View Full Version : Commerical: Bubble Session (nudity)

09 September 2002, 09:48 PM
My first post here...

A couple of pics from a recent (commercial) project. I apologize if you've seen it elsewhere.

Completely 3D with some post processing and corrections in Photoshop.

The body is supposed to be enhanced reality. :)

Whole series is 20 pics.

Not much inspiration with the prop, it has been used countless times in photography.

09 September 2002, 02:44 AM

these are extroidinarily AWESOME IN QUALITY!! Praise to the modeller for both artistic and pleasure:thumbsup:

09 September 2002, 02:48 AM
Man, she got some perky lil jubblies there :D

09 September 2002, 02:58 AM
and I already wondered who might have modeled that girl in the 0190-advert... :D

Frank Dodd
09 September 2002, 10:30 AM
Obviously excellent quality, personally I wouldn’t criticise the form as different forms is what makes individuals but the woman’s face in most of the images looks too blank and lacks expression that would give the image life, this is why the second image is probably the best I think as the angle of the head disguises this. Very well done, a talented series of images. :wip:

09 September 2002, 12:46 PM
MORE :bounce: MORE :bounce: MORE :bounce: MORE :bounce:

Love the style ... amazing renders. :thumbsup:

09 September 2002, 01:56 PM
Great work the only thing that bothers me are well her perky titties :) and the lighting, somehow it just doesnt seem natural.
The highlights are in strange areas etc.

09 September 2002, 09:48 PM
post some more..:p
fantastic! lightning is not from this world but looks AWESOME.
those boobs is too big!

09 September 2002, 11:10 PM
welcome to chubbsville. population: me.

09 September 2002, 11:33 PM
uh ! the boobs aren't physically correct : they don't move like that when a girl falls ;) Really nice and sexy ! :thumbsup: BTW : what kinda add is it ?

09 September 2002, 11:51 PM
lol, perky boobies! :beer:
looks really nice... :thumbsup:
but a few crits :D

the nipples are a bit dark?
and the hair seems like its glued together with hair gel...
maybe convert it to a braid, so you dont have to worry about wierd looking hair ;)

otherwise really nice model, and the lighting is excelent! :applause:

09 September 2002, 01:03 AM
Originally posted by 3dsmax5

the nipples are a bit dark?

tssss, return playing with your toys, tssssss ... :p

09 September 2002, 03:20 AM
the nipples r just right... not to dark.. not to bright

hey that rhymes~

this is a commercial ? is there a qt somewhere ?

gotta love how she falls off teh chair

09 September 2002, 06:49 PM
Thanks for the replies, everyone.

Frank Dodd: Actually #2 and #3 have different facial morph targets. Also there isn't much expressional variation in real photo series of this kind. But I agree with you - more and extremer variation would have been more interesting. Good catch, thanks.

viz: Thanks. Scroll down.

chlywly: I have 3 big softboxes in the scene (only two in pic #1). These are good for soft side lighting with some fill from the front but there were way too many ugly reflections in the chair sphere. So I sometimes re-rendered the chair with less reflections.

jone: You're not the first to say that the boobs are too big. Personally I think they fit the model well considering that the twisted rib cage and bent back almost make it cartoony. It has an artificial touch which is intended - the body isn't textured at all, only vertex colored in a few areas.

Joebount: I meant commercial in the sense of 'not a personal project' and not in the sense of 'ad'. Guess I chose the wrong word - english is not my first language. Then it was edited into the topic title by a moderator.

3dsmax5: Usually when a girl is that blonde the hair is died anyway so nip color can be almost any shade. Hair is geometry. Several objects but of course this has limitations.

say-g: No QT. These are just stills.

Here's another one (temporary). Not sure about the left leg here. I work without reference when I do poses but I try to memorize weak areas until I find an example. Works sometimes. :hmm: This is the same frontal lighting as in #1. Far less interesting than the side lighting from #2, #3 and #4.

09 September 2002, 11:49 PM
it reminds me of lil annie in those o so well written playboy comics. :drool:

I much enjoy her styleized upper body. but i do believe that you need to make the hips a lil bigger to match her width up top:) I also believe her nipples should be a much lighter color. They are IMO way to much of a focal point. :eek:

It kicks some serious bootay otherwise:)

09 September 2002, 02:27 AM
look good:applause:

09 September 2002, 03:56 AM
Beautiful model :beer:

What are you using? Polys, Nurbs, SubDs?


09 September 2002, 01:26 PM
dur23: I actually agree about the hip size, however, it was not my decision. The pelvis is a lot smaller than the widest distance between the femurs, giving a moderate transition to a small waste. So this area is highly stylized.

