Well there's nudity and then there's 'clitoris in yo face!' which is on a whole other level. What is it you want? Critique? Seems a bit too early for that, so you probably just wanted to shock. The hips seem all wrong. Work on something other than the labia and use images instead of a rapidly rotating avi you'd probably get some crits that way.
She's comic because of the exaggerated proportions like giant hips and bitty waist as well of the rest of her when I finish it. Thanks to those of you who gave worthwhile crits. I'll fix the slit to high thing. Piss of to those who leave dickhead remarks.
*doorbell rings*
*opens door*
gargoyle: 'hey there, I heard someone round here needed my.. services'
comic nude babe: 'ooh mr gargoyle, come right in. Oh you're all made of stone.. you're so.. hard..'
Considering how many modeled penises are floating around this board I cant see why this garners special attention...
(other than)
That thing is huge. Think peek-a-boo next time and keep it underneath, sometimes bigger isn't better and this is definitely one of those times. Unless you plan on taking a trip you don't need to spend that may polys on that anyway, or any really as it isn't exactly the most dynamic chunk of flesh on the body even on the better-endowed women I have seen.
[ QUOTE ]
Thanks to those of you who gave worthwhile crits. I'll fix the slit to high thing. Piss of to those who leave dickhead remarks.
[/ QUOTE ]
OK, I don't think it's that surprising that you got dickhead remarks.
The reason I perhaps came off as initially terse, was that I really felt that you weren't genuinely looking for crits. Your model is kind of early in it's development for that. If I came across as a dick, I apologize. Although I'm no prude about nudity and sexuality, especially in the context of Art, I think that schoolboy tittering at female reproductive organs is distinctly lame. Your model was presented in such a way that the genitalia was clearly intended as the main focal point. Which is just a tiny bit immature.
If you want some actual serious critique, that clitoris is kind of ridiculous in its size. Heck that's practically a baby's penis. Also, the clitoral hood would generally tend to cover it up to the extent that it is out of view. It is rare that they are that big, and If they are, it's because they are in a state of arousal. The entire arrangement is too 'open' as a default state. The hips really are odd in their arrangement. If you want a sexy, comic looking female torso, then most definitely look at the way Scott Campbell draws women. Specifically Danger Girls. Very curvy, sexy and hourglass figures. But I really do question your need to model everything in its intimate entirety there. It just seems a little unecessary.
What is this for? Will that thing between her legs be seen? Will it serve a purpose? Is she a porn star? Seems it's not anatomy study. Try getting laid. Enjoy all the replies.
OK, I don't think it's that surprising that you got dickhead remarks.
The reason I perhaps came off as initially terse, was that I really felt that you weren't genuinely looking for crits. Your model is kind of early in it's development for that. If I came across as a dick, I apologize. Although I'm no prude about nudity and sexuality, especially in the context of Art, I think that schoolboy tittering at female reproductive organs is distinctly lame. Your model was presented in such a way that the genitalia was clearly intended as the main focal point. Which is just a tiny bit immature.
If you want some actual serious critique, that clitoris is kind of ridiculous in its size. Heck that's practically a baby's penis. Also, the clitoral hood would generally tend to cover it up to the extent that it is out of view. It is rare that they are that big, and If they are, it's because they are in a state of arousal. The entire arrangement is too 'open' as a default state. The hips really are odd in their arrangement. If you want a sexy, comic looking female torso, then most definitely look at the way Scott Campbell draws women. Specifically Danger Girls. Very curvy, sexy and hourglass figures. But I really do question your need to model everything in its intimate entirety there. It just seems a little unecessary.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, the gentalia was initially supposed to be the main focal point, this is the first time I've modeled a female including it and wanted to see what everyone thought. I'm including it because I want to try and sell this model and I want it to be fairly detailed without being too high poly so people can ust it for whatever and if they want it there it's there otherwise they can just cover it up or I will most likely include clothes with the model. Thanks for letting me know your thoughts on it. what exactly is wrong with the hips? I was looking at some of campbells stuff and they seem to be pretty similar. I'll work on shrinking things.
