JULY New Users Contest WIP Thread

145791016

Comments

  • Joe CotterJoe Cotter Posts: 3,258
    edited July 2012

    chohole said:
    ...Please replace your images with untextured figures, as others have done, the basic grey genesis.

    I'm not sure who you are referring to chohole, but I don't recall any stipulation referring to the character being grey. In fact, the beginning of the post was all textured characters with grey only coming in after someone suggested that using a grey figure would be easier. Nor was there any stipulation that it be a basic genesis figure from any of what I read. Could you please point out where this is in fact in the outlined structure of the competition? The initial post by DAZ_ann0314 Posted: 04 July 2012 12:00 PM, is not a basic grey genesis figure, so I'm confused.

    Post edited by Joe Cotter on
  • jeeperzjeeperz Posts: 1,101
    edited December 1969

    this could be a fun idea,

  • jeeperzjeeperz Posts: 1,101
    edited December 1969

    nice renders everyone

  • evilproducerevilproducer Posts: 9,031
    edited December 1969

    There are some very nice poses in here so far. Here's an example of the pose I did earlier in this thread. I used functions within Carrara to assist me in the pose, such as target helpers and adjusting the mesh of the dress to try and solve problems with collision artifacts.


    An interesting issue I had was that I used a Point At modifier on the eyes to look at a Target Helper, so that I could easily adjust their position without having to rely on the morph dials/sliders. In my assembly window, the eyes are looking one way, but in the render they're looking another. I've not had this issue before and am trying another render after a slight adjustment of the helper to see if it refreshes something.


    I did a bit of postwork to try and get a black and white photo effect.

    Balck-and-white-Monroe-pose.jpg
    600 x 800 - 259K
    Marilyn-Monroe.jpg
    400 x 507 - 37K
  • Joe CotterJoe Cotter Posts: 3,258
    edited December 1969

    .. In my assembly window, the eyes are looking one way, but in the render they're looking another...

    Well in the original image her eyelids are shut.

  • evilproducerevilproducer Posts: 9,031
    edited December 1969

    Gedd said:
    .. In my assembly window, the eyes are looking one way, but in the render they're looking another...

    Well in the original image her eyelids are shut.

    Bingo!


    That's the problem I'm having. I have reset the eyes on the target, so I'll see what happens. I did set them up to be a bit more open, than in the photo, but they're supposed to be looking down and to the right.

  • Joe CotterJoe Cotter Posts: 3,258
    edited July 2012

    Gedd said:
    .. In my assembly window, the eyes are looking one way, but in the render they're looking another...

    Well in the original image her eyelids are shut.

    Bingo!


    That's the problem I'm having. I have reset the eyes on the target, so I'll see what happens. I did set them up to be a bit more open, than in the photo, but they're supposed to be looking down and to the right.

    Try just closing the eyelids? She actually had her eyelids closed as in eyes lightly shut from what I understand. Like she was caught in an extended blink.

    Post edited by Joe Cotter on
  • evilproducerevilproducer Posts: 9,031
    edited December 1969

    Gedd said:
    Gedd said:
    .. In my assembly window, the eyes are looking one way, but in the render they're looking another...

    Well in the original image her eyelids are shut.

    Bingo!


    That's the problem I'm having. I have reset the eyes on the target, so I'll see what happens. I did set them up to be a bit more open, than in the photo, but they're supposed to be looking down and to the right.

    Try just closing the eyelids? She actually had her eyelids closed as in eyes lightly shut from what I understand. Like she was caught in an extended blink.


    Riiiiiight... But I did say that I set them up to be a bit more open. That was on purpose. Not the full-on looking straight ahead look as in the post above, but rather mostly closed with the eyes looking down to the right away from the camera. I liked the look better, so I'm taking a bit of artistic license.

  • Joe CotterJoe Cotter Posts: 3,258
    edited July 2012

    Gotcha :)

    The tough thing would be trying to match the mouth and wrinkle of the nose. I'm pretty sure that could only be done with a custom morph.

