...real craftmanship...
http://www.windlass.com/

I dig this stuff and collect as much as I can.
I wonder why? Duh!

Oh yeah I forgot....Warning naked steel!

agv
08-19-2007, 12:43 AM
Joe, did you check out Hexagon yet? Ben mentioned it earlier in the thread and it has 3D sculpting/texturing. It's probably no ZB, but it's only $150. The "combined effects for advanced materials" looks powerful. Check out: Hexagon features (http://www.daz3d.com/i.x/software/hexagon/-/new?)

agv
08-19-2007, 01:15 AM
I found Modo 103 on the Daz site for $199.00. Is that what you were talking about Loki?

Modo 103 on Daz site (http://www.daz3d.com/i.x/shop/itemdetails/-/?item=5541&cat=422)

bjornkn
08-19-2007, 02:23 AM
And Silo

Joe Battle
08-19-2007, 07:41 AM
Joe, did you check out Hexagon yet? Ben mentioned it earlier in the thread and it has 3D sculpting/texturing. It's probably no ZB, but it's only $150. The "combined effects for advanced materials" looks powerful. Check out: Hexagon features (http://www.daz3d.com/i.x/software/hexagon/-/new?)


Yes I have Hexagon. I bought it back when it was $2 and I update it regularly for free.
Honestly though, I have never even opened the manuel. I just always took for granted that Lightwave is the king. And that you get what you pay for.
Also to be honest, till I started talking to you guys, I never understood the up side of doing my own modeling. I was blissfully ignorant. Happily composing with all my $1.99 Daz models. Thinking I was so bitchen.
Then came my entry into the NewTec Lightwave galleries. Kicking and screaming you guys pulled me into the 21st century of 3d art..
Once you've dated a real woman you can't really go back to innocence.:hey:

Joe Battle
08-19-2007, 07:44 AM
I found Modo 103 on the Daz site for $199.00. Is that what you were talking about Loki?

Modo 103 on Daz site (http://www.daz3d.com/i.x/shop/itemdetails/-/?item=5541&cat=422)

Cool! I'll read and see it this is the afforadable path to the current $800. release. Thanks:)
Yeah I got an email form daz about this offer and didn't put 2 and 2 together about it duh! Thanks for the heads up.

Joe Battle
08-19-2007, 08:13 AM
What about the stuff at Museum replicas?
The company Windlass Steel is based in the mountains on northern India. They have this large walled compound where they make swords by hand forging. They started producing for the British army, hello Bengal Lancers, and now make all the props including costuming for most major period movies like Kingdom of Heaven.
Some movie production companies make virtual 3d models, hello modeling, then generate real life prototypes. These prototypes are used by the classically trained craftsmen at Windlass to hand forge fully functional weapons. Also other items from our collective fantasies like Iron Man's helmet. I don't know about you, but I bought the first issue of Iron Man as a boy.
Here's the totally cool tip for any lover of Marvel. "Thor's Hammer" will be released soon. Fabricated by Windlass. I saw some of the drawings. It's awesome.

Joe

I know. This is just another juvenile male, testosterone driven fantasy. And I am just a pitiful example of western male arrested development.
To this I say with all sincerity......."So what's you're point exactly?"

See attachment.

Joe Battle
08-19-2007, 08:46 AM
Yes Daz is selling Modo 103 for $139.
Re:
Sale Price: $139.30
Save 30% through Aug 31, 07
Reg. Price: $ 199.00
Platinum Club Price: $139.30
Resell Item By:
Luxology


And Luxology is selling upgrades
Re:
As of June 21, 2007: Purchases of modo 203 (Boxed or Download) at the normal list price ($895) and purchases of modo 203 Upgrades (Boxed or Download) at the normal list price ($395) will recieve a free downloadable upgrade to the recently announced modo 301 software when it ships. Just place your order and you will see a text message to this effect. Coupons and discounts are not eligible for this modo 301 upgrade offer.

If you are signed-in and already own modo (10X or 20X versions), you now have the option below to place a pre-order for the modo 301 upgrade at a reduced price also.

As you see the upgrade includes a free bump up to #301 on release.

I wonder when the say "already own modo (10X or 20X versions)," if they mean #103 exactly. Seem right but for some reason sounds a little tricky.
At any rate if this path is valid it equals Daz Modo #103...$139.30
Luxilogy upgrade to #203 $395.00
Total $534.30
And this total price gets you the coming upgrade #303 Free

So to recap $534.30 instead of $895 that's a $360.70 savings. Almost enough to buy the zBrush for the current price of $495.
Does this line of reasoning seem sound?:twak:

Joe

agv
08-19-2007, 09:37 AM
So to recap $534.30 instead of $895 that's a $360.70 savings. Almost enough to buy the zBrush for the current price of $495.
Does this line of reasoning seem sound?

I also reasoned that modo 103 could be upgraded for the cost you mentioned, but I would double check with Luxology before buying.

Keep in mind too that modo is also an ace modeling/rendering package beyond the sculpting/painting stuff.

Glendalough
08-19-2007, 09:53 AM
..... Does this line of reasoning seem sound?......

Joe

Yes this is all true. And if you read carefully you can get it even cheaper if you are willing to forgo version 203 until 301 is out(you may have to move fast for this as release date is any time soon).