To people who have a problem with me modeling female genetalia, avoid posts that say nudity in the title and stick to the pokemon models.
Here's a few wire shots to get a better idea of what I'm doing...
Could you post a shot of a spread anus next? It's important to focus on female anatomy for 3d art. For example, I didn't know vaginas resembled the brain bug from starship troopers.
"To people who have a problem with me modeling female genetalia, avoid posts that say nudity in the title and stick to the pokemon models."
I didn't say that I had a problem with modeling female genitalia. I suggested that having it as the main focal point was a little immature. So now you've said that it is the main focal point, and backed it up with a closer shot, I feel the same way about it.
*Furthermore, I personally think that there's a difference in distinction between nudity and spreadeagled closeup genitalia*
Even though it has issues, I'm not going to critique the vagina anymore. Since quite honestly I think you should build the model out in its entirety. Then If you really think you need to model detailed genitalia, do so afterward. I'd apply that rule to any modeling work. Detailing out one tiny area before finishing a first pass on the overall model is just a pretty odd way of working imho.
The upper torso seems too long. Hard for me to fully figure out what's up with the hips at the moment, since where Im sat right now I can't really look at naked women. Maybe later.
*Nudity* does not mean detailed female genitalia. *Nudity* usually means naked. This is somewhat of a different level from nudity, I'd say it's borderline pornography. Now, when I saw nudity on the title, I thought "hey, another cool figure study in 3d!" I was quite horrified.
But, at any rate, trying to critique your model without looking directly at it (dear lord, my dad would cut off the net)... I's say shrink the gap between her legs and make a smother tranision from her illium crest (top of pelvic bone) the her torso.
Oh, and please change the title to inform readers that you are displaying genitalia.
K, well I romoved the crotch shot so everyone should be happy now. So aside from the proportions do you think the geometry, where triangles are placed, and how the polygons flow are ok?
Looks similar to how Joe Mad draws his females, or at least used to (Battlechasers - Red Monika), which are horribly out of proportion. If thats the look you are going for, then cool beans, but I agree with daz, take a look at J.Scott Campbells illustrations www.jscottcampbell.com for examples of nice comic style females.
if you're going the comic character route, i'd suggest checking out adam hughes, terry dodson, and frank cho's work too. not as stylised as campbell's work, but they're all masters of the female form. plenty of theirs, and others, work here
hahahaha... awesome. Props for posting the vagina shot. I'm surprised people got offended about it and felt the need to actually say they were offended... but then I guess some people are little less comfortable with human anatomy than others (differentiating between a less-detailed vagina on an "anatomy study" and a very detailed vagina on a high poly WIP model is just silly... a vagina is a vagina. Go move to the damn bible belt if you want to be afraid of the human body). IMO your *nudity* tag was the correct form to post this.
That said, the proprtions are... interesting. I can see why people are a little uneasy about them, but I can also see them working if you can pull it all together for the whole character. I'd suggest doing some quick proportion-blocking on the rest of the character before moving on. Not only will that satiate the people questioning your style, it'll help you get a better handle on exactly what style you're going for, and you wont have to wait till you finish modeling the entire body to see how all the stylized proportions actually fit together.
I'm in real danger of getting annoyed here. That's crap Ferg, and nobody said they were offended. Personally I wasn't offended. I just think its childish to be laughing at female genitalia like you are "hahahaahh.... awesome". What's awesome? A vagina in all it's closeup glory? Yeah I spose it might well be. But what's funny about it? It's funny? How?
The nudity tag was INCORRECT. If Im at work and I happen to have something like Michaelangelos David on display as a female HR representitive walks by, no biggie. Im a digital sculptor for chrissakes. But a gynaecological closeup? That's different, and If you can't see that it is, that's bollocks mate. The tag should most definitely have clarified 'Not Safe For Work'.
