Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.Daz 3D is part of
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
And I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you. ;-)
Your opinion on realism being the true way to creativity is just that. Your opinion. It's not a wrong opinion, but it is not one that I share personally. Look at all the great impressionist painters out there. Look at the abstract artists. Are they any ess creative because they didn't strive for realism?
If you don't like the impressionists or abstracts, that is okay, but when they are done well, they can look more full of life and life-like than many photos, even though they don't look "real." The same can be said about CG and other digital mediums. It's about the feelings the artist is trying to evoke in the viewer, and whether the lighting or colors are true to life is often irrelevant.
This. Realism is a great goal if it's what you aim for, but it's definitely not the only way.
Hmmmmmmm I don't agree with that.... every artist has their way. Those that want to achieve perfection and work backwards, good for them. Some of us have a comfort zone. I've always been more comic booky in my approach so my renders have allot of contrast and are not meant to be realistic. I truly admire realistic drawings, paintings, renders, sculpts but for me... I just do art because it feeds my soul. I'm not going to beat on my self trying to achieve something I'm really not interested in doing just to say I did it....
The reason I say that 'realism is a standard' is because while I want to make things that appear realistic, I don't finish there... that would be boring. Our goal is to excite the viewer with something they've never seen or rarely scene because conditions are rare or near impossible.
Just because you reach a goal, doesn't mean your finished in the race my friend ... in fact, in the case of realism.. meeting that one simple goal then frees you up to make the 'real', look unreal... something you can't do until you can make it look real.
Until I can make a real looking G7 girl, I can't fool you into thinking she is doing something unreal... I'm making video game qaulity pictures that compete only with Xbox One and playstation 4 standards.... see professionals need professional qaulity tools and right now, with IRay and Genesis V7, we are all crossing the divide together... its taking time for the tools to come out but in time the skins will be photorealistic or maybe backwards compliant and then we will all be off to the races. Realism is a goal but only in the sense that we want to be able to say we can do anything we want.. so its not a final goal.. just a step on our journey to making great art.. but it an important first step.
Hit the nail right on the head.
Definately not but every creation benefits from improved materials. As far back as "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" cartoons and realism have been working together in harmony. The goal doesn't diminish in any way our previous streams of work... in fact all we are talking about is expanding our toolbox to have more colors and depth at our disposal.
He also understood how to rip off George Baraque and take credit for pioneering something that was well on it's way of being established before he got involved.
You have described the difference between an artist and a stuff renderer (make art button.) Artists, including illustrators and photographers are intrinsically aware of the color/shadow/composition importance and it shows in the simplest of renders. The average make art button guy, buys premade solutions such as scenes/shaders/lights etc... their knowledge is based on what they hear versus what they have learned through years of experience. I know a few people personally that pump out renders day after day and they look no different than the first render they ever did. They have even bragged about having no artistic experience "and look what I created." What I end up seeing is formula lighting and texturing that can look quite real, but everything in the image looks out of place. Characters with porcelain gloss skin or flat lifeless skin, body's floating above the surface they are either sitting or standing on, armpits folding up to the character's ears, zero consideration paid to simple physics, muscle bulge, anatomy, hair flow direction etc... I could go on... but I'm sure you get the point. An artist can use a chainsaw to carve a figure out of a tree stump. A hobbyist will only read about it and perhaps argue that its not mathematically possible to do so and dismiss it. Like the tree analogy, an artist can use an older renderer and still pull off a great image. It's not the tool, it's the artist's ability to use them.
I've been dealing with snobby hobbyists for years as I'm sure a lot of us have... "Dude... You should be using Reality or Octane they are much better renderers" they can tell you everything about the renderers including all the technical minutia but when you go look at their work you leave with a shocked look on your face... You've just seen a digital portrait that looked like it just came out of the Dire Straits Money for nothing MTV video and this guy is telling me what renderer I should be using?
Amen.
I have been following the direction of this thread and debating about whether to add my two cents or to simply continue lurking. Obviously I have reached a conclusion :). It seems to me that such discussions often quickly degenerate into debates over who is right or who is wrong, and who ultimately wins. The answer is, no one. We shouldn't be attempting to proselytize our opinions on our approach to this particular type of creativity, like some sort of evangelical mission to convert everyone to our way of thinking. I say, "whatever floats your boat" is the way to go.
I found Rashad's description of how he approaches a scene interesting because it is so different from my own. If I understand correctly, he basically dives in and allows the scene to evolve as he works in an organic sort of way. In contrast, I always start by imagining the scene in my head. Just as I might in the software. I imagine all the elements and their relative position, the mood and lighting, etc., until I finally "render" the first attempt in my head. Kind of like a mental sketch. Then I start. We might very well end up at the same place, or not. We're different and that's okay. (BTW, we probably wouldn't end up at the same spot, since his technical chops greatly exceed mine. But I am not going to let that stop me).
Actually, Braque and Picasso worked together as they both evolved cubism. Picasso didn't take credit for cubism, he was credited because he was already more well known than Braque. The " credit" for cubism didn't matter to either one of them.
I don't really care if people are swayed to my thinking, it's just an observation.
I went to a college where a number of artists rejected having to learn to draw various things because they were in it for the ART, maaaan. Which became an excuse to come up with BS justifications of whatever they made, because they lacked the skills to do anything else.
Mind you, I've been on the other side of this, too. I have a cartoonist friend who insists that I really ought to get a sketchbook and practice illustration to develop a proper appreciation of forms, anatomy, etc. But while I can sketch something that doesn't completely look like a toddler did it, my skills there are lacking, and it's a lot of work that I don't enjoy. Maybe in 20 years, diligently practicing, I can make something good. Meh.
