The most beautiful CG girls #3 - finished

[mv]

too bad 1st and second pics are commercial photo copies. Cheers to the photographs tho.

[TraceR]

Wow, number 2 is hot! :love:

Funny thing is I actually know someone who looks kinda like that. Obviously out of my league though. :D


Cool contest. Congrats to everyone who won.

[Stahlberg]

Nice artwork, and congrats to the winners.
Any particular reason why 2d and 3d is judged together?

.

[Icarus]

comment removed.

congrats to those who entered.

[lukx]

not trying to cause a fuss here, but i recall there was some issues over the "yuka" image being a paintover or something ?, imo its a fantastic image but i just recall something anyone remember anything simular?:shrug:

congrats to those who entered.

there: http://www.cgarena.com/archives/interviews/lukasz/lukasz.html

also: http://www.cgarena.com/freestuff/tutorials/photoshop/lukx/index.html

I said form the begining that I used reference photo so what's the big deal?

[tjabba]

Personally I'm happy to take your word that it's not a paintover or tracing, but I think you followed the reference a little too closely (even down to single hairs),
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c114/magus1863/YukaHaneda4.jpg
Next time I suggest to try to change it more, add an imaginary element, or merge two references, or three, or shoot your own reference... just a suggestion, nothing more. :)
Anyway, congratulations.

[lukx]

Personally I'm happy to take your word that it's not a paintover or tracing, but I think you followed the reference a little too closely (even down to single hairs),
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c114/magus1863/YukaHaneda4.jpg
Next time I suggest to try to change it more, add an imaginary element, or merge two references, or three, or shoot your own reference... just a suggestion, nothing more. :)
Anyway, congratulations.

well I wanted to do it this detailed way this was my main goal. I wanted to test my patience :).
Anyway here is another work from my shooted reference (my girlfriend Kate :):
http://www.cgarena.com/gallery/2d/description/kateportrait.html

[DrFx]

I learned from Lukasz's pic a few months ago, from his tutorial. Everybody uses reference, I see no problem with it! I don't think the contest brief asked for originality. But I do think 2d and 3d should be separate, they're 2 very different animals!

[blacksocks]

well I wanted to do it this detailed way this was my main goal. I wanted to test my patience :).
Anyway here is another work from my shooted reference (my girlfriend Kate :):
http://www.cgarena.com/gallery/2d/description/kateportrait.html

Very nice step-by-step tutorial. One question though, is the first picture the original photo reference or is it the final painting?

Thanks also for the Yuka tutorial and congratulations!

[Nazirull]

There are others that is prettier than the winners..

[lukx]

Very nice step-by-step tutorial. One question though, is the first picture the original photo reference or is it the final painting?

Thanks also for the Yuka tutorial and congratulations!

You're asking about Kate portrait? It's final painting.

[ndat]

I dunno, I like the last 3 the best.

[labello]

and i dont want to say, that the use of references and photoshop is like taking the line of least resistance, but the real "CG" challenge, we all know that, is to do it with your 3d-application and a renderer.

Bob

[Pavlovich]

waweeweewaa...i'd like to add that there's a difference between "using" reference and "reproducing" reference.

frankly, for a reproduction of a photograph, done as a "test of patience" to get 2nd in a "most beautiful CG girl" contest seems a little bit odd to me, and kind of makes the contest a little...cheaper? I think the girl in the photograph deserves to win a beauty contest, but not a CG one.

look at the last picture on this page:

http://www.cgarena.com/freestuff/tutorials/photoshop/lukx/index2.html

and then look at this photograph:

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c114/magus1863/YukaHaneda4.jpg

come on :wise:

[Spin99]

I'm just plain bowled over by Yuka :p
I wonder why she didn't win...

[mv]

there's nothing wrong in using phoro refs.

What's wrong is using someone else's work , or many people's work (here : the model, the photographer, make up artist, art director, photo retoucher not to mention all the pics they have made before choosing the right one) and taking ALL credit for it, because you have a good hand-eye coordination and have the cheeks to submit that to contests.

[slime]

I agree to the comments; to trace a photo, sample the colors and "paint it" with them is very different from using photo reference. In fact nothing artistic is going on there.
On the top of that, that's a commercial photo, and unless you have explicit permission I don't think it's legal to copy it.

I personally like Olivier Ponsonnet's piece the best. :thumbsup:

[lukx]

there's nothing wrong in using phoro refs.

What's wrong is using someone else's work , or many people's work (here : the model, the photographer, make up artist, art director, photo retoucher not to mention all the pics they have made before choosing the right one) and taking ALL credit for it, because you have a good hand-eye coordination and have the cheeks to submit that to contests.

I didn't have cheeks to submit it. I was asked by moderator of 3dm if he can submit it. And after what I read here I think it was a mistake. Truly speaking I'm fed up with this whole situation and really, rally don't care if my work will be removed and somone else get 2'nd place. Good luck. Man, people here are speaking like I won 1 mln $ in this contest:banghead: . Again my reps for photographer who I really was trying to find. Hope he would like this drawing and wouldn't sue me like I think everyone on this board would do with pleasure. I just know that I spent really long hours painting it and that's it.

