Anyone know the difference between the 3D.SK sites?

Tom Ellis

Hey all,

I was just about to sign up for a membership at 3d.sk and noticed they seem to have a few sites which look very similar, namely;

http://www.human-anatomy-for-artist.com/

http://www.female-anatomy-for-artist.com/

and of course http://www.3d.sk

Now they do have the question in their FAQ about the difference, but it simply suggests it's geared at different types of artists... i.e the photo's on the anatomy sites are posed photos rather than ones likely to be used for ref images / texture creation.

However, I was kinda hoping to get both, some nice posed pics for drawing / posing reference, and some for ref plane images and texturing.

Is it the same library accessible across the three sites or is the content unique to each site?

Ferg

I've only used 3d.sk but it was always more than enough. I've used it extensively for texture source and general anatomy ref, they have hundreds of sets including poses and ortho shots, clothed and nude. Maybe they split it up between the sites recently?

anyway here's a good little site for anatomy ref I just found, seems to be somewhat relevant

http://www.reybustos.com/03ra/ra.html

Tom Ellis

Woah thanks Ferg, awesome link. Those fading images are amazing!

With regards to 3d.sk, do they have much in the way of 'action poses', a lot of the stuff in the samples look like standard T-pose, idle pose etc.

moose

3d.sk seems more standard reference images, with high res detailed shots of body parts, faces, expressions, anatomy. Those two sites you linked seem to be more geared towards poses.

Tom Ellis

Cheers Moose, I think you're right.

Shame, since I'd rather not have to subscribe to both.

I guess 3d.sk is the one to go for though, it's far easier to find half-decent posed shots around the web than high-quality detail/ref shots like the ones on 3d.sk.

moose

the website can be slow at times, and the search can suck, annnd they're not that great on account support. but, tons of great ref there

Just becareful when looking at some of the ref images, especially female ones. They have classy photos for reference throughout all of them, then at the end BAM... spread labia shots. Not that porn is a bad thing, but could border the "NSFW" or "NSFM" (not safe for mom) category. It is especially surprising when you're using the 60-70 y/o women ref pictures. Shit can't be unseen.

Firebert

moose wrote: »

the website can be slow at times, and the search can suck, annnd they're not that great on account support. but, tons of great ref there

Just becareful when looking at some of the ref images, especially female ones. They have classy photos for reference throughout all of them, then at the end BAM... spread labia shots. Not that porn is a bad thing, but could border the "NSFW" or "NSFM" (not safe for mom) category. It is especially surprising when you're using the 60-70 y/o women ref pictures. Shit can't be unseen.

or NSFSO (not safe for significant other)... that was a nasty fight and a good week in the dog crate.

Tom Ellis

moose wrote: »

It is especially surprising when you're using the 60-70 y/o women ref pictures. Shit can't be unseen.

Woah, thanks for the heads up

Thanks for the replies everyone, seems like it's worth a membership!