Dag on them is some cankles! What is that LUMP on the inside of his lower shin above his ankle?
The rest looks ace, I think as shotgun has said though, it's showing that you were essentially copying what you saw instead of modeling what you know. But it's good to practice the technical side as well, and I think you've grown because of the exercise.
my figuer drawing teacher always hammers down how important it is to actually understand what it is you are drawing rather just copying the outline and rendering it
most students would spend 3 hours copying the figuer, filling in with some nice rendering, fixing the lines a little more.. and ye, at the end you have something that looks - in some areas - a lot like the model. in others it will look wobbly and disfiguered, and they could spend hours trying to fix an outline. its very easy to tell who actually constructs things inside out, rather than copy things like a machine just so he gets an approximate (fake) result at the end.
boskma here took the latter approach, depsite the early crits. most students rather ignore my teacher anyways. they would try to have something that would look good and be presentational, but they don't actually learn much from it. they don't ask any questions, they just pretend like they know the answers. its ridiculous... but true.
there's a girl in my grade that studied with ron lemen (aka fredflickstone) before joining my school this year. her figuers look top... better than 99.9%, just because she is very practiced in copying and rendering. she's so good, in fact, that they let her drop out of my figuer class and take painting class instead.
my teacher (who is a remarkable figuer artist) told her early on: you need to learn to how draw. your figuers look great - you'll easily get an A in my class - but they are still flat.
pretenciously enough, she got pissed off and left his class.... claiming he has nothing to teach her.
imo, btw, he is the best artist and teacher i've met in my school.
if u looked at that girl's sketchbook, however, you would see she can't draw shit from her head. artisitcally, she is crippled.
she get's straight A's, but she still can't *create* out of her own head.
she has no vision.
i think this is a good example.
does this answer your question?
this superfacial approach to recreate is evident in boskma's model.
we saw it from the early WIP's, which started off with fleshy muscles and no bones.
when a figuer has no structure, the further away you get from the spline (the usual starting point) - the more wobbly and off things will look.
on the model, the hands and feet are an example.
the only reason the entire thing looks 3D is because he is using a 3d software.
with this approach, if he tried to create a male figuer on a piece of paper, i don't believe it'll look anywhere as 3d as this. that's why i asked what kind of skillset is he aiming for.
like i said, the final result looks great, and he will still probably get an A for this assigment.
however, feeling that i've been in this exact same spot a year ago myself, i offer my advice to check your honesty in your process.
everybody can fake it bro..
but remember you are lying to noone but yourself.
ya thats true .. but where you set the point where you say "good copy" and "bad 'eye'"? .. i mean.. what gives you the best "know-how" of the underlaying structure if you cant transfer it? and i´m sure it´s just as bad to have no feeling of the outline
Wait a second.. you are saying he can't just slap it into z-brush (insert any other technical gimmick)????
Pretty much agree with shotgun, even though I have no artistic education what so ever (but plenty of medical anatomy courses).
To bad that damn voxelman isn't a free download, as even a few screengraps are such a great reference for real anatomy.
But still, the model is better than 90% of what usually floats arount the intarweb.
when the end result looks generally okay, it looks okay, you can't argue with it.
one way is no better than the other, if you are aiming for - and achieving the same end result
the thing is, are you aiming for an end result? if so, what for? just to show off to someone else?
end results are for the ego, as i see it.
you don't learn from the end result, you learn from the process
rollin i'm not sure what you are asking..
you can't teach someone how to see, how to have a visionary ability in the mind, how to SEE things...
the best advice is go smoke some weed lol
remember there is no outline, outlines don't exist.
one copy is no better than another copy, it all depends if the drawing meets its purpos.
if the purpos is to study the anatomy, and you are copying the outline, than i would have to say it's a bad drawing.
may look great, but is a bad drawing.
@Shotgun
hmmm.. I don't know what think about that. When I was a kid if I saw a picture of something I liked, I would try to draw it from another angle, figuring the object out. I tend to want to understand what I'm drawing anyways (understand what the muscles are doing, where the joints are.. bla bla bla) But I doubt I could model a figure that looks that good. I love drawing from my head (although it's 90% sylized) but this feels beyond me. I don't know that it's nessicary to have a skeleton every time you make a piece.. I've found that much of the time, trying to understand something too much, keeps it from looking what it really looks like. In my High School we had a quote by Salvador Dali on the wall (can't find the exact quote):"If only I could open my head, take out my brain and paint what my eyes see". Though It's also true Michelangelo (my fav classical artist) said: "A man paints with his brains and not with his hands." Admittedly Dali's realistic figures are more accurate than Michelangelo's.
I think There is something important to NOT adding everything you know to an image, because your mind adds and subtracts things that souldn't be there, or don't show up when you really see the object.