[lukx]

I just send an e-mail to Stryker to remove yuka from the contest. Hope this will make everybody happy.

[CaptainObvious]

Honestly, what's the point of stuff like this?

http://www.3dm3.com/competition/cggirls3/Paradise_Babe.jpg

[JeroenDStout]

Honestly, what's the point of stuff like this?

http://www.3dm3.com/competition/cggirls3/Paradise_Babe.jpg
That's obviously a paintover.

[Stryker]

All this competition for fun but not for disputes. I shall not remove any works! All works are great and all works have win already.

[CaptainObvious]

I can't say I think some nude Poser model slapped into a Vue D'espirit scene is "great" by any definition of the word, no matter how anatomically correct she is. I'm sorry if that sounds rude or cynical, but honestly, breasts aren't all THAT interesting. (Hmm, I never thought I'd say that, ever.)

That said, there are plenty of downright amazing images in that competition. But the entire thing gets spoiled by all the "oooh lookit, titties" images. If you tell me that that THIS (http://www.3dm3.com/competition/cggirls3/Fantasy_Dream_Girl.jpg) belongs in the same competition as THIS (http://www.3dm3.com/competition/cggirls3/Red_Opium.jpg) or THIS (http://www.3dm3.com/competition/cggirls3/summer.jpg), you're either a liar or a fool.

[DDS]

I'm okay if people uses references, poser, whatever!! Winners art is so wonderful :) even sending it to the contest is okay because its fine with rules, but I can't believe this contest has so much reputation all around, it's pretty cheap unless they change the rules quite a bit. As someone said 2D prices and 3D being together looks weird, cause even knowing that art is art...techically are 2 worlds apart. Also photo reproductions should be forbidden, as it's cool but not an original artwork. Next time someone will submit mona-lisa and if it's the best work in the contest...it will "look" bad.

With sooo many people paying attention to this contest, it should be a bit more serious like CGChallenge, IMO. Almost flawless.

[Stryker]

I agree with you. In next voting we will vote for best 2D and 3D separately. Thanks for comments

[Supervlieg]

The question is if you (lukx) traced it and used the color picker or just used it as reference and eyeballed the lines, and proportions and hand picked the colors. First is easy, second option is much harder. Still nothing wrong with it, just to say there is a difference in using photoref and simply tracing stuff. And there is a difference in claiming to have used photoref, or to admit to tracing the whole thing.

Anyway, good luck with the price. If this was photoreffed, I hope to see more from you ;)
If it wasnt photoreffed, but traced you should definitely give the photoref angle a shot.

[Wabit]

Its not about whether or not you use reference because all art is referenced from some source of inspiration. In actual fact everything around us is reference, what the real question is – how do you use it? Do you draw a tree from a distance? Do you take an image of that tree and attempt to duplicate it from eye, or do you take that image and trace it?



Perhaps we should try looking at it as a series of skill levels.



Drawing something from imagination or life with artistic accuracy: requires a fair amount of skill to say the least. Lots of room for personal expression and artistic style.



Drawing from an existing drawing or photo: still requires good skill, but some of the information is already hand picked for you which tends to leave little room for personal expression. This doesn’t always make it easier but its a great way to get introduced and improve your skills.



Tracing (a good trace): requires some skill but perhaps the least of the methods. Often traces have that ‘traced feel’ and generally leave absolutely no room for personal expression.



Currently its at the discretion of the artist to which depth they use the reference but personally I think the contest should be split up to reflect these skill levels. It doesn’t seem fair that one artist may struggle with producing art work from imagination or life when another artist uses reference to a deeper level.



Its undeniable that at some point we all refer to a source to gain a little better understanding, and its important to do so for the growth of our skills. But be careful how you choose to use that reference, and be honest with the way you use it.



May I just say fair play to Lukasz for being honest with his methods and I think that shows a good nature. Its still a good piece of art.



** I could be wrong about all of this, but this is just my thoughts on it.**

[mv]

No, guys you don't understand.

The problem is not tracing, photo referencing, skill level or whatever. Hell even old masters "traced" their models by painting on glass.


The problem, is culture and education.
Of course those pictures are cool, the model is hot, the setting is nice! because there's a whole team of professionals who made the reference pic. But why should an organic photocopy machine take all the credit for it?

With that kind of images (referenced from a COMMUNICATION AGENCY team's work, NOT from the "artist's" vision!) popping up on forum galleries, contests, front pages etc, a lot of young artists look up to these pics and feel like they are some kind of paramount, and want to produce the same kind of pics, so they use the same techniques because they don't have enough artistic culture and skills to produce the same kind of pictures a skilled
photographer / com agency can do.

So we end up with those pictures on frontpages, Exposé covers etc because we obviously can't check every damn magazine in the world to see if a pic is in fact someone else's work. And it actually is dangerous legally for the artist himself.