    Post edited by Joe Cotter on
  • evilproducerevilproducer Posts: 9,031
    edited December 1969

    That is an issue to be sure. I tried it using morphs++ but she came out looking angry. The other thing that I tried was very harsh lights and shadows in the image to try and exaggerate the shadows on the face in case that was the issue, but it looked off.

  • Joe CotterJoe Cotter Posts: 3,258
    edited July 2012

    Well grey images do have some advantages in seeing the details of a pose, but the do provide their own issues also. I happened to find an almost identical pose to the one I did in 'Pinup Poses for V5' #14, after I did mine (or I would have picked another pose to avoid any confusion.) There are some differences and some almost identical similarities. It appears we probably both worked from the same source image, which would explain the similarities. I was trying to recreate my own interpretation of that image which explains some of the differences.

    I started adjusting the face to closer match the image, or the 'energy' of the image. The nose, eyebrows, eyes, cheekbones, and lips were all adjusted to fit closer to my interpretation of the original intent of the image. after doing some test renders I noticed the lighting wasn't falling how I wanted on the image so I went back and morphed other areas of the body to get the light to fall on the figure the way I wanted. The nature of the process of texturizing to create an airbrushed look meant some of the detail was going to get washed out, so I over enhanced it in the pose to make up for this. This is what I was referring to in the initial paragraph about grey images providing their own issues. Untextured, my pose looks over enhanced in detail. However, if one were to render the stock pose, it would be washed out in the textured and lit render. Refer back to my initial textured image and it one can see that the detail is drastically softened in the process of texturing and lighting for this specific effect. I should say, I was also going for a more modern version of a 'pinup.' That is, a blend between the softness of old pinups and just a touch of muscularity for a more modern interpretation.

    I think this gives a good example of how intertwined posing, lighting and texturing are.

    As a side note, when I saw that the stock pose hand was away from the body, I knew exactly why. one cannot place the hand on the character at that point without the thumb disappearing into the body of the character (or under the palm of the hand) from my experience. Having said that, a better poser might be able to, but I did recognize why the stock was the way it was.

    I also that the left hand is so dominant visually in the stock pose, it kind of draws attention to it, which is neither good nor bad, but does effect the way one processes the pose and does change the whole flow in subtle ways from the initial image.

    One other interesting note looking at this. In the third picture, the left hand of the stock pose counterbalances the weight of the pose somewhat, but if one were to bend that arm and leave everything else the same, the pose would be off (albeit only noticeable from certain angles.) In my pose, I had brought the right leg in closer to the center of the body, shifted the general body around, and probably most important, although the foot was fitted for the shoe, the heal is turned in (if in shoe as in the original image) so that it is roughly under the the center of gravity for the pose.

    On a stranger note, the source image was on the first page of results of the 'pinup' link in the initial post of this thread. It's not showing now. I'm wondering if it's been pulled. Vewwwy Stwange. (My rendered version and the source image is on page 11 of this thread if anyone is looking for them.)

    contest_grey_003.jpg
    567 x 600 - 20K
    contest_grey_002.jpg
    567 x 600 - 25K
    contest_grey_001.jpg
    567 x 600 - 26K
    Post edited by Joe Cotter on
  • Joe CotterJoe Cotter Posts: 3,258
    edited July 2012

    Sasje said:
    Gedd said:
    Here's an interesting one I thought I'd try, but upon trying it I found Genesis wouldn't bend that way without distorting. I'm curious if anyone can duplicate this pose without modifying the basic shape of the legs, back etc..

    Genesis v4, limits are all on.

    These are very well done. Seeing your work here, I went to recreate it and noticed a couple things. One, it's not easy, and one of the main reasons I believe is that working with the shoulder/arm/wrist manipulations are the most challenging in posing when trying to get certain arm movements. I also noticed that in trying to get the camera angle, the lower part of the face gets buried behind the shoulder and the only (partial) solution is to maximize the neck length. Basically, your poses are very good. Trying to match the original any closer would require turning off limits and modifying certain things that would throw the figure out of wack when viewed from other angles, pretty much reiterating the part mentioned earlier by (forget who ;) ) about artists having taken a bit of license. But it is also reinforcing that that there can be a difference between more generic stock pose and a custom one a specific image. That it's 'ok' to take a bit of license with a character if done properly where the character is for a specific render in a still image.