I guess you could call it lying to yourself, or "faking" but I don't know if there really IS faking in art. MANY great artist use photos & referances & "cheats".. I dunno. I suppose it's in what you value: (drawing realisticly from your mind is "true art") and although I value drawing realistcally from ones mind possibly more than any other form, I don't know that everything else is lying to youreself.
Drawing is the honesty of the art. There is no possibility of cheating. It is either good or bad.
-Salvador Dali
I'm going to guess your point is soley about learning physical anatomy
the lats seem a little weak though, for the size of his chest. It may help soften the transition from the chest to abdomen, make the form a little more graceful.
shotgun: did someone shit in your cherios again? haha :P i know what you're sayin... but im not quite sure what broght it up other than the sake of a random rant
Shotgun, I'm not going to argue with you. I'll try to make some things clear to you though. I'm a student who has just started with this form of art, threating it in a more serious way instead of a spare time filler.
You are claming that I'm ignorant towards comments here, or towards my teachers? I might have to tell you that besides all the good and extremely useful crits I get on these boards, I also get crits from my own teachers, fellow students and students from higher terms. There arn't 2 people out of all these people that share the same opinion. It's impossible for me to please everybody.
You are saying I'm nothing but a cheap copycat? a scam artist? a ripper?
Ofcourse I'm copying from different reference photos. I admit instantly that I wouldn't be able to create this without reference photos, drawings, photographed sculptures, and looking at models of other people ofcourse.
But I have not rotoscoped anything except in the first stages of blocking out the proportions. Neither have I copied anyones model or sculpture. So I just don't agree that you can call me a copyer.
I see where you are coming from with your statements, but I really don't agree with some things you've said.
I'm aiming to be a modeler / texture artist, not a concept artist. I like sculpting and modeling characters and creatures. Making people and their poses live forever in a 3D model or a sculpture or a drawing if you will, is what I love to do. Not nescecarily come up with those drawings from out of nowhere, that's not my goal, I'm have no ambitions in design or concept. I love giving volume and shape to ideas of others and of myself in the form of modeling. And why do you think I shouldn't be 'copying' from reference images. I didn't came up with the human form, so I might as well study it by creating it from reference, right?
In a production pipeline that will probably come down to creating 3D models of other people's concepts. I will need to attend a lot more life drawing classes, and do a lot more work before I will be able to model or draw a perfect anatomical human from any angle.
But please don't get me wrong. I did a lot of research during this project. Looked at lot's of drawings, photos and trying to understand the muscles rather then just to copy them from a photo as you call it. I've learned a lot about the human figure, and learned a lot more names and position of the muscles which I didn't knew before either.
Since you keep hammering on the fact that understanding how every muscle works is so important, I want to ask you this: Is there anybody you know, or perhaps youself,. who mastered this knowledge within 2 months?
Nevermind the 8 other subjects I have homework for as well. I guess I'm sounding like a whining schoolboy here, but I guess that's the way it is.
I've used different refs for every body part. The model which I've started with (without the bony marks etc) was trashed. I've restarted that thing entirely and started using patch modeling to bring in the clevacles and shoulder blades, which was the first thing I did. Because I found you were right with the first post you made in this topic.
I appreciated that post, I don't appreciate the ones you just made.
In fact I don't understand how you say things in such a offensive and unmannered way.
''everybody can fake it bro..''
To be honest, I feel quite offended and unhappy by these disrespectful words.
To end this, I think (hope) I'm young enough and still have a lot of years to go, where I can learn a lot more and broaden my skillset. I hope that somewhere in the future I will be able to please you Shotgun, I really do.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think you got what shotgun was telling you, and I think it wasn't really harsh or offensive at all
He probably ment 'copying' more in a technical sense (not as in lazy crap artist ):
If you copy a technical device without understanding it, you probably end up with a nice looking 'model' of the device, but not with an actually functional device.
@vahl:
[ QUOTE ]
someone talked about modified cylinders in another thread about human bodies and that's what Jelmer's model looks like
[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly... that was me btw
Edit: Huh? did you delete your post Vahl? what was wrong with it?
wooow
yes, jelmer, read your own post over like it was a mirror, please.
the internet can help us see and solve our own psychological issues.
just notice how many words you put in my mouth man... i never said half of those "descriptions.
it is Your observation, and Your ego dementing your vision.
i only said you are pretencious, just like myself.
the rest is your own reality, really, not mine.
i think you know damn well how much copying you did and how much deep study of the human figuer you did. the mistakes you made show that the structure is missing, you know it's fake, why argue? you can't make a muscle mass and sculpt out the bones after, just so they show. you have to start from it. i told you already, start from the skeleton.