I do like the repetition of the nipple color in the eyes and eye make-up. A lighter color would take contrast from the whole image. What might reveal a weakness in the color/lighting concept, I don't know.

lmc: Thanks.

ryguy: Thanks. It's smoothed polygons.

09 September 2002, 08:59 PM
very nice but the tits are way too perky and a little too big on her to look real, If she were real i might have to get her number though :)

09 September 2002, 01:06 AM
Hey, man. I love expression in her eyes, sexy!:applause: :applause:

09 September 2002, 01:11 AM
it looks as if the left thigh is "inside" the body. it seems to cut straight through the abdomen into the body

A MacVey
09 September 2002, 02:15 AM
i thought there were 20 pics. great work!

09 September 2002, 06:45 PM
Hmmm, NICE.

09 September 2002, 07:56 PM
I´m sorry if this has allready been answered but what app did u use ?...


09 September 2002, 03:51 AM





thank you.

09 September 2002, 10:19 AM
Thanks for the replies, everyone. :)

Dr-spline: It wasn't supposed to be realistic but it seems to be public consensus (?) that the boobs are way too big.

frozyn: True. And that is after some correction. Rigging is my weakest point. I have the skeleton pelvis/thigh connection right there where it's in reality, then this happens. :hmm:

A MacVey: There are, but I can't post them all.

swirly-chicken: Max 4.

09 September 2002, 10:55 AM
it's too tasteless! :thumbsdow

Do you really think girls like to be represented like that! :shame:

09 September 2002, 11:29 AM
it's too tasteless!
Why? A bit tasteless would be fine?

Do you really think girls like to be represented like that!
I think men like girls to be represented like that.

Good luck with your crusade.

09 September 2002, 09:31 AM
i do really like your work! hoipe you know that from ;)
the modelling is great and the lighting too but those poses are so damn cheap they destroy every kind of sexappeal they are just (in German: Plump)....

09 September 2002, 02:20 PM
Can you post some wires?

Nice model but you could do it more erotic, less porn...

09 September 2002, 03:01 PM could have somones eye out with those!!!

looks good !

09 September 2002, 04:51 AM
well I was the first person to respond to such erotic sensations, and I stand by my words

09 September 2002, 12:46 PM
Neox: Good to see you here. :) I'm still impressed by that speed-modeled boy head of yours. For the poses: I'm happy with #2 and #5. The other ones - I'd do them differently if I had to do them again. Varying from slightly to completely.

varius: Wire turntable is here ( (DiVX, 2MB). Well, legally it's not porn. What you see is what the job called for. Subtle was not an option this time.

mushroomgod: Thanks.

piajartist: :D

09 September 2002, 04:39 PM
Well, legally it's not porn. What you see is what the job called for. Subtle was not an option this time.

ohhh... so it for job, i didnt read carefully:)
sorry, my fault

Can i ask what job? Is this for some advetise?

Nice model to me, but is there any texture for skin? And hairs. This 2 things dont look realistic, rest is realistic... or maybe a dream...:drool:

10 October 2002, 08:35 AM
Love the model, but the poses need work. They are extremely stiff , un-natural and unconforatable. I would go do some more research of playboy/penthouse magazines. Also if you can, get someone to bring in their girlfriend/wife to do some poses(with clothes on :) ). Just so you can get an idea of more natural poses from a physical person.

A more relaxed pose would drive the images from being really good, to being awsome.

10 October 2002, 02:26 PM
Ah, I got my fourth star back... Let's see for how long. :D

varius: Skin is completely untextured except some details in the face. I do apply a few local color variations though by applying color directly to vertices, then multiplying this into the diffuse/falloff color. It wasn't supposed to be realistic. I wanted it to be slighlty cartoony but I come to the conclusion I didn't go far enough.

The hair is textured geometry with diffuse/opacity maps with several objects. But the hairstyle is simple and was requested. There are objects for hair that escaped the rubber band but they are not visible at this distance - so I see what you mean.

beaker: The poses have been mentioned before - please see my answer to Neox three posts above. Do you think #2 and #5 are stiff as well? Oh, and I can bring my own wife. Just because I did a nude 3D chick it doesn't mean I have no life. :D

10 October 2002, 02:47 PM
you liked that boy? :beer:

That mesh is really great! clean modelling, i like it VERY much!