*edit* Oh Ive just noticed your tag. You said Vulva! THAT'S COMIC GENIUS!
for the record, I was laughing at the people that got "offended", and the situation in general in this thread. I like it when a person does something as simple as post a picture of a vagina (with perfectly legitimate reasons, NOT just shock value) and gets people all huffing and puffing about it like they've gotta DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS. The days when I found a simple vagina funny on its own are long gone I'm afraid. These day's there's gotta be, at the very least, a comical non-phallic object or japanese product involved to get a laugh out of me.
I've been using the vulva location tag for a long time... I dont even remember where it got started... but trust me it wasn't just a simple "hur hur, vulvas are on girls" joke heh.
I guess the way you interpret the "nudity" tag is kinda subjective. I've always considered *nudity* to encompass all forms of nudity, which seems fair enough to me. IMO it doesn't cross any boundaries until something actively sexual gets involved. But that's just me, and nudity is A-OK at my job and I don't have any parents to worry about.
Anyway, my post was only to chuckle about people up in arms about a vagina (offended or not), and give a useful crit. Nothing more. Sorry if I've ruffled any feathers... it wasn't the intention.
If you shouldnt see stuff like this at work dont click on links that say nudity, arguing over the defination of nudity is like arguing over the defination of "is".
this isn't nudity. most nude sites wouldn't show the angles and detail he's is displaying unless you pay them a non-recurring fee of about $35.00 for 1 year. 3d.sk slaps a big "genitals" tag on the thumbnails. his proportions are sexually exaggerated, and the focus is the playground. and a poorly designed one at that. it's porn and a quick way to get pages of replies without trying. while I'm not personally offended by it, it can't be let through as something that is ok. the guy wants to sell a polygonal vagina. maybe for someone extra cash to pay a girl to actually have sex with him.
Heh, seeing as how we're trifling over trivia, I think a literal definition of nudity fits this situation nicely.
nude -adj. nud·er, nud·est
-Having no clothing; naked.
-An unclothed human figure, especially an artistic representation.
-The condition of being unclothed.
por·nog·ra·phy (pôr-ngr-f) n.
-Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
-The presentation or production of this material.
As for what I think, I don't care for the material at hand.
Stylized or not, your torso has a lot of problems that keep it from being sexy.
The torso is too long, the bellybutton too high, the ribcage the wrong shape, the hips are just weird. There's a sort of strange dent above them. The entire genital area is too wide, you have too hard an edge where the legs meet the body, the tops of the legs are too wide, many many other problems. Dont work on your genitalia at the expense of your anatomy is kinda my point in all of this.
Dude, her fucking vagina could eat me whole, in one big gulp. It's massively open. She's a "comic chick" I get that, but her pussy is a whole other entity. It's also uncalled for in a model like this - you can still here seem naked and do it tastefully and not obnoxiously. See daz's paintover.
Nice work etsuja. I like it for what it is. Highly erotic, exaggerated female torso. There are good crits here and some that just sound like "Do this.. do that.. this is too exagerated, not appropriate!" All subjective stuff really. Come on guys, lighten up. :P
You obviously hit a nerve with some people with your subject matter. I personally think they are all jealous because they werent the first to model such a super female crotch and pimp it.
By that token any and all crits EVER given on this forum are subjective (apart from technical ones). And they of course are, and always should be treated as such. Artists receiving critique on this forum can choose to act on what the hell they like of course! But yes, it's all subjective. Just like it's obviously subjective as to wether or not this model is "Highly erotic". But honest critique is what makes this forum standout from somewhere like cgtalk.
"Highly exaggerated" and stylized forms in the context of creating sex appeal still need to be grounded in correct anatomy to work. That's just my subjective opinion of course.
Better! The boobs look good. I think maybe the indentation in the front of the middle of the thighs is a bit too pronounced? Makes that area seem scrawny.
Nice paint-over Daz. I agree. I think the lips shouldnt be so open, looks like a mouth is growing out of her pelvis, getting ready to devour something.
The updated model is deffinately improving, keep at it!
Replies
..why is it "Comic"?
oh that's right, we're no longer at war with them, I suppose the smack talking should stop...oh well.
