Celebrity Look-a-Likes for 3D figures Part 2

dark-BuB

Hi guys!
Any tipp for Ben Affleck?

Hylas

dark-BuB said:

Hi guys!
Any tipp for Ben Affleck?

Sithlordsims' characters have a bit that vibe, Ethan is probably the closest:

https://www.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/ethan-for-genesis-8-male/136866/

 

 

deepred6502

deepred6502 said:

Any suggestions for Samantha Robinson (The Love Witch, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Sugar Daddies)?

To clarify, here are some select pics of her, both off & on-screen...

dark-BuB

Hylas said:

dark-BuB said:

Hi guys!
Any tipp for Ben Affleck?

Sithlordsims' characters have a bit that vibe, Ethan is probably the closest:

https://www.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/ethan-for-genesis-8-male/136866/

 

 

Oh, okay, thanks, I give it a try!

MGHSFAN2k

Who's this?

https://www.most-digital-creations.com/g3_g8_celebrity_series_65.htm

Wolfwood

MGHSFAN2k said:

Who's this?

https://www.most-digital-creations.com/g3_g8_celebrity_series_65.htm

Katy Perry?

Sevrin

Wolfwood said:

MGHSFAN2k said:

Who's this?

https://www.most-digital-creations.com/g3_g8_celebrity_series_65.htm

Katy Perry?

Yup.  Adam left a teaser for this.  She looks pretty great imo.

Haruchai

Wolfwood said:

MGHSFAN2k said:

Who's this?

https://www.most-digital-creations.com/g3_g8_celebrity_series_65.htm

Katy Perry?

Responding to requests made earlier in the thread, wohooo!

Haruchai

List 01 - 25 https://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/comment/4054716/#Comment_4054716
List 26 - 50 https://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/comment/5014556/#Comment_5014556

New one added
List updated 

CS51 - Salma Hayek
CS52 - Keira Knightley
CS53 - Reese Witherspoon
CS54 - Sofia Vergara
CS55 - Halle Berry
CS56 - Juliette Lewis
CS57 - Hayden Panettiere
CS58 - Mila Jovovich
CS59 - Bryce Dallas Howard
CS60 - Drew Barrymore
CS61 - Alexis Ren
CS62 - Anya Chalotra
CS63 - Alicia Vikander
CS64 - Sophie Turner
CS65 - Katy Perry

https://www.most-digital-creations.com/poser_daz_studio_characters.htm

thomasbrooks07

 

 

Haruchai said:

Wolfwood said:

MGHSFAN2k said:

Who's this?

https://www.most-digital-creations.com/g3_g8_celebrity_series_65.htm

Katy Perry?

Responding to requests made earlier in the thread, wohooo!

I sent him a request for katy perry and I was not disapointed when she dropped into the store! She looks fantastic and was an instant buy!

Ch1ggs

RayDAnt said:

 

Sevrin said:

 

Sevrin said:

RayDAnt said:

Another thing to keep in mind is that real people don't necessarily look very much like even themselves from different angles. I have 13+ years experience working as a photo assistant in the high art/fashion portrait photography realm (in an unnamed major metropolitan area) and have gotten to see/study/light the faces of a bunch of celebrities every single person in this thread under the age of ninety could instantly identify. And nine times out of ten, you'd be amazed at how varied they look irl versus what's seen of them in media.

Supermodels, for example, usually have about 3-4 angles from which virtually all photos of their faces are taken, due to those angles being the most effective at conveying what photographers generally find most appealing about the shape of their face.

Since the golden age of cinema, actors have even gone so far as to put official stipulations in their contracts about which angles they could/couldn't be shot from (Claudette Colbert comes to mind - she so disliked the right side of her face that - during the peak of her career - sets would have to be redesigned so that everything could be shot from her left side.)

Sometimes these likenesses are actually much more realistic tthan you realize.

 

Sevrin said:

alex86fire said:

RayDAnt said:

alex86fire said:

 

RayDAnt said:

co.higgins_643bb33aea said:

There are a number of good points in this post you made. Unfortunately, they don't really provide damage control for BLATANTLY incorrect facial structure

Blatantly incorrect according to what standard? My points are made based on the standard of having gotten to see and study (in a professional capacity) what famous people look like dynamically in real life versus how they tend to be presented as looking statically in visual media. What are your standards based on?

You are making it sound like famous people look different than the rest of us.

I'm making the opposite point. Famous people are just like you and me in that they can look strikingly different appearance-wise depending on what angle/under what kind of lighting/with what makeup they are viewed from. However, due to the nature of the appearance business, certain angle/lighting/makeup combinations get favored over the others. Leading to the false public impression that they only look like X. Whereas the reality is that they only look like X under very specific parameters. Which can lead to the funny situation where someone attempting to craft a faithful likeness of a person overall (rather than a likeness of them at a specific point in time/embodying a particular iconic look) can end up with somthing that - to the average public viewer - looks less true-to-life despite being technically more true-to-life.