at the end of the day, like i said, it's your own call which method you choose.
just make sure you make the honest decision, and not one influenced by grades and other's expectations. deffinitely don't plan on pleasing me, please only yourself.
if you want to be the kind of artist you (finally) said you want to be (like kenneth scott, right?) you should draw more. you can't hide your mistakes with fancy render in drawing. for example, if you want to see, i have an old sketchbook thing from last year here which demonstrates how to make "cool lines" and fill it with fancy rendering. its fake, its crap, and it has no form or mass, no strcuture, no perspective and very schematic anatomy. i know, because i made it, and i have no problem admitting my mistakes.
i already told you the 3d software will not teach you how to create form and masses (like you said you want to). it creates it for you, therefore your mind does not really have to SEE it.
moose heh ye bro, good spot, someone DID actually took a real smelly, korny, bubbly shit on my face.
and i paid for it! most students in own my school fake it, and yes it's driving me nuts because most of the teachers just don't care. it's so lame.
the reason for this rantly natured post is that i've offered twice earlier in this thread the same suggestion to boskma - same suggestion i offer to most people - study the underlying structure first.
the fundamental mistakes in the end result were there from the beginning.
i can't see any other reason why they were ignored: either from ignorance, or stubborn pretenciosness. i apologize if you found it offensive, why would i want to offend you man?
i bluntly lay out reality (as i see it, of course) and you can either ignore it or confront it.
it's always your call.
there is another factor here boskma, a more fundamental one, and it is the fear of failure.
deal with it man, that's all i have to say.
the mistakes you admit are the ones you learn from.
now i am sure i have told this before, somwhere -
about a year ago i got to meet andrew jones for the 2nd time in san fransisco.
it was a great honor for me.. (i actually just woke up from a crazy dream about him.. wtf)
well anyways, he was sitting down at one point, viewing dozens of noob sketchbooks, just like mine.
to every single one of them he said the exact same thing: study the head. study the structure.
over and over and over.
that's all he said to about 50 different ppl.
I think it turned out great. It feels like you made the proportions with his head too large. His forhead and skull most notably.
Anyways to touch on the subject of shotgun's post I think it's a valid point. It's funny I work with another ringling grad who was recently telling me the same thing about studying understructure.
To me modeling and drawing complement eachother very well and what you've done here has easily helped you understand not only broad anatomy but perceiving/understanding form and volume more... something you will also REALLY benefit from with figure life drawing. Books are awesome recources (maybe you already have em) Bridgeman's Drawing from Life, he gives very simple breakdowns. Or others like Loomis (avoid anything Hogarth who's books do not draw from life).
But the stuff shotgun is saying will only make you a more accomplished modeling/texture artist because it allows you to see whats "under the mask" and how things work when you have to translate other people's concepts to 3d that include those anatomical elements.
But you've done a great job getting started considering you're deadlines and what you had time to research out.
Shotgun,
I'm having real trouble understanding what you're really getting at because I can't understand your standards for what is "good". You use an Andrew Jones quote because he (apparently) has an understanding/mastery of the things you are talking about. I took a look at his site and I can see a bunch of issues with his portraits especialy concerning a grasp of structure, and his conceptual stuff has less dept than yours. I'm no master, but could you at least point out the things that are going wrong with this model, so that I can at least see what you are talking about? I understand it's not perfect, but It seems obvious to you that it's phoney.
I'm trying to get something out of your statements but It all I can come up with is: use a skeleton when you draw, add muscles, ligament, fat and you will have a good drawing.
Man shotgun do you use a lot of words to say so little! Study the english more than the drugs!
I feel very similar to Shotgun in some ways, but I want to clarify my point of view, and where I think he is coming from.
If you understand the form and structure of things, to the point you are so comfortable that you can play with and disobey those rules when you feel like it, that's when you are able to constantly dole out dope art. But what that takes is lots of practice and time, and even more specifically, going about it the right way. The right way being, thinking about the why things are the way they appear, more than the studying of what is before your eyes.
Jelmer, don't be discouraged, this is an area that needs study and progression just as much as any other. You've obviously learned about meshflow, sculpting forms, anatomy, proportions, sped up your workflow, and learned about time management. This is good, you are further than you were before, and you should be proud. However what I'm saying, and what I think some others are saying, is that right now the anatomy still looks like a copy. It's a good one, but it's not something you created from your confidence of the form. You don't have to have the desire to be a concept artist to need good anatomical and construction knowledge. Work on that area just as hard as you have obviously worked on this more technical side. I'm sure if you sit back and think, all the artists you most greatly admire have a fundmental knowledge of art down way below the technical side, and if your desire is to emulate or surpass them, you should probably think about this area as well.