Ok the poses 2 and 5 are the best from all you did but they are looking a bit (just a little bit) too stiff a good ressource for poses, don't know if you finished that job and if you'll need some inspirations but i guess that link ain't that bad ;)

10 October 2002, 04:52 PM
The ass is great, the tits too fake. Good job tho. Clean mesh and nice lighting.

10 October 2002, 10:49 AM
Poser.....poser, I would have thought everyone would have recognized the typical problems poser4 has when you go to pose a model and then airbrush it, but I guess no one recognized it.

10 October 2002, 10:57 AM
i guess you don't know that the guy you are talkin 'bout is able to model this way... i don't think thats Poser... i guess thats proof enough...

10 October 2002, 01:57 PM
Men, sorry for linking to your page but thist two things just rock..ohhh i can't breath

10 October 2002, 12:41 PM
urgaffel: Thanks. Unrelated, here ( is a pic you might enjoy. :) (It's not by me)

vivaldi0: Of course it's NOT Poser. If you would have read the last six posts you would have found the link to the wireframe ( animation (DivX, 2MB). Also, you don't seem to know the typical Poser landmarks, otherwise you would have noticed they're not there. Next time try to find a solid proof before making such an accusation.

Neox: Thanks for the help. As for poses #2 and #5, I don't see it right now. Often I'm blind when it comes to my own work. This series is finished but of course I want to learn from my mistakes. The direction should be clear now, I guess. So, thanks for providing that link.

varius: For a moment I was puzzled because it looked like my gallery... That first pic reminds me that I have to work on the mouth corners on my current model.

10 October 2002, 04:18 PM
maybe you should work on corners... a liitle:)
on on nongue and lips texture, they are dry

10 October 2002, 11:58 PM
Poser.....poser, I would have thought everyone would have recognized the typical problems poser4 has when you go to pose a model and then airbrush it, but I guess no one recognized it.
Now, I would have though someone so adamant that this was Poser would actually know what they were on about. I used Poser for years in my CG infancy before I "evolved" to LW, and this is definitely NOT Poser... Not really the best thing to say in your first post :shame:

lowpoly, your work is fantastic. By looking at your site I can see your very good at modelling. Work on those rigs/poses, and I think you could achieve some awesome stuff. Keep up the good work :thumbsup:

10 October 2002, 10:51 AM


10 October 2002, 12:17 PM
Cool, cool, cool!! :love: :applause: :drool:

10 October 2002, 12:20 PM
Looked good at first but then the poses and odd proportions look like teenager dream stuff.
Sometimes more skin is less erotic/appealing.

Still pretty good work overall.

10 October 2002, 11:21 PM
I am not into putting people down for their work, but lets say for instance I were to put up an animation of a ball bouncing in an unrealistic room and the ball showed no deformations after hitting the ground.....AND I did this in C++. Would everyone be so amazed at my C++ skills, or would they have said "Man, you could have done that in 3dsmax, or Maya, or some other well known program"......I think so!

So here are my after thoughts.....If you are going to put up something that looks like it was done in a well known program that takes seconds to make, then at least try to make the model unique or realistic in it's pose. If it took me 100 hours to model something that looks like a poser figure....Shame on me!!!

10 October 2002, 12:15 AM
vivaldi0 , you are wearing out your welcome with your accusational remarks.

You do not have to like or agree with everyone here , but please tone your accusations down a bit.

now if you a have anything CONSTRUCTIVE to add go ahead.


I love the model , appereantly a lot of work went into it.

My personal nitpick would be , she is nude. I believe the pics would have been enhanced much more if she had some provocative dress on her.

But i read the job required it so I understand.

If you can put a cheerleader outfit on her on your free time that would be great :thumbsup:


10 October 2002, 12:38 AM
Good quality, however the nipples are defiantly too dark for someone who quite obvious 99% Caucasian.

As for the character design, rather bland, generic, and uninspiring.

10 October 2002, 12:41 AM
very hot :drool:

great model....:thumbsup:

10 October 2002, 07:45 AM
LOL vivaldi it doesn't even look like poser... you never worked with poser? do you? :rolleyes:

10 October 2002, 03:52 PM
loking good :)

and how about other pictures?

there can I find its?

10 October 2002, 06:17 PM
Sorry for the delay. Thanks for answering, everybody. :)

varius: You're right about the missing gloss. I knew it wasn't there but I didn't realize how crucial it was for this pic.

oracle: Thanks. Yes, rigs and poses. Not sure how I should do the rigs though. I'd need different morph areas (like face and knee) for a seamless mesh - I don't think it will work in Max due to the one-dimensional stack. No problem as soon as you have clothes or props where you can split the body. But here...