On the other hand to return to topic, I'd say the folks over at Lux will absolutely freak if you start posting Poser stuff (even though this program was used to create it!)

Really think this thread has turned into a Poser orgy and has gone very off topic. As someone said earlier, it's really about quality.

And speaking to you J Battle, if you really did that abstract painting a few pages back, just cannot fathom why you are messing around with poser. Don't think this is about testosterone or anything, Just seems infantile (or senile) really this stuff should be on the Thomas the Tank Engine forum or something.

Don't mean you to take offense, just think you are really lost. Modo might sort you out, and it's works very well with Lightwave -but there is a big history behind it all and a lot of bad feeling between some people who use these programs.


PS As agv says, this a modeling program (and painting & UV) for polygons and subpatches, it can get very complex as well (Don't I know)

Joe Battle
08-19-2007, 10:52 AM
Glendalough said: "And speaking to you J Battle, if you really did that abstract painting a few pages back, just cannot fathom why you are messing around with poser. Don't think this is about testosterone or anything, Just seems infantile (or senile) really this stuff should be on the Thomas the Tank Engine forum or something."

Point taken!:stop:

May I please see a personal example done in Lightwave so that I may learn by your excellent example.:)

Glendalough
08-19-2007, 11:32 AM
Glendalough said: "And speaking to you J Battle, if you really did that abstract painting a few pages back, just cannot fathom why you are messing around with poser. Don't think this is about testosterone or anything, Just seems infantile (or senile) really this stuff should be on the Thomas the Tank Engine forum or something."

Point taken!:stop:

May I please see a personal example done in Lightwave so that I may learn by your excellent example.:)


Fighting Talk!

Personal example of what now exactly?

In Lightwave, not a painting?

Joe Battle
08-19-2007, 11:54 AM
May I please see a personal example done in Lightwave so that I may learn by your excellent example.:)

Why in Lightwave of course my master.:)

Jim_C
08-19-2007, 12:08 PM
May I please see a personal example done in Lightwave so that I may learn by your excellent example.:)

So Joe, now everytime someone has a negative critique or opinion of your work you are going to challenge them to show you something?

And if they do not produce something you are going to disregard their advice or opinion?

agv
08-19-2007, 12:11 PM
Joe, having seen the table you created, I'm surprised you haven't jumped headfirst into Modeler. In earlier times I was a cabinetmaker too, and there is a real parallel between the two skills. You might find that creating your own models is more satisfying than using pre-made stuff because you'll have more self expression. I think that's been said fifty different ways on this thread, so I'm guilty of redundancy. This thread's getting so long that it seems anyone who posts anything is guilty of redundancy.

Humans are tough to start with (I wouldn't even know how to model a human - see post 209), but maybe you could create something akin to your table, or some kind of funky far-out furniture.:thumbsup:

Joe Battle
08-19-2007, 12:14 PM
And speaking to you J Battle, if you really did that abstract painting a few pages back, just cannot fathom why you are messing around with poser. Don't think this is about testosterone or anything, Just seems infantile (or senile) really this stuff should be on the Thomas the Tank Engine forum or something.

Attached is a slide shot of a black toned abstract hanging in my Gallery in Galveston back in 1997. And yes I painted it. Also built the strecher bars and stretched the canvas.:hey:
Difficult to get a read on size from this view but it was 3'h x 9'l

Joe Battle
08-19-2007, 12:23 PM
Here's another picture from that time period.
A blue painting with the two babes of the day.
They were great fun together.
The one on the right was a topless dancer.
They were real and fun to play with. ( can I say that here?)
The girls I mean!

Glendalough
08-19-2007, 12:25 PM
Why in Lightwave of course my master.:)

Hey Cool It.

I'm not anybodys master and don't want to be.

Thought i was helping you on that price tip, but you really seem to be quite mad! (This is not all good, even if you are an artist)

Firstly, I have one or two pieces on this forum if you care to look, which you obviously don't.

So in this hostile environment I'll post this image, a "drawing" or conception in Lightwave for a painting which is unfinished but sold on the strength of this.

As far as a Lightwave endeavor is concerned I see 3 main problems which i'm going to fix, (and there not very big) but the work is all my own, conception, modeling, lighting .etc. I have loads of animations i can post but I doubt if you are really interested.

Joe Battle
08-19-2007, 12:38 PM
Hey Cool It.

I'm not anybodys master and don't want to be.

Thought i was helping you on that price tip, but you really seem to be quite mad! (This is not all good, even if you are an artist)

Firstly, I have one or two pieces on this forum if you care to look, which you obviously don't.

So in this hostile environment I'll post this image, a "drawing" or conception in Lightwave for a painting which is unfinished but sold on the strength of this.

As far as a Lightwave endeavor is concerned I see 3 main problems which i'm going to fix, (and there not very big) but the work is all my own, conception, modeling, lighting .etc. I have loads of animations i can post but I doubt if you are really interested.


No I'm not mad.
Just a little good natured kidding.
This is not a hostile environment.
Just poking back a little after that "Thomas the Train" quip.
Yes I first looked at your work here at the community forums.
And I honestly wished you to show me something that blew my socks off.
Your render is pretty cool and I understand it is still a work in progress.
I would love to see some animations. I am very interested.
Thanks a lot for the tip also!

Peace, Joe:)