If you are currently not at the level you can just throw around anatomy without guides, set them up before hand. Model an extremely primitive skeleton first, using just the major masses. This way you can have reference for your muscle insertion points, and gain even more fundamental knowledge about the anatomy. It seems like more work at the beginning, but it ends up being quicker in the end.
I don't want to sound derogatory, and I'm pretty sure no one else here does either. We are here to help you, even if the individual methods seem crass or harsh, just take them, and use them to better yourself. Sometimes that may mean ignoring completely, sometimes that may mean thinking about them for a while, and maybe some you might even have to come back to later to fully appreciate. Those are lessons I've had to learn and am still learning.
damn wrong manip wanted to edit a little something
overall what I was saying was that I understand both Shotgun AND Jelmer.
This model is Jelmer's first human highpoly model he did errors he's aware of, and only wanted to finish that one to start another one after.
But I also understand shotgun and that story with the guy/gal knowing everything better than his/her teacher happened in my art course a few years ago (I think every art course has one of these ) I know what he means and I also know he's doing this only to help jelmer, but he may have overreacted (and jelmer too, reading at his post).
Just keep in mind this is his first highpoly human figure, and honestly, I'd have loved mine to look that good.
about the cylinders stuff : yah I now remind that was you julius and yah that's how jelmer's model looks like, and that, because he worked on global volumes instead of working on the muscular structure of the character which is, I think, what Shotgun was pointing out (don't get me wrong, again, that's a great looking model)...but I'm sure he will do his best to fix that on his next model, just give him the time to learn...
This has been a highly enlightening conversation with good points by both sides, not to mention the variety of interpritations by the peanut gallery. Thus far I believe that Per has it most dead on.
I just want to know: What parts look like a copy and why?
btw A big part of game are is creating within boundies (poly budget, animation, stylistic etc...), to me, that is artistic.
u people suck.
Hes just saying that , He just made the model , without acctualy learning why the pieces are there, Why or what that muscle is there, and what is underneath it to make it look like that on top.
He just followed naked ref and thats it.
He didnt learn anatomy, Just copied it. That is all.
this thread has turned into a heated arguement .. i got one thing to say though..
i've found myself often times copying other people's work or attempting to copy them without much sucess .. this is regarding anatomy, and face topology and proportion ..
i've found that i could never get it right. what i realized (and this is a point towards shotgun's arguement) is that no matter how hard i try to imitate someone else's work, i wont get it right without learning the theory behind it .. i've taken my time to take long looks at myself in the mirror .. turning, bending certain muscles, shifting .. etc .. at this point i realized that i dont need to copy other's work .. i can find my own ways about going things IF i learn the structure.. i needed to learn WHY before HOW.
i found it to be a very educational experience ... i often find myself studying myself in the mirror .. ( as skullbox mentioned ) .. reallying trying to capture how the muscles bend and flow and how the shapes are formed...
now i am no muscle man .. but by looking at jelmer's model and comparing it myself (here's to hoping i have an anatomically correct body) i can really agree with shotgun here ... i mean it might be good looking but there's no way that it's actually realistically correct.
sorry for rambling on .. but after reading through this thread i felt like posting my 2cents
yes, as always, per is the drugqueen of the night. (EDIT: cheers fuse, but you're not as sexy)
he does know me better than most here.. even my favorite spot (please don't tell!).
+ his english is suspiciously better, so there you go.
the 'revelation rant' is not something you can teach, as you said. everybody has his own revelation to make, and so does jelmer. however! ..the important thing, which i was trying to say (and apparently failed) in order to to get to the bottom of things you must have the correct attitude. you must have the HONESTY (not just passion) to take the chance (of failure) and face your mistakes.
as poop mentioned (just read, darksun..) the blob on the calf is an example. what is it? just because you see that blob elsewhere you beef up that area? no, its 2 twin muscles that have very definite starting and ending points, and you've gotta place the leg bones first. how will you know where they start, end, or what shape they form without the bones? the muscles always relate and reflect the position of the bones, it's not the other way around.
you can't fake this shit,
you gotta figuer all this out,
and this attitude was lacking from the first place.
you lie to noone but yourself,
and i said that on my first post in this thread.
Jboskma you really need to grow up. You get so defensive when somebody gives you a critique on your work...it's getting ridiculous...you do this almost every time. It's really immature, and your ego is growing by the minute. I can say this right now that you will not make it in this industry with your attitude...I know this because I see it every year here at my work....people come in and out because they can't take the C&C. You need to grow up and stop being so defensive toward people's critiques. Seriously you can learn more then you think from C&C.
ugh...this is my nickname...I haven't posted here in over a year. But i do view these forums alot when im at work. And what would I be scared about? Boskma replying to what i wrote? Please, I'm a grown adult and I post my view points when they are needed, and by reading these others posts I can say I'm not the only one with the same view points. I'm just trying to help the guy out with advice. Same with most of these other posts.