*opens door*
gargoyle: 'hey there, I heard someone round here needed my.. services'
comic nude babe: 'ooh mr gargoyle, come right in. Oh you're all made of stone.. you're so.. hard..'
*cue groovy wah-wah guitar*
(other than)
That thing is huge. Think peek-a-boo next time and keep it underneath, sometimes bigger isn't better and this is definitely one of those times. Unless you plan on taking a trip you don't need to spend that may polys on that anyway, or any really as it isn't exactly the most dynamic chunk of flesh on the body even on the better-endowed women I have seen.
Leave it at that state and call it art, or something like that
Thanks to those of you who gave worthwhile crits. I'll fix the slit to high thing. Piss of to those who leave dickhead remarks.
[/ QUOTE ]
OK, I don't think it's that surprising that you got dickhead remarks.
The reason I perhaps came off as initially terse, was that I really felt that you weren't genuinely looking for crits. Your model is kind of early in it's development for that. If I came across as a dick, I apologize. Although I'm no prude about nudity and sexuality, especially in the context of Art, I think that schoolboy tittering at female reproductive organs is distinctly lame. Your model was presented in such a way that the genitalia was clearly intended as the main focal point. Which is just a tiny bit immature.
If you want some actual serious critique, that clitoris is kind of ridiculous in its size. Heck that's practically a baby's penis. Also, the clitoral hood would generally tend to cover it up to the extent that it is out of view. It is rare that they are that big, and If they are, it's because they are in a state of arousal. The entire arrangement is too 'open' as a default state. The hips really are odd in their arrangement. If you want a sexy, comic looking female torso, then most definitely look at the way Scott Campbell draws women. Specifically Danger Girls. Very curvy, sexy and hourglass figures. But I really do question your need to model everything in its intimate entirety there. It just seems a little unecessary.
Piss of to those who leave dickhead remarks.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's not a good idea to flame the people you asked for opinions.
And for your model: Less would be more.
OK, I don't think it's that surprising that you got dickhead remarks.
The reason I perhaps came off as initially terse, was that I really felt that you weren't genuinely looking for crits. Your model is kind of early in it's development for that. If I came across as a dick, I apologize. Although I'm no prude about nudity and sexuality, especially in the context of Art, I think that schoolboy tittering at female reproductive organs is distinctly lame. Your model was presented in such a way that the genitalia was clearly intended as the main focal point. Which is just a tiny bit immature.
If you want some actual serious critique, that clitoris is kind of ridiculous in its size. Heck that's practically a baby's penis. Also, the clitoral hood would generally tend to cover it up to the extent that it is out of view. It is rare that they are that big, and If they are, it's because they are in a state of arousal. The entire arrangement is too 'open' as a default state. The hips really are odd in their arrangement. If you want a sexy, comic looking female torso, then most definitely look at the way Scott Campbell draws women. Specifically Danger Girls. Very curvy, sexy and hourglass figures. But I really do question your need to model everything in its intimate entirety there. It just seems a little unecessary.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, the gentalia was initially supposed to be the main focal point, this is the first time I've modeled a female including it and wanted to see what everyone thought. I'm including it because I want to try and sell this model and I want it to be fairly detailed without being too high poly so people can ust it for whatever and if they want it there it's there otherwise they can just cover it up or I will most likely include clothes with the model. Thanks for letting me know your thoughts on it. what exactly is wrong with the hips? I was looking at some of campbells stuff and they seem to be pretty similar. I'll work on shrinking things.
To people who have a problem with me modeling female genetalia, avoid posts that say nudity in the title and stick to the pokemon models.
Here's a few wire shots to get a better idea of what I'm doing...
*edit* there, should make everyone happy.
I didn't say that I had a problem with modeling female genitalia. I suggested that having it as the main focal point was a little immature. So now you've said that it is the main focal point, and backed it up with a closer shot, I feel the same way about it.