And this isn't a new phenomenon. Prior to the days of still photography, painting with a live model for reference was the de facto standard method for realistic portraiture. And since painting is a very lengthy process, doing portraiture that way inevitably leads to the portrait artist being exposed to their subject's appearance under a dynamically changing set of visual parameters. Which ends up making its way into the overall visual feel of the portrait being produced.

Hence why - if you go back to the golden days of realistic portrait painting (during the early days of still photography) and compare painted portraits of famous people to photographic portraits of them taken soon after, there tends to be a distinct visual difference. Because the former represents what the person looked like in a dynamic fashion, whereas the latter is entirely static - by nature of the underlying mechanical processes of their creation.

I am not as familiarised with you with photography so I will not argue with you on that but today, most of what you are saying doesn't apply anymore.

Cameras now capture everything. And as I mentioned before, we don't just see a few angles that are thought by the director. Now we have interviews, red carpet walks, paparazzi, social media. We can see the celebrities from any and all angles.

Of course, if someone only looks at some perfect photos taken from certain angles, maybe even photoshoped afterwards, they will have a wrong impression of how that celebrity looks.

But if you want to know how they really look, you have access to enough information available for that.

Right, so which Mila Kunis do you want?

Gee, I wonder which Mila Kunis model people would want. Boy, this sure is a tough one!

ChadCrypto

co.higgins_643bb33aea said:

RayDAnt said:

 

Sevrin said:

 

Sevrin said:

RayDAnt said:

Another thing to keep in mind is that real people don't necessarily look very much like even themselves from different angles. I have 13+ years experience working as a photo assistant in the high art/fashion portrait photography realm (in an unnamed major metropolitan area) and have gotten to see/study/light the faces of a bunch of celebrities every single person in this thread under the age of ninety could instantly identify. And nine times out of ten, you'd be amazed at how varied they look irl versus what's seen of them in media.

Supermodels, for example, usually have about 3-4 angles from which virtually all photos of their faces are taken, due to those angles being the most effective at conveying what photographers generally find most appealing about the shape of their face.

Since the golden age of cinema, actors have even gone so far as to put official stipulations in their contracts about which angles they could/couldn't be shot from (Claudette Colbert comes to mind - she so disliked the right side of her face that - during the peak of her career - sets would have to be redesigned so that everything could be shot from her left side.)

Sometimes these likenesses are actually much more realistic tthan you realize.

 

Sevrin said:

alex86fire said:

RayDAnt said:

alex86fire said:

 

RayDAnt said:

co.higgins_643bb33aea said:

There are a number of good points in this post you made. Unfortunately, they don't really provide damage control for BLATANTLY incorrect facial structure

Blatantly incorrect according to what standard? My points are made based on the standard of having gotten to see and study (in a professional capacity) what famous people look like dynamically in real life versus how they tend to be presented as looking statically in visual media. What are your standards based on?

You are making it sound like famous people look different than the rest of us.

I'm making the opposite point. Famous people are just like you and me in that they can look strikingly different appearance-wise depending on what angle/under what kind of lighting/with what makeup they are viewed from. However, due to the nature of the appearance business, certain angle/lighting/makeup combinations get favored over the others. Leading to the false public impression that they only look like X. Whereas the reality is that they only look like X under very specific parameters. Which can lead to the funny situation where someone attempting to craft a faithful likeness of a person overall (rather than a likeness of them at a specific point in time/embodying a particular iconic look) can end up with somthing that - to the average public viewer - looks less true-to-life despite being technically more true-to-life.

And this isn't a new phenomenon. Prior to the days of still photography, painting with a live model for reference was the de facto standard method for realistic portraiture. And since painting is a very lengthy process, doing portraiture that way inevitably leads to the portrait artist being exposed to their subject's appearance under a dynamically changing set of visual parameters. Which ends up making its way into the overall visual feel of the portrait being produced.

Hence why - if you go back to the golden days of realistic portrait painting (during the early days of still photography) and compare painted portraits of famous people to photographic portraits of them taken soon after, there tends to be a distinct visual difference. Because the former represents what the person looked like in a dynamic fashion, whereas the latter is entirely static - by nature of the underlying mechanical processes of their creation.

I am not as familiarised with you with photography so I will not argue with you on that but today, most of what you are saying doesn't apply anymore.

Cameras now capture everything. And as I mentioned before, we don't just see a few angles that are thought by the director. Now we have interviews, red carpet walks, paparazzi, social media. We can see the celebrities from any and all angles.

Of course, if someone only looks at some perfect photos taken from certain angles, maybe even photoshoped afterwards, they will have a wrong impression of how that celebrity looks.

But if you want to know how they really look, you have access to enough information available for that.

Right, so which Mila Kunis do you want?

Gee, I wonder which Mila Kunis model people would want. Boy, this sure is a tough one!