I'm getting a much better understanding of what ya'll mean. Personally, I feel you may be over-playing the innacuracies of the model, but.. I guess part of my issue with all this is that I've taken the time to figure out how the muscles & bone work together & yet much of the time when I go off what I'm trying to learn It looks worse than then I kinda fudge it. Especially when I use skeletons.
The one time I felt like I "got it" I was making a half human-half horse character and I wanted to fuse the anatomy (that was fun) acctually I'l like you to take a look at it SG and get some feed back.
the problem is that if you always rely on the method of imitating anatomy you will run into serious problems when you need to exaggarate something . .or make something that is NOT physically idealistic ..
If you dont grasp the actual science of muscular structure there will be a difficutly when you need to deviate form the "perfect human form" ..
besides .. there is no way that jelmer's model will deform properly when animated ..
i suppose this is where the "if you want to do something, you might as well do it right" mentality comes in
Edit: Just had a talk with a good friend who also posts here. I feel 10 times better now, and understand all these posts a lot better. I guess I have something to aim for before I'm done with school August 2006. Thanks a ton again people for beeing an unending source of motivation.
Replies
whhaaaaaaaaa?
or: define "fake"
The rest looks ace, I think as shotgun has said though, it's showing that you were essentially copying what you saw instead of modeling what you know. But it's good to practice the technical side as well, and I think you've grown because of the exercise.
Nice work man.
most students would spend 3 hours copying the figuer, filling in with some nice rendering, fixing the lines a little more.. and ye, at the end you have something that looks - in some areas - a lot like the model. in others it will look wobbly and disfiguered, and they could spend hours trying to fix an outline. its very easy to tell who actually constructs things inside out, rather than copy things like a machine just so he gets an approximate (fake) result at the end.
boskma here took the latter approach, depsite the early crits. most students rather ignore my teacher anyways. they would try to have something that would look good and be presentational, but they don't actually learn much from it. they don't ask any questions, they just pretend like they know the answers. its ridiculous... but true.
there's a girl in my grade that studied with ron lemen (aka fredflickstone) before joining my school this year. her figuers look top... better than 99.9%, just because she is very practiced in copying and rendering. she's so good, in fact, that they let her drop out of my figuer class and take painting class instead.
my teacher (who is a remarkable figuer artist) told her early on: you need to learn to how draw. your figuers look great - you'll easily get an A in my class - but they are still flat.
pretenciously enough, she got pissed off and left his class.... claiming he has nothing to teach her.
imo, btw, he is the best artist and teacher i've met in my school.
if u looked at that girl's sketchbook, however, you would see she can't draw shit from her head. artisitcally, she is crippled.
she get's straight A's, but she still can't *create* out of her own head.
she has no vision.
i think this is a good example.
does this answer your question?
this superfacial approach to recreate is evident in boskma's model.
we saw it from the early WIP's, which started off with fleshy muscles and no bones.
when a figuer has no structure, the further away you get from the spline (the usual starting point) - the more wobbly and off things will look.
on the model, the hands and feet are an example.
the only reason the entire thing looks 3D is because he is using a 3d software.
with this approach, if he tried to create a male figuer on a piece of paper, i don't believe it'll look anywhere as 3d as this. that's why i asked what kind of skillset is he aiming for.
like i said, the final result looks great, and he will still probably get an A for this assigment.
however, feeling that i've been in this exact same spot a year ago myself, i offer my advice to check your honesty in your process.
everybody can fake it bro..
but remember you are lying to noone but yourself.
Pretty much agree with shotgun, even though I have no artistic education what so ever (but plenty of medical anatomy courses).
To bad that damn voxelman isn't a free download, as even a few screengraps are such a great reference for real anatomy.
But still, the model is better than 90% of what usually floats arount the intarweb.
when the end result looks generally okay, it looks okay, you can't argue with it.
one way is no better than the other, if you are aiming for - and achieving the same end result
the thing is, are you aiming for an end result? if so, what for? just to show off to someone else?
end results are for the ego, as i see it.
you don't learn from the end result, you learn from the process
rollin i'm not sure what you are asking..
you can't teach someone how to see, how to have a visionary ability in the mind, how to SEE things...
the best advice is go smoke some weed lol
remember there is no outline, outlines don't exist.
one copy is no better than another copy, it all depends if the drawing meets its purpos.
if the purpos is to study the anatomy, and you are copying the outline, than i would have to say it's a bad drawing.
may look great, but is a bad drawing.