*Furthermore, I personally think that there's a difference in distinction between nudity and spreadeagled closeup genitalia*
Even though it has issues, I'm not going to critique the vagina anymore. Since quite honestly I think you should build the model out in its entirety. Then If you really think you need to model detailed genitalia, do so afterward. I'd apply that rule to any modeling work. Detailing out one tiny area before finishing a first pass on the overall model is just a pretty odd way of working imho.
The upper torso seems too long. Hard for me to fully figure out what's up with the hips at the moment, since where Im sat right now I can't really look at naked women. Maybe later.
But, at any rate, trying to critique your model without looking directly at it (dear lord, my dad would cut off the net)... I's say shrink the gap between her legs and make a smother tranision from her illium crest (top of pelvic bone) the her torso.
Oh, and please change the title to inform readers that you are displaying genitalia.
That said, the proprtions are... interesting. I can see why people are a little uneasy about them, but I can also see them working if you can pull it all together for the whole character. I'd suggest doing some quick proportion-blocking on the rest of the character before moving on. Not only will that satiate the people questioning your style, it'll help you get a better handle on exactly what style you're going for, and you wont have to wait till you finish modeling the entire body to see how all the stylized proportions actually fit together.
Tits and ass, people, tits and ass.
The nudity tag was INCORRECT. If Im at work and I happen to have something like Michaelangelos David on display as a female HR representitive walks by, no biggie. Im a digital sculptor for chrissakes. But a gynaecological closeup? That's different, and If you can't see that it is, that's bollocks mate. The tag should most definitely have clarified 'Not Safe For Work'.
*edit* Oh Ive just noticed your tag. You said Vulva! THAT'S COMIC GENIUS!
But a gynaecological closeup? That's different, and If you can't see that it is, that's bollocks mate.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's comedy gold
Anyhow, you're looking to SELL this? I'm not saying the quality isn't there but it's a bit of a nich
I've been using the vulva location tag for a long time... I dont even remember where it got started... but trust me it wasn't just a simple "hur hur, vulvas are on girls" joke heh.
I guess the way you interpret the "nudity" tag is kinda subjective. I've always considered *nudity* to encompass all forms of nudity, which seems fair enough to me. IMO it doesn't cross any boundaries until something actively sexual gets involved. But that's just me, and nudity is A-OK at my job and I don't have any parents to worry about.
Anyway, my post was only to chuckle about people up in arms about a vagina (offended or not), and give a useful crit. Nothing more. Sorry if I've ruffled any feathers... it wasn't the intention.
this place is getting creepier by the day.
nude -adj. nud·er, nud·est
-Having no clothing; naked.
-An unclothed human figure, especially an artistic representation.
-The condition of being unclothed.
por·nog·ra·phy (pôr-ngr-f) n.
-Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
-The presentation or production of this material.
As for what I think, I don't care for the material at hand.
Stylized or not, your torso has a lot of problems that keep it from being sexy.
The torso is too long, the bellybutton too high, the ribcage the wrong shape, the hips are just weird. There's a sort of strange dent above them. The entire genital area is too wide, you have too hard an edge where the legs meet the body, the tops of the legs are too wide, many many other problems. Dont work on your genitalia at the expense of your anatomy is kinda my point in all of this.
You obviously hit a nerve with some people with your subject matter. I personally think they are all jealous because they werent the first to model such a super female crotch and pimp it.
The only thing polycount knows is penis.
Thanks for shaking things up
All subjective stuff really.
[/ QUOTE ]
By that token any and all crits EVER given on this forum are subjective (apart from technical ones). And they of course are, and always should be treated as such. Artists receiving critique on this forum can choose to act on what the hell they like of course! But yes, it's all subjective. Just like it's obviously subjective as to wether or not this model is "Highly erotic". But honest critique is what makes this forum standout from somewhere like cgtalk.
"Highly exaggerated" and stylized forms in the context of creating sex appeal still need to be grounded in correct anatomy to work. That's just my subjective opinion of course.
material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
[/ QUOTE ]
What other purpose could an anorexic chick's enormous swollen gaping vagina have?
edit: both of which would make unique, funny and entertaining game mechanics, IMHO
this man is a game design genius
The updated model is deffinately improving, keep at it!