Fistfighter (for practice)
polycounter lvl 18
Just brushing up on my 3D since I'm still so damn slow at it. The concept was a quickie and I may still change it. I'm not too happy with the 3D version since it seems kind of dead compared to the concept.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v353/chrisdejoya/girl-concept.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v353/chrisdejoya/girl1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v353/chrisdejoya/girl-head1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v353/chrisdejoya/girl-concept.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v353/chrisdejoya/girl1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v353/chrisdejoya/girl-head1.jpg
Replies
As you obviously see for yourself, the model lacks a lot of the awesomeness of the concept. The basic reason why? Youre not looking at your concept enough. You probably barely looked at the concept at all while you were modeling. Well, now you've got a mesh setup for you, so just get to tweaking.
Lemee try and point out a few things where I think youre falling short of the dynamisicm of the concept. First off, the torso. In the concept, the jacket follows the curves of the body on down. On the model, the jacket falls straight down. You might also shrink the waist a tad more. Next, the shoulder sleeves. You made them kinda puffy which makes them look a tad more silly then they are in the concept. One thing that is confusing is whether its a jacket or a vest. You have it shaped like a vest, but the sleeves that come out from it would not fit the undershirt so it confuses the viewer. Arms are also too thin after the puffy part. The pants legs are another problem. They dont flare out enough, soon enough, like they do in the concept. They could also probably go down at least to the halfway point on the knees. I think your shoes are also lacking that cool stylized pointy toes. As far as the face, try moving the mouth and chin up a tad bit. She also needs that awesome flowy hair, although I know how hard that'll be in 3d... And wheres the headband? Facial expression is also making her look a bit unsure of herself, hurting her badassness. The collar you modeled where its flipped down is also a lot less cool then the popped collar that the concept is sporting. Now get some fists on her, (and maybe shrink her whole head if you wanna get closer to concept) and she'll be lookin much nicer
keep on tweakin. Thats the key in 3d
Luck.
Nice concept, and I like the face in 3D so far - keep it up!
Also what SouL said below ... he explained better what I was getting at with the pose thing. Heh.
Feet shoulder width apart, pointing slighlty outward
Arms down and relaxed with a slight bend in the elbow
Rotate the hands palm in a bit and relax the fingers, too... have them a bit curled
The rotation of the pelvis and ribcage can help, too
Basically, aim for a slight heroic stance. I hate modeling in the typical T or 45 degree pose. I personally, believe that modeling like mentioned above hides flaws in the model.
At work, I always have 2 copies of the geometry. One that our rigger will like and another that have the arms down... basically a stance pose that I like to model in. I think a relaxed stance adds more character and feeling to the figure. It gives you a much better sense of proportion and topology flow, too.
and concept is great snowfly!
I thought it had something to do with the static pose, but I've seen a lot of models that prove that unposed doesn't have to mean undynamic (like mop/soul/ and a lot of other modelers have shown and explained). The thing is I do my own rigging and don't like having to wrestle with funny joint angles. Gonna find that happy medium now..
Anyway here's an update on the head.. I really need to redo that hair. It's not even the same style as in the concept.
Keep rockin'!
Male and female foreheads are actually pretty different. Male foreheads tend to slope back at an angle... where female foreheads are more flat. This actually makes some females have what looks like a huge forehead.
The cheeks are actually more flat than you think. They're not bubbly like you have it in your geometry. This seems to be the most common mistake for people modeling faces.
It's hard to describe over text... but try and study the difference between the face I painted, over the male face from the Loomis book.
Eye distance relative to nose bridge: This is tricky because it varies greatly from the different ethnicities out there. in general, most non-asian ethnicities will have deeper eye sockets, more prominent brow ridges and noses... so you see more of the nose bridge from the profile and have the eyes set deeper into the face. Asians are more flat faced so features a little more close together. This is probably why most asians don't have that upper fold of skin in their upper eyelids.
My drawing is a little rusty and generic, but I think it gets the point across. Hope that helps.
And before anyone chimes in and mentionis style to argue my critique... the subject matter is close enough to a realistic female, that I feel it warrants realistic proportions regarding the facial features. To be honest, even stylized faces have foundations based on real human faces.