hmmm.. I don't know what think about that. When I was a kid if I saw a picture of something I liked, I would try to draw it from another angle, figuring the object out. I tend to want to understand what I'm drawing anyways (understand what the muscles are doing, where the joints are.. bla bla bla) But I doubt I could model a figure that looks that good. I love drawing from my head (although it's 90% sylized) but this feels beyond me. I don't know that it's nessicary to have a skeleton every time you make a piece.. I've found that much of the time, trying to understand something too much, keeps it from looking what it really looks like. In my High School we had a quote by Salvador Dali on the wall (can't find the exact quote):"If only I could open my head, take out my brain and paint what my eyes see". Though It's also true Michelangelo (my fav classical artist) said: "A man paints with his brains and not with his hands." Admittedly Dali's realistic figures are more accurate than Michelangelo's.
I think There is something important to NOT adding everything you know to an image, because your mind adds and subtracts things that souldn't be there, or don't show up when you really see the object.
I guess you could call it lying to yourself, or "faking" but I don't know if there really IS faking in art. MANY great artist use photos & referances & "cheats".. I dunno. I suppose it's in what you value: (drawing realisticly from your mind is "true art") and although I value drawing realistcally from ones mind possibly more than any other form, I don't know that everything else is lying to youreself.
Drawing is the honesty of the art. There is no possibility of cheating. It is either good or bad.
-Salvador Dali
I'm going to guess your point is soley about learning physical anatomy
the lats seem a little weak though, for the size of his chest. It may help soften the transition from the chest to abdomen, make the form a little more graceful.
shotgun: did someone shit in your cherios again? haha :P i know what you're sayin... but im not quite sure what broght it up other than the sake of a random rant
Shotgun, I'm not going to argue with you. I'll try to make some things clear to you though. I'm a student who has just started with this form of art, threating it in a more serious way instead of a spare time filler.
You are claming that I'm ignorant towards comments here, or towards my teachers? I might have to tell you that besides all the good and extremely useful crits I get on these boards, I also get crits from my own teachers, fellow students and students from higher terms. There arn't 2 people out of all these people that share the same opinion. It's impossible for me to please everybody.
You are saying I'm nothing but a cheap copycat? a scam artist? a ripper?
Ofcourse I'm copying from different reference photos. I admit instantly that I wouldn't be able to create this without reference photos, drawings, photographed sculptures, and looking at models of other people ofcourse.
But I have not rotoscoped anything except in the first stages of blocking out the proportions. Neither have I copied anyones model or sculpture. So I just don't agree that you can call me a copyer.
I see where you are coming from with your statements, but I really don't agree with some things you've said.
I'm aiming to be a modeler / texture artist, not a concept artist. I like sculpting and modeling characters and creatures. Making people and their poses live forever in a 3D model or a sculpture or a drawing if you will, is what I love to do. Not nescecarily come up with those drawings from out of nowhere, that's not my goal, I'm have no ambitions in design or concept. I love giving volume and shape to ideas of others and of myself in the form of modeling. And why do you think I shouldn't be 'copying' from reference images. I didn't came up with the human form, so I might as well study it by creating it from reference, right?
In a production pipeline that will probably come down to creating 3D models of other people's concepts. I will need to attend a lot more life drawing classes, and do a lot more work before I will be able to model or draw a perfect anatomical human from any angle.
But please don't get me wrong. I did a lot of research during this project. Looked at lot's of drawings, photos and trying to understand the muscles rather then just to copy them from a photo as you call it. I've learned a lot about the human figure, and learned a lot more names and position of the muscles which I didn't knew before either.
Since you keep hammering on the fact that understanding how every muscle works is so important, I want to ask you this: Is there anybody you know, or perhaps youself,. who mastered this knowledge within 2 months?
Nevermind the 8 other subjects I have homework for as well. I guess I'm sounding like a whining schoolboy here, but I guess that's the way it is.
I've used different refs for every body part. The model which I've started with (without the bony marks etc) was trashed. I've restarted that thing entirely and started using patch modeling to bring in the clevacles and shoulder blades, which was the first thing I did. Because I found you were right with the first post you made in this topic.
I appreciated that post, I don't appreciate the ones you just made.
In fact I don't understand how you say things in such a offensive and unmannered way.
''everybody can fake it bro..''
To be honest, I feel quite offended and unhappy by these disrespectful words.
To end this, I think (hope) I'm young enough and still have a lot of years to go, where I can learn a lot more and broaden my skillset. I hope that somewhere in the future I will be able to please you Shotgun, I really do.
some long post by Jelmer
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think you got what shotgun was telling you, and I think it wasn't really harsh or offensive at all
He probably ment 'copying' more in a technical sense (not as in lazy crap artist
If you copy a technical device without understanding it, you probably end up with a nice looking 'model' of the device, but not with an actually functional device.