I think there are definitely different suites of interests and talents that go into art. Just in CGI, I, for example, prefer to focus on composition, lighting, assembling interesting characters or scenes, and doing interesting textures. Almost a collage approach.
I lack the skills and interests to do deep modeling (though I MIGHT poke my toe into that at some point), and have Carrara mainly for simple (I need a tube) or moderate models (I need a simple vaulted ceiling).
Some people do exquisitely detailed scenes and characters, but the characters are lifeless slabs of meat staring at you.
And so on.
Very well said! I don't know how many times I thought someone posting in the forums was no doubt a very good 3D artist, then I finally decide to go see some of their work and realize that they really don't have a clue (or they post a render to a thread).
Now I'm not an artist by any stretch of the imagination I'm more of a technician, but I at least try to continually improve.
This is a bit OT, but it sort of fits as I think the general problem with the flat images is the same "load, poser, render" syndrome. One of the things that drives me crazy any more are all the renders with women standing on their toes. I've seen so many really great thumbnails only to open the full image an be greeted with a beautiful render where the artist didn't even take the time to re-pose the feet to match the footwear with no heels, or they have the poor girl standing barefoot on her toes (when being on her toes really doesn't fit the image). Either put some heels on the poor girl or take a couple minutes to repose the feet! My other pet peeve are the floaters and sinkers - either the feet floating above the floor/ground or they are sinking into the floor/ground. For beginners, this is OK, I've been guilty of it a time or two. But for people that have numerous renders/images in their galleries, many which have the same problem, it just shows they are in a hurry to make a render, and not really interested in a work of art.
Might have missed that nail and pounded the table a couple times. ;-)
That logic is backwards in my opinion. Picasso painted the way he painted early in his career because that was how he was being trained. He evolved away from it because that was not how he wanted to paint. His early works were quite beautiful and yet, fairly forgettable except perhaps to the collector.
Folk art and primitive art are great examples from artists that probably always produced art in that manner, and never produced a "realistic" image.
Perfectly said~
Considering we're only on G3, you have a bit of a wait. :)
You are correct in that there is no right way or wrong way, just how each of us does it as individuals. That shouldn't stop a little creative back and forth though. I know that while I disagree with some of the views expressed, I thoroughly acknowledge and respect the rights of others to hold those views, just as I expect they feel the same way towards my views.
Rashad is an interesting man to be sure. Despite his claims to the contrary, I have been most impressed with his work, technically and artistically. We don't always agree, but then again, I respect my friends in the "real world" and I don't always agree with them either.
I find my method of creating a scene as a kind of cross between how Rashad builds one, and how you describe your creative process. Sometimes the image pops into my head so strongly that the only issues are the technical aspects of creating the scene. Other times, I play with each and every element until something clicks because I have a vague notion of what I want. An outcome that I like for those efforts tends to be less guaranteed than when I have a very strong image in mind.
So, this is an example of an image I did for a Carrara challenge with the Twilight Zone as a theme. As soon as I read the challenge preamble, I knew exactly how I wanted to proceed, how I wanted the scene to look, and how it was framed. I even had some ideas on how to achieve or overcome certain technical aspects. The only thing I waited until the end to decide, was the color intensity. This render is probably my favorite render, even though it is far from realistic.
In case anybody is curious, it depicts the end of the TZ episode, Time Enough at Last.
HA! Nice, Evil.
The goal isn't to have a "realistic" image... the goal is to have realistic materials in your scene. I'm talking materials and your talking finished results. We live in an HD age now and while there is always room for more primitaive advancements too, remember that you can always diminish materials to a lower qaulity... Again too many people think ideas are competing instead of talking about expanding our toolboxes to include more assets.
Once your comfortable with the materials in whatever stream you are creating art for... then it makes sense to move on to the next great issues which include lighting and the poses.. are you making sure your character is taking advantage of expressions? It's worth it to upgrade to the new characters because with them you get much greater latitude for expressions and I love it.
At the moment for lighting, I strongly recommend these two packages and any HDRI enviroments. :)
http://www.daz3d.com/dramatic-iray-lights
http://www.daz3d.com/real-lights-for-daz-studio-iray
The same issues apply to musicians as well. (Of course you can apply them to any artistic endeavor.) The frustration of learning technique (your specific instrument, your rendering tool) as opposed to actually playing/composing the music or producing the image in your head is real and pervasive and never ends--and for most artists/musicians should never end.
Twice I remember being struck by the fact it's not the tool, it's the artist. (What I've done about that is an entirely different matter). When I was thirteen and waiting for my piano lesson I listened to the student behind the closed door. It sounded so good I wanted to use the lesson book she was using. When she came out I looked at what she was carrying and it was the same book I was using! It was her, not the specific music she was playing.
Then about twenty years ago I scoured the web for any and all pictures made with Bryce...most of them were gobsmacking to me and i couldn't wait 'til it came out for Windows. Local Egghead called me one day and said 'It's here' so I hopped in my car and grabbed my copy before it was even on the shelf. Well needless to say it took a long long time before I produced anything that wasn't absolute cr*p.
So I tell myself to keep learning, keep trying, but it's been hard the last few years. I think I've been blocked for a while now. Then along comes iRay which is the last thing I care about in life--a PBR renderer. Sigh. Perhaps it's the fact it IS PBR that has so many excited. It sounds like a shortcut but it's not really--just another technical step in the learning process. But I will say that it does give some inspiration to try to do better in 3Delight. That's good.