Chewey: Yes, but the proportions are not that odd. Actually less than I wanted it. Here's a quick Loomis overlay:

vivaldi0: Your point doesn't make sense. The problem with Poser is that you base your artwork on that of someone else. Which I didn't do. Also, very few people can achieve amazing results with Poser. Look at Michael Murphys older works, just as an example. Which means there's great bandwidth from crap (a lot) to a few exceptional works. So which of these did you compare to? Also, still nothing constructive in your reply. And that C++ example. OMG.

Sheep Factory: Thanks. Cheerleader... Probably not, sorry. :)

Jaenos: Yepp, too dark. As for the character design remark - it is generic but that's actually an advantage of a virtual character when compared to an actual photo shoot. I never tried to mimic a real person. A bit more constructive wouldn't hurt, btw.

Neox: :D

Blast_tm: Sorry, I can't post more.

10 October 2002, 06:35 PM
Want a job?

<michael hughes>

10 October 2002, 06:39 PM
Pretty darn sexy. I thought her face looked a bit emotionless, like a manequin, though. The closeup of her face with the tongue action actually looks better. As for the proportions of the girl, her crotch seems a little too high up. The breasts look like breasts, even though they appear to defy gravity. ;) It's a teenager's wet dream, you've made here, that's for sure.


10 October 2002, 10:30 PM
Lets see some of your work vivaldi0:curious:

10 October 2002, 10:51 PM
Good job!
(On the last render her left leg looks really painfull though, it's cutting into her lower abdomen aswell.)

10 October 2002, 08:28 AM
she's got some nice titties dawg! :scream:

10 October 2002, 03:05 PM
bah!! dark nipples, complaints about breast size, moral crusades against nudity, poser accusations! If this were all that tastelles there'd be astroglide and a 12-inch piece of rubber. Obviously, it's meant to be sophomoric and erotic (she's naked and on a swing for pete's sake). I like it! Mindless fratboys like it! And the model is good too. People have already pointed out its faults, but nobody can deny that it's an eye-catcher. :beer:

10 October 2002, 03:55 PM
Merkry hit that one right smack on the noggin. Embarrassed to say, I can't help but stare at it...:love:

Awsome piece of work it is! :applause:

10 October 2002, 03:56 PM
Amen Merkry. BAH! Puritans.

10 October 2002, 07:45 AM
Thanks, everyone. :)

MadS: Pelvis is too short (vertically). Good to see in the Loomis overlay.

Joril: Yes, it's cutting in. Bad rig. I've no idea how to solve that except editing the deformed mesh which is not a nice task. The joint placement seems OK. I have to check that again.

Merkry: Thank you. :D

10 October 2002, 03:34 PM
hey Stefan! (lowpoly)
Nice (boob)job dude!
You know, I've been browsing your webbie and I must say that I really like this one too!!....:


10 October 2002, 05:33 PM
Nurbs? :beer: I have the same opinion about using it in face modeling... :rolleyes:

Are you working on next generation of your females?

10 October 2002, 07:31 PM
I'm not going to make some typical girly remark to this one. (boo, disappointing) Then again this might have to do with the fact that i live in Holland and I walk through my town's rather humble redlight district every morning on my way to work.

SO, to the model. Well modelled, quite nicely lit. over all quite good.. I suppose the overall impression still has to be that it's cg soft porn, but if that is what you were aiming for, i think you got quite a nice result, although I think you could have done your model more justice by making her more interesting.

my boyfriend would probably love it;)

10 October 2002, 05:57 AM
Thanks for the supply of the new pic, but the thigh is definitely too close to the naval area, looks like the thigh has collided with the abodomen, But I could see how the turning of the torso and the narrow area of the waist can be realistic.

10 October 2002, 07:44 PM
Sorry for bumping this so late...

FeRdI: Posting that image here takes it somewhat out of its non-serious context. Glad you like it. Hey, some day I might render that with anti-aliasing. :D

Gotham: Wrt NURBS for face modelling... It may work if you choose the right patch strategy and have the right tools. Back then I didn't have any of these.

I'm working on my next generation but I progress slowly. I just don't have time right now. I'm seriously distracted by the big amount of oil based clay I just bought.

Carina: It had to be erotic and in an obvious way.

piajartist: When I did it, I thought it could work if the thigh is pressed against the abdomen. Then it becomes rather flat and there's a big contact area. Well, feedback is pretty clear here that it didn't work. I just tried sitting that way again (without the dreamy expression :) ) and the simple solution seems to be that I didn't turn the pelvis enough forward/upward. Argh.

CgFreak: :)

CGTalk Moderation
01 January 2006, 06:00 PM
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.