Copy of Corneille's Polyphemus, Ralph Reinle (3D)

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03 March 2008   #61
hi

very very good!
 
Old 03 March 2008   #62
excelente, podriamos ver el modelo
 
Old 03 March 2008   #63
beautiful job
 
Old 03 March 2008   #64
Amazing Work 5* from me
 
Old 03 March 2008   #65
Very cool modeling
 
Old 03 March 2008   #66
Terrific modelling...!! Awesome
 
Old 03 March 2008   #67
Hmm... Personally I don't get the harsh criteques of a the anatomy of model of a guy who has a third eye in his forhead?

This right there tells me that "human" anatomy is out the window. A lot of people seem to be comming down hard because it's not this "pefect" human anatomy.. and there is a BIG LIST of things wrong with it. A big list of anatomy problems of a guy who has a third eye in his forehead?

Hmm.. also not to mention that it's refrenced from a real life sculpture, which to me at a glance looks like he nailed it pretty darn good.

I am not familar with this sculpture.. but looking at it, it appears to be some kind of greek god. To me, greek gods scream exaggerated features and such.

But that's just me.


So to me.. there is a BIG LIST of reasons why the anatomy should NOT be perfectly human. And that this is one heck of a modeling job! Specially for a second piece of work in Zbrush. I couldn't even touch anything like that quite yet. So Good job. Could there be anything done to make it even better? Sure! But you could say that about anything. But at some point you have to abondon your work and move onto something else. Personally I like to use the 5% rule.. if what you are going to change/redo/remake/add/delete/etc.. is going to change the final output less than 5%.. stick a fork in it and be done with it and move on. Otherwise you will be tweaking it till the end of time.

But I also believe that as a society we have lost sight of the concept of dimenishing returns. But again.. that's just me.

Now wether it belongs in the choice gallery or on the FP or not can be left up to debate, but that's always going to be a matter of opinion. We are all going to see images that we feel belong in the choice gallery or FP that don't make it, and vice versa.
 
Old 03 March 2008   #68
Quote: Personally I don't get the harsh criteques of a the anatomy of model of a guy who has a third eye in his forhead?

The original sculptor was obviously referencing human anatomy, not cyclops anatomy.
You're saying people should only give appreciative comments?
 
Old 03 March 2008   #69
Quote: You're saying people should only give appreciative comments?


No.. like I said.. "Could there be anything done to make it better? Sure!"

Constructive critisim is half the reason to post your work to your peers... praise alone doesn't help you improve your skills. But constructive critisim doesn't have to be harsh. Again.. I was just referencing some of the harsher comments, that to me just seemed to come out of nowhere like a sledgehammer. Although he seemed to take it all in stride.

I could give some constructive crit. to any of your work.. again.. anything can be improved.. because it always helps to have the opinons of other sets of eyes. But I sure wouldn't give it in a way that cut your work to pieces... I would just throw out a few things I see that personally I think might make the image a little better. btw.. your stuff ROCKS! :smile: Wish I was able to work on those type of jobs and get paid for it!! :smile:

But like YOU said.. it's "referencing" human anatomy. That doesn't mean it's copying perfect human porportions or whatever. Too me.. looks like a greek god. God to me screams exageration... therefore personally I don't have any criteques on the anatomy, because in my opinion.. they could be even MORE exagerated and out of "human" porportion and I wouldn't have a comment on it. Thus that is MY comment on the anatomy. :smile: Others may (and have) pointed to certain areas like the forarms and throw in their two cents about what might be "wrong" about it and how to improve it.. that's all great.

Now maybe the rendering, background, lighting, camera angle, material, etc.. I would give some constructive critisism, but I don't think that was the purpose of his work.. it was a modeling exercise.. pure and simple.

Just my .02.. :smile:
 
Old 03 March 2008   #70
mhampton—There is a big difference between exaggeration and distortion. The two tend to be commonly confused, which seems to the case here.
__________________
 
Old 03 March 2008   #71
Quote: Hmm... Personally I don't get the harsh criteques of a the anatomy of model of a guy who has a third eye in his forhead? This right there tells me that "human" anatomy is out the window.


What, because there's a third eye that means he suddenly bears no resemblance to a human?
 
Old 03 March 2008   #72
Originally Posted by Quadart: mhampton—There is a big difference between exaggeration and distortion. The two tend to be commonly confused, which seems to the case here.


Exactly, you can't start inventing new anatomy, or if you do, you first have to have mastered real anatomy, understand in detail how it works, and your new anatomy invention has to be very well planned out, because the musculoskeletal system is not arbitrary lumps and bumps on the skin, but a very complex integrated system in which everything fills a specific role.
There is already a huge amount of room for manoeuvre within the restraints of technical accuracy, and so there is no need to go outside them. Take a look at every anatomically correct figure ever made, and you'll see, that although they're all equally restrained to anatomical accuracy, they're all quite different.
 
Old 03 March 2008   #73
Not to mention that when you reference a piece of art that has a bit of inaccurate anatomy to begin with, you're copying that inaccuracy plus adding in your own interpretation and potential human error which could take the form even further away from being physically accurate.

That's why it's good to reference an actual human form when sculpting humanoid forms instead of relying on another artists vision.
 
Old 04 April 2008   #74
Thumbs up good One

Hi!

Good job & nice details.
Keep it up.

Best Regards
Krishna

www.krishnacreationz.com
1$ Footages

high quality digital footages at the lowest prices just $ 1 only.
Technical Details: MOV File - NTSC DV, PhotoJPEG, 720x480, Best, 29.97
 
Old 04 April 2008   #75
This is really beautiful - nice work!

Originally Posted by Jeggis: The only thing that bugs me is the background. If he's that close to the wall the depth of field is all wrong. You should make the background in the same scene as the model, and let the virtual lens produce the DoF.


I disagree - one of the things that I actually like the most about this piece is the DOF. It doesn't matter if it's technically not perfect (which I didn't notice anyway). There's nothing wrong with being subjective sometimes for dramatic effect.
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 01:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.