Although I am not sayin this to protect snow fly's work, I think alot of people stick too closely to vitruvian man-female presets as though the 6 billion people on this planet did as well.
[/ QUOTE ]\
It's called structure. The human form has general structure that makes us look human. It's easy to fudge in 2d because 2d is more forgiving. Things only have to read well in X and Y. It's a completely different story in 3d because things suddenly need to be correct in all angles.
I wasn't telling him to make it look like my drawing.
Art has rules. And those rules need to be learned and known well before you can start braking them.
Am I being too critical here?
Seconding and thirding the advice about more natural stance. You could do one almost exactly like the concept you drew and it'd still be highly riggable. I think as it stands, you are losing a ton of dynamic from 2d to 3d, and unnecessarily so.
I like that face Mesh Snowfly, and that concept too. SHAPE IT UP!, and it'll rock..
b1ll
nah, its good critic soul, and Anyway, I dont think u Can trust Junerahe anyway, Did u see is Avatar.. YUUK! lol GREAT ART FOR SURE MAN YAH
I like that face Mesh Snowfly, and that concept too. SHAPE IT UP!, and it'll rock..
b1ll
[/ QUOTE ]
Did I just read this right? Is this someone making fun of another person for their art work and invalidating their critiques because they judge their work to be inferior? I would hope the members of polycount were more mature than that. Certainly one can hold in their minds eye who's opinion they value more because of that persons ability, but to state it outright in a mocking way is very poor form.
omfg, I cant do sarcasm in English OH NOES.
If u post that poop, its because u realy dont know me.
lol @ b1ll vs poop
awsome work though =]
Looks like SouL has his nose too deep in the Loomis books or other older material where ideal of beauty was very strict and where females with masculine features simply did not exist.
About the forehead, its almost impossible to determine the gender just by the skull,
[/ QUOTE ]
Not easy, perhaps. Almost impossible? I'd 100% disagree with you, and so would the vast majority of the anthropological, scientific and medical world.
Regardless of this model (which is looking great btw Snowfly) go look at some profiles of people right now. You will notice that very generally speaking, *most* of the time, mens foreheads slope back at a steeper angle than womens.
I'm not even going to argue about this. I stand by what I said. Take it or leave it.
"Look like SouL has his nose too deep i nthe Loomis books..."
Hey thanks for the personal attacks. This is the reason why I've dramatically lessened my posts on this forum. I try and give constructive feed back and I get personally attacked because someone believes in something else.
You'd think that the amount of time I've spent on this forum, and the years I've spent working and learning among the best in the industry that I'd AT LEAST know what I'm talking about.
And am I the only one that thinks the structure of the cheek from the profile is wrong? DaZ? Poop? Bill?
Nope, the crits on eye socket depth, forehead slope, and the cheeks are all valid in my eyes. They're things I know from drawing, but my lack of skill in 3D means I struggled with laying down the structure I was after. I also appreciate the crits pushing the 3D model towards the concept as that is my goal for this model after all.
Also Toomas that's a misconception. Older anatomy books don't suggest ideals, they explain the structure of the face and offer a deconstruction, for the reader to apply to any face they can see. Skulls differ slightly across races, but unless they've evolved drastically over the past few decades, then the art books still hold up.
What I don't get is how the profile can look incorrent, but the model still looks OK in perspective view!?
you'r proportions are correct, all u didn't do was push the form in the Z axis. the socket doesn't receed in, and the jaw doesn't come out. i tried to fix it:
i used the isometric view to try and show the roundness i thought it was lacking. dead-on views tend to appear more flat, and perhaps are better for proportions, alignment and abstract thinking.
thought i should mention the features look great as they are, the front and angled renders really look great. she's pretty, and that's hard to do.
Again, know the rules before you break them.
I'm not even going to argue about this. I stand by what I said. Take it or leave it.
"Look like SouL has his nose too deep i nthe Loomis books..."
Hey thanks for the personal attacks. This is the reason why I've dramatically lessened my posts on this forum. I try and give constructive feed back and I get personally attacked because someone believes in something else.
You'd think that the amount of time I've spent on this forum, and the years I've spent working and learning among the best in the industry that I'd AT LEAST know what I'm talking about.