@vahl:
[ QUOTE ]
someone talked about modified cylinders in another thread about human bodies and that's what Jelmer's model looks like
[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly... that was me btw
Edit: Huh? did you delete your post Vahl? what was wrong with it?
yes, jelmer, read your own post over like it was a mirror, please.
the internet can help us see and solve our own psychological issues.
just notice how many words you put in my mouth man... i never said half of those "descriptions.
it is Your observation, and Your ego dementing your vision.
i only said you are pretencious, just like myself.
the rest is your own reality, really, not mine.
i think you know damn well how much copying you did and how much deep study of the human figuer you did. the mistakes you made show that the structure is missing, you know it's fake, why argue? you can't make a muscle mass and sculpt out the bones after, just so they show. you have to start from it. i told you already, start from the skeleton.
at the end of the day, like i said, it's your own call which method you choose.
just make sure you make the honest decision, and not one influenced by grades and other's expectations. deffinitely don't plan on pleasing me, please only yourself.
if you want to be the kind of artist you (finally) said you want to be (like kenneth scott, right?) you should draw more. you can't hide your mistakes with fancy render in drawing. for example, if you want to see, i have an old sketchbook thing from last year here which demonstrates how to make "cool lines" and fill it with fancy rendering. its fake, its crap, and it has no form or mass, no strcuture, no perspective and very schematic anatomy. i know, because i made it, and i have no problem admitting my mistakes.
i already told you the 3d software will not teach you how to create form and masses (like you said you want to). it creates it for you, therefore your mind does not really have to SEE it.
moose heh ye bro, good spot, someone DID actually took a real smelly, korny, bubbly shit on my face.
and i paid for it! most students in own my school fake it, and yes it's driving me nuts because most of the teachers just don't care. it's so lame.
the reason for this rantly natured post is that i've offered twice earlier in this thread the same suggestion to boskma - same suggestion i offer to most people - study the underlying structure first.
the fundamental mistakes in the end result were there from the beginning.
i can't see any other reason why they were ignored: either from ignorance, or stubborn pretenciosness. i apologize if you found it offensive, why would i want to offend you man?
i bluntly lay out reality (as i see it, of course) and you can either ignore it or confront it.
it's always your call.
there is another factor here boskma, a more fundamental one, and it is the fear of failure.
deal with it man, that's all i have to say.
the mistakes you admit are the ones you learn from.
now i am sure i have told this before, somwhere -
about a year ago i got to meet andrew jones for the 2nd time in san fransisco.
it was a great honor for me.. (i actually just woke up from a crazy dream about him.. wtf)
well anyways, he was sitting down at one point, viewing dozens of noob sketchbooks, just like mine.
to every single one of them he said the exact same thing: study the head. study the structure.
over and over and over.
that's all he said to about 50 different ppl.
Anyways to touch on the subject of shotgun's post I think it's a valid point. It's funny I work with another ringling grad who was recently telling me the same thing about studying understructure.
To me modeling and drawing complement eachother very well and what you've done here has easily helped you understand not only broad anatomy but perceiving/understanding form and volume more... something you will also REALLY benefit from with figure life drawing. Books are awesome recources (maybe you already have em) Bridgeman's Drawing from Life, he gives very simple breakdowns. Or others like Loomis (avoid anything Hogarth who's books do not draw from life).
But the stuff shotgun is saying will only make you a more accomplished modeling/texture artist because it allows you to see whats "under the mask" and how things work when you have to translate other people's concepts to 3d that include those anatomical elements.
But you've done a great job getting started considering you're deadlines and what you had time to research out.
I'm having real trouble understanding what you're really getting at because I can't understand your standards for what is "good". You use an Andrew Jones quote because he (apparently) has an understanding/mastery of the things you are talking about. I took a look at his site and I can see a bunch of issues with his portraits especialy concerning a grasp of structure, and his conceptual stuff has less dept than yours. I'm no master, but could you at least point out the things that are going wrong with this model, so that I can at least see what you are talking about? I understand it's not perfect, but It seems obvious to you that it's phoney.
I'm trying to get something out of your statements but It all I can come up with is: use a skeleton when you draw, add muscles, ligament, fat and you will have a good drawing.
I feel very similar to Shotgun in some ways, but I want to clarify my point of view, and where I think he is coming from.
If you understand the form and structure of things, to the point you are so comfortable that you can play with and disobey those rules when you feel like it, that's when you are able to constantly dole out dope art. But what that takes is lots of practice and time, and even more specifically, going about it the right way. The right way being, thinking about the why things are the way they appear, more than the studying of what is before your eyes.