It's really a question of mentality. People should stop posting those kind of pics in galleries and such because they really are not meant to be more than technical studies, and should not be judged on an artistic ground at all. It's totally different from copying (or hell, even tracing) your own ref, with your make up work, your model, your lighting, your costume, your composition. (good example is lukx's girlfriend pic he posted earlier : no way near the asian girl pic, even if the "photorealism" is not bad)

[lukx]

So we end up with those pictures on frontpages, Exposé covers etc because we obviously can't check every damn magazine in the world to see if a pic is in fact someone else's work. And it actually is dangerous legally for the artist himself.



could you post some examples of this kind of works that ended up on frontpage or Expose covers?

[Spin99]

Actually I'm with Rebeccak here.
I think Artrage has the perfect approach where you can pin your reference and
look at it while you work.

But sure there's some credit for people that trace as well, at least
when the technique is very good. There's still good and bad tracing maybe.
But definitely less credit overall imho

[Neil]

could you post some examples of this kind of works that ended up on frontpage or Expose covers?

Actually it wasn't front page, but it's happened with the Expose books. I was actually just gonna post that.
This type of work happened with the asian girl bent over the turtle, and there was one of I think Angelina Jolie. We've all seen it before.

You're not denying anything and that's cool with me. But don't get all upset when others don't agree. I'm sure others who enter the competition do concept sketches, think of environments, do lots of references for lighting and colors and hues, and then get beat out by someone who had it all done for them from the start. That's why they're upset.

[Trojan123]

This debate is about as full of crap as the Poser one. Photo reference... photo re-production... WTF cares?

I swear, when we place a standard on a piece of work where the effort is weighed more than the result, then I fear we have lost focus.

I recall from other circles of interest that if someone could reproduce a photo closer than the next guy, then THAT closer work received more acclaim.

Chris

[labello]

if only the results counts, hmm!

lets legalize doping!

[Pavlovich]

This debate is about as full of crap as the Poser one. Photo reference... photo re-production... WTF cares?

I swear, when we place a standard on a piece of work where the effort is weighed more than the result, then I fear we have lost focus.

I recall from other circles of interest that if someone could reproduce a photo closer than the next guy, then THAT closer work received more acclaim.

Chris

you serious clark? http://www.halfchunk.com/eddie.jpg

[Lunatique]

I agree with mv. The following is just my personal opinion--you don't have to agree.

I like "paintings." What I mean is, I like paintings that look like paintings--not a duplicate of an existing photo. I love guys like John Singer Sargent, Anders Zorn, Pino, Richard Schmid, Jeremy Lipking..etc, because although they have a talent for depicting a sense of realism, what they do is to capture the ESSENCE of it, not slavishly copying something. That to me, is what seperates the truly great artists from artisans, and what seperates creative vision from mere technical skills.

If you duplicate a photo exactly, even if you paint it one brushstroke at a time, what creative decisions did you actually make in the image? You didn't create the composition, the colors, the values, the ideas/content, the design of objects/subjects/environment, or even the selective detailing due to depth of field--all you did was to duplicate what was already existing in another image that was created by SOMEONE ELSE--not you. It was the photographer's vision, idea, design, setup, equipment, time, skill, training, and experience that captured the resulting photo--none of it is your effort. If you're going to spend all that time to paint something, wouldn't you want it to be YOUR ORIGINAL image instead of an exact copy of someone else's?

If you shoot your own photo references, then at least you're the one being creative--it's your choice of subject, setup, lighting, colors, intended message..etc. However, copying a photo exactly the same in a painting is in itself something else to debate about. Most artists don't see the point in it--why not just take photos? If you're going to paint, wouldn't you want your paintings to look like paintings? Doing paintings that look indistinguishable from photos might impress the rubes (the common folks), but it's not much more than a technical exercise. It's really a matter of taste--I'd much rather look at "paintings" instead of paintings that look no different from a photo. Hell, I'm a photographer and I could just take photos--I don't need to spend all that time copying a image I already made, except this time I'd do it with paint. If I'm going to work with photo references, I always stylize, idealize, simplify, and make other creative choices so that the finished painting contains qualities that photos don't have. Sometimes people compliment me and tell me my paintings "look so real! Like a photo!", but the truth is, if anyone actually looks at any of my works and believe it's a photo, he's probably partially blind because they will never be mistaken as photos by someone with healthy vision.

So to sum my long-winded comment up, I have a preference for artists with creative vision, not artisans with just technical skills.

None of this is a criticism on anyone, because I totally understand why some people do it. I used to take pride in pure rendering skill too when I was younger, and now I regret all the time I wasted doing that--I could've been spending time on being an artist of substance instead of a rendering machine. I haven't bothered with trying to reproduce a photo as a painting since high school (about 15 years ago).

To clarify--none of this has anything to do with realism vs stylistic. This is purely about whether someone should copy a photograph exactly the same, producing essentially an exact copy of it.

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.