And am I the only one that thinks the structure of the cheek from the profile is wrong? DaZ? Poop? Bill?
[/ QUOTE ]
I know I personally wasn't trying to insult you, as I definately think it's a good critique, I just disagree. I think the cheek looks... different, but again, I don't think it looks wrong at all. I think it looks like a combination of slightly masculine features, and odd deposits of fatty tissue, on an otherwise beautiful facial structure. I think it's completely within the realm of believability, as far as what I know about anatomy, but that's not saying much.
I know you're trying to help, I'd definately appreciate this same crit in a thread of my own, and I'd go back and revisit the area you pointed out to see it with a fresh perspective and possibly even change it. I just don't agree with your statement that it's wrong enough to completely break the realm of real-world anatomy. In fact I'm sure I've seen multiple women in real life with almost identical features.
And please don't deny the board your aesthetic eye and years of experience because of a few rotten eggs. I know I appreciate your artwork and your feedback, even in times like this when I disagree.
[ QUOTE ]
About the forehead, its almost impossible to determine the gender just by the skull,
[/ QUOTE ]
Not easy, perhaps. Almost impossible? I'd 100% disagree with you, and so would the vast majority of the anthropological, scientific and medical world.
[/ QUOTE ]
They will say that its most likely a man or a woman but not with 100% accuracy.
SouL sorry if it sounded like a personal attack but it wasnt meant this way.
BTW i think Milla Jovovich (spelling?) has a forehead thats rather masculine.
By the way, variations aside, what's the depth of a human skull in relation to its width and height? Can anyone shoot off some ratios offhand?
shotgun-thanks for the paintover. I overguesstimated the depth of the skull by a lot!
Sure, but that's somewhat digressing. The point is, that If you look at a male and female couple, in the vast majority of cases, the females forehead in profile will be straighter vertically than the males:
http://www.daz-art.com/profiles.jpg
So, it is therefore safe to conclude then that a sloping forehead is a masculine 'tendency'. If we combine that with other differences in a male and female head, well gee, that's how we know when we see a man in drag that it is not a woman at all. The prominent adams apple, the wider chin, the squarer jaw, the sloping forehead etc etc.
So, my point being, that what makes a womans face feminine, and a mans face, masculine, *is* a set of geometric rules, and steer too far away from them in a 3D model, and you'll start to have a much harder time trying to make a female model look female, or a male model look male.
"BTW i think Milla Jovovich (spelling?) has a forehead thats rather masculine. "
That's because, her forehead is a) not very tall vertically and b) does slope a little more in profile then the perfect 'model' female face and c) does not have the usual concave arch just above the eyebrow that *most* women have. Here's a particularly masculine shot of her in which I did a paintover to 'fix' her masculine brow at right:
http://www.daz-art.com/milla.jpg
There is a website that I can't find right now, that discusses male and female facial characteristics and it's really interesting. They actually pick out Leonardo DeCapprio as having a feminine brow for the above reasons, and yet still many women obviously find him very attractive. Likewise many men find Milla attractive. So, men and women can obviously have characateristics from their opposite sex and still be obvious representations of their sex and attractive, but too many of them, and that starts to fade.
Sorry If Im rambling on, I just find this stuff rather fascinating.
We can all agree that people like Daz and Soul presented a more realistic and therefore not "ideally proportional" face, we would still critique them but not at a level at which we would critique a beginner. The big difference is that Daz and Soul have quite a solid amount of experience under the belt so we can give them the benefit of hte doubt.
However, soul's and daz's crits are still very important to take into consideration for a beginner who needs to learn the primary rules of male/female facial topology/anatomy before venturing into 'non indealistic" ambiguity. Because the problem is when that same person begins to experience with more stylized or non ideal forms and get's it all wrong because he never understood the basics first.. That's why people might be a little more nitpicky in their crits and in my opinion that's highly valuable.
There really is no need to get personal, everyone likes to stand by their opinion and value it a little more over others, i think it's actually great to have such discourse, respectfully of course
Art has rules. And those rules need to be learned and known well before you can start braking them.
Am I being too critical here?
[/ QUOTE ]
I think people come here because we are overly critical, one harsh crit is worth 10,000 "joo roxor"
her face kinda reminds me of a young T
told ya she's a pretty!