Jelmer, don't be discouraged, this is an area that needs study and progression just as much as any other. You've obviously learned about meshflow, sculpting forms, anatomy, proportions, sped up your workflow, and learned about time management. This is good, you are further than you were before, and you should be proud. However what I'm saying, and what I think some others are saying, is that right now the anatomy still looks like a copy. It's a good one, but it's not something you created from your confidence of the form. You don't have to have the desire to be a concept artist to need good anatomical and construction knowledge. Work on that area just as hard as you have obviously worked on this more technical side. I'm sure if you sit back and think, all the artists you most greatly admire have a fundmental knowledge of art down way below the technical side, and if your desire is to emulate or surpass them, you should probably think about this area as well.
If you are currently not at the level you can just throw around anatomy without guides, set them up before hand. Model an extremely primitive skeleton first, using just the major masses. This way you can have reference for your muscle insertion points, and gain even more fundamental knowledge about the anatomy. It seems like more work at the beginning, but it ends up being quicker in the end.
I don't want to sound derogatory, and I'm pretty sure no one else here does either. We are here to help you, even if the individual methods seem crass or harsh, just take them, and use them to better yourself. Sometimes that may mean ignoring completely, sometimes that may mean thinking about them for a while, and maybe some you might even have to come back to later to fully appreciate. Those are lessons I've had to learn and am still learning.
overall what I was saying was that I understand both Shotgun AND Jelmer.
This model is Jelmer's first human highpoly model he did errors he's aware of, and only wanted to finish that one to start another one after.
But I also understand shotgun and that story with the guy/gal knowing everything better than his/her teacher happened in my art course a few years ago (I think every art course has one of these
Just keep in mind this is his first highpoly human figure, and honestly, I'd have loved mine to look that good.
about the cylinders stuff : yah I now remind that was you julius
I rest my case!
What parts look like a copy and why?
btw A big part of game are is creating within boundies (poly budget, animation, stylistic etc...), to me, that is artistic.
Hes just saying that , He just made the model , without acctualy learning why the pieces are there, Why or what that muscle is there, and what is underneath it to make it look like that on top.
He just followed naked ref and thats it.
He didnt learn anatomy, Just copied it. That is all.
i've found myself often times copying other people's work or attempting to copy them without much sucess .. this is regarding anatomy, and face topology and proportion ..
i've found that i could never get it right. what i realized (and this is a point towards shotgun's arguement) is that no matter how hard i try to imitate someone else's work, i wont get it right without learning the theory behind it .. i've taken my time to take long looks at myself in the mirror .. turning, bending certain muscles, shifting .. etc .. at this point i realized that i dont need to copy other's work .. i can find my own ways about going things IF i learn the structure.. i needed to learn WHY before HOW.
i found it to be a very educational experience ... i often find myself studying myself in the mirror .. ( as skullbox mentioned ) .. reallying trying to capture how the muscles bend and flow and how the shapes are formed...
now i am no muscle man .. but by looking at jelmer's model and comparing it myself (here's to hoping i have an anatomically correct body) i can really agree with shotgun here ... i mean it might be good looking but there's no way that it's actually realistically correct.
sorry for rambling on .. but after reading through this thread i felt like posting my 2cents
he does know me better than most here.. even my favorite spot (please don't tell!).
+ his english is suspiciously better, so there you go.
the 'revelation rant' is not something you can teach, as you said. everybody has his own revelation to make, and so does jelmer. however! ..the important thing, which i was trying to say (and apparently failed) in order to to get to the bottom of things you must have the correct attitude. you must have the HONESTY (not just passion) to take the chance (of failure) and face your mistakes.
as poop mentioned (just read, darksun..) the blob on the calf is an example. what is it? just because you see that blob elsewhere you beef up that area? no, its 2 twin muscles that have very definite starting and ending points, and you've gotta place the leg bones first. how will you know where they start, end, or what shape they form without the bones? the muscles always relate and reflect the position of the bones, it's not the other way around.
you can't fake this shit,
you gotta figuer all this out,
and this attitude was lacking from the first place.
you lie to noone but yourself,
and i said that on my first post in this thread.
The one time I felt like I "got it" I was making a half human-half horse character and I wanted to fuse the anatomy (that was fun) acctually I'l like you to take a look at it SG and get some feed back.
If you dont grasp the actual science of muscular structure there will be a difficutly when you need to deviate form the "perfect human form" ..
besides .. there is no way that jelmer's model will deform properly when animated ..
i suppose this is where the "if you want to do something, you might as well do it right" mentality comes in
Edit: Just had a talk with a good friend who also posts here. I feel 10 times better now, and understand all these posts a lot better. I guess I have something to aim for before I'm done with school August 2006. Thanks a ton again people for beeing an unending source of motivation.