Make up is a great art!  When done right, it can bring out the outer beauty!

 

maikdecker

co.higgins_643bb33aea said:

 

Sevrin said:

Right, so which Mila Kunis do you want?

Gee, I wonder which Mila Kunis model people would want. Boy, this sure is a tough one!

sign me in for the right one.. the one without the makeup...

theom777_06b5ec29

  Anybody know where to get any of the following for Genesis 8 female(Either fully done, or closest figure match):

Kaley Cuoco, Melissa Rauch, Ariel Winter, Sarah Hyland, Sofia Vergara, Christina Hendricks, Alyson Hannigan, Jessica Simpson, Britney Spears, Melissa Joan Hart?

thomasbrooks07

theom777_06b5ec29 said:

  Anybody know where to get any of the following for Genesis 8 female(Either fully done, or closest figure match):

Kaley Cuoco, Melissa Rauch, Ariel Winter, Sarah Hyland, Sofia Vergara, Christina Hendricks, Alyson Hannigan, Jessica Simpson, Britney Spears, Melissa Joan Hart?

there is a britney spears not sure about the rest of the list but I would definity love to see a kayley cuoco melissa raunch model lol. I would really love a ashley green gensis 8 model. ive seen a good g3 but I really try to keep my models all genisis 8

 

https://www.most-digital-creations.com/g3_g8_celebrity_series_35.htm

 

stephenschoon

theom777_06b5ec29 said:

  Anybody know where to get any of the following for Genesis 8 female(Either fully done, or closest figure match):

Kaley Cuoco, Melissa Rauch, Ariel Winter, Sarah Hyland, Sofia Vergara, Christina Hendricks, Alyson Hannigan, Jessica Simpson, Britney Spears, Melissa Joan Hart?

http://www.beammeup.net/blog/3d-celebrities/poser-celebrities.php?page=37&active=1

 

Psychadelicatessen

theom777_06b5ec29 said:

  Anybody know where to get any of the following for Genesis 8 female(Either fully done, or closest figure match):

Kaley Cuoco, Melissa Rauch, Ariel Winter, Sarah Hyland, Sofia Vergara, Christina Hendricks, Alyson Hannigan, Jessica Simpson, Britney Spears, Melissa Joan Hart?

Sofia Vergara can be found here:

https://www.most-digital-creations.com/g3_g8_celebrity_series_54.htm

nDelphi

Unna HD for Victoria 8 has some definite Angelina Jolie look.

https://www.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/?AID=666&ViewProduct=143063

Torquinox

nDelphi said:

Unna HD for Victoria 8 has some definite Angelina Jolie look.

https://www.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/?AID=666&ViewProduct=143063

Agreed!

Sevrin

nDelphi said:

Unna HD for Victoria 8 has some definite Angelina Jolie look.

https://www.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/?AID=666&ViewProduct=143063

HD?  I didn't know anyone but Daz PAs had access to the secret sauce.  Nice character, though.  One of his better ones.

nemesis10

Sevrin said:

nDelphi said:

Unna HD for Victoria 8 has some definite Angelina Jolie look.

https://www.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/?AID=666&ViewProduct=143063

HD?  I didn't know anyone but Daz PAs had access to the secret sauce.  Nice character, though.  One of his better ones.

Another sore using HD doesn't mean that they use Daz3d's definition of HD.

jedijudd

Is there any Evangeline Liily's anywhere? MRL used to have one at rendo but it got pulled

richardandtracy

I noticed Felldude over on Renderosity claims to have figured out how to do HD with Blender. Must admit I'd not try anything more of his as one of his morphs is still causing errors in G8F on my machine even after carefully removing all the files it installed.

Gordig

richardandtracy said:

I noticed Felldude over on Renderosity claims to have figured out how to do HD with Blender. Must admit I'd not try anything more of his as one of his morphs is still causing errors in G8F on my machine even after carefully removing all the files it installed.

I’d be curious to hear his explanation, because anybody can sculpt an HD morph in any modeling program; it’s getting it into DS as a morph for a Genesis figure that’s the hard part, and is only supposed to be possible for people who have the tools, i.e. Daz PAs. 

Torquinox

So far, details are not forthcoming. I could be wrong, but he might be waiting for offerings to land in his Patreon plate.

richardandtracy

Think you're right about that. However from my point of view: Once bitten, twice shy.

 

Jotemaru

Isn't Evlin a pretty convincing Kylie Minogue double?

https://www.daz3d.com/evlin-hd-for-genesis-8-female

maikdecker

Jotemaru said:

Isn't Evlin a pretty convincing Kylie Minogue double?

https://www.daz3d.com/evlin-hd-for-genesis-8-female

No

Silent Winter

^I can see Kylie in her - not an exact double but definitely close IMO (though it varies by promo)

Rogue7

I can also see a bit of Nicole Kidman in there...