 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"B. Gimeno" <bgi### [at] lycos es> wrote:
> While surfing on the excellent forum for professionals CGSociety.org I came
> across this excellent image. (Note to sensitive and morally offended, this link
> contains an artistic nude).
Now, what kind of sick mind would be offended by an image of a pretty girl?
> http://oddity.cgsociety.org/gallery/655126/
The face somehow looks childlike in a way that looks mismatched to her body.
(But as a latent artist who's been unsuccessful with portraits, I still
struggle with how head and facial features convey age, sex, and other
characteristics.)
The hair and the skin texture are spectacular. The anatomical forms and the
skin textures of the elbow and feet show a remarkable attention to detail, as
well as how her thigh is deformed by the way she sits on the chair.
And refreshingly, the model is shaped like a real woman and not like a Barbie
doll.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>> (Of course, what I forgot is that you have to know what something
>>>> looks like before you can draw it. DOH!)
>>>
>>> You definitely need more college art classes.
>>
>> Uh... why?
>
> Where do you think people go to learn to draw nudes? How do you think
> they get taught?
Heh. I thought they only draw ugly guys? :-P
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Nicolas Alvarez
Subject: Re: Photorrealism (Portrait of a Girl)
Date: 11 Nov 2008 17:00:37
Message: <491a0084@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Cousin Ricky wrote:
> "gregjohn" <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>> Okay, I'll be a malignant troll and comment on the image. What's the
>> point? As
>> one post said in the thread, why not just bring along a camera? I think
>> that with too much attempts at realism in CG, you're either in the
>> Uncanny Valley, or you're so realistic it raises the question of why
>> don't you use photograph a model.
>
> You can get naked CG models to do things that naked actors refuse to do in
> real life. ;-)
Ever heard of "Poser porn"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Ever heard of "Poser porn"?
I do recall the bunch of lads in the tech support office of one place
had a bit Lara Croft pinup on the wall.
I'm sitting there thinking to myself "um, you guys know that you're
staring at a large polygon mesh, right? I mean, this object doesn't even
*exist* in the usual sense of the word! Even fantasising over an
unattainable supermodel seems better than lusting for a non-existent
fictional character...!"
Given that these guys still thought it was hilarious to say "arse!"
every now and then, I guess that thought would be lost on them...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Ever heard of "Poser porn"?
Yes, complete with fake-looking hair, plastic boobs, "Poser elbows," body parts
that pass through floors and tables, hair and clothing that pass through body
parts, and a widespread aversion to cast shadows. Shows promise, but needs
work.
Or does the quality improve when you become a paid member?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
news:web.4919fcd544dd31cd85de7b680@news.povray.org...
> "B. Gimeno" <bgi### [at] lycoses> wrote:
> Now, what kind of sick mind would be offended by an image of a pretty
> girl?
>
the stop bird porn watch movement? ( http://www.stopbirdporn.com )
ups, or the stop poligon mesh watching movement?
B. Gimeno
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay
Subject: Re: Photorrealism (Portrait of a Girl)
Date: 11 Nov 2008 18:36:55
Message: <491a1717@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> And refreshingly, the model is shaped like a real woman and not like a
> Barbie
> doll.
YES! My biggest complaint about the DAZ models... No matter how good your
skin tones, you can't make them look real, because their bodies are (at
best) representative of about 0.01% of the population. Pamela Anderson's*
body is not realistic.
*my example is likely out of touch with the times...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:32:41 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Remember what the internet is for...
>
> Now *that* made me laugh. Thank you.
And a big thank you to Avenue Q as well. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Cousin Ricky wrote:
> Or does the quality improve when you become a paid member?
LMAO!
PWN3RSH1P!!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
49196715@news.povray.org...
>
> I saw Richard Burton ressurrected this way.
>
> Of course, I have no idea what he's *supposed* to look like. But the way
> his lips didn't quite sync to the voice properly, and the way he kepted
> doing the exact same facial expressions in a simple repeating loop left
> him looking like a robot.
>
Oh so Steven Seagal and David Caruso are re-creations as well? ;-)
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