    Post edited by Joe Cotter on
  • DAZ_ann0314DAZ_ann0314 Posts: 2,657
    edited July 2012

    Gedd said:
    chohole said:
    ...Please replace your images with untextured figures, as others have done, the basic grey genesis.

    I'm not sure who you are referring to chohole, but I don't recall any stipulation referring to the character being grey. In fact, the beginning of the post was all textured characters with grey only coming in after someone suggested that using a grey figure would be easier. Nor was there any stipulation that it be a basic genesis figure from any of what I read. Could you please point out where this is in fact in the outlined structure of the competition? The initial post by DAZ_ann0314 Posted: 04 July 2012 12:00 PM, is not a basic grey genesis figure, so I'm confused.

    Hi Gedd

    To answer your question, as part of the competition, the images don't need to be grey. She was referring to those posting nude images of the poses to show the flow of the pose etc as per the TOS there is no nudity (as well as in the contest rules). :) Posting without textures we can allow for the figure to not be clothed so people can show the full flow of the pose for better feedback since grey with no textures makes it more like a mannequin of sorts basically then a fully nude women (if that makes sense) It is because the filters aren't back up in the forums yet.


    Sorry for any confusion, if you have any other questions, please feel free to PM me :)

    Post edited by DAZ_ann0314 on
  • Joe CotterJoe Cotter Posts: 3,258
    edited December 1969

    That makes sense, thank you :)

  • JaderailJaderail Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    HOLY MOLY! Miss one day and everyone gets all pose and help happy. Good going folks.

  • evilproducerevilproducer Posts: 9,031
    edited December 1969

    Here's my final take on my pose. I may do another one. Depends on the time it'll take.

    I did do postwork to mimic the original photograph, which consisted mainly of adjusting the levels and playing around with curves and adding noise, dust, scratches etc.


    I'm not sure if I'll make an official entry as I'm not a new user. Hopefully I've helped a bit.

    Monroe-pose02.jpg
    600 x 800 - 224K
    Marilyn-Monroe.jpg
    400 x 507 - 37K
  • Joe CotterJoe Cotter Posts: 3,258
    edited December 1969

    Jaderail said:
    HOLY MOLY! Miss one day and everyone gets all pose and help happy. Good going folks.

    Life has returned to the desert ;)

  • Joe CotterJoe Cotter Posts: 3,258
    edited July 2012

    Here's my final take on my pose. I may do another one. Depends on the time it'll take.

    I did do postwork to mimic the original photograph, which consisted mainly of adjusting the levels and playing around with curves and adding noise, dust, scratches etc.


    I'm not sure if I'll make an official entry as I'm not a new user. Hopefully I've helped a bit.

    v'n, I think you've captured the essence and energy of the pose well :)

    and I figure one's a new user till they've won 2 contests here ;p

    Post edited by Joe Cotter on
  • evilproducerevilproducer Posts: 9,031
    edited December 1969

    Alrighty then. I'll post it in the thread.

  • Joe CotterJoe Cotter Posts: 3,258
    edited December 1969

    good luck :)

  • Dave SavageDave Savage Posts: 2,418
    edited December 1969

    Don't know if I count as a "New User" but thought I'd join in anyway as it's interesting to have a go at.
    So if the competition organisers want to discount it, that's fine, but I'd still like to engage in the process.

    I've only worked on this for a few hours this afternoon and realise it's not done yet, but I'm happy enough with it to post it for now.
    I have to go out tonight but hopefully I'll get back to it tomorrow.

    Any thoughts would be appreciated. :)

    I started with the picture of Betty Page, which being an illustration itself, I'm not sure that the pose is actually 100% possible.

    Betty-Page.jpg
    720 x 651 - 198K
    betty17.jpg
    301 x 480 - 43K
  • Joe CotterJoe Cotter Posts: 3,258
    edited July 2012

    Don't know if I count as a "New User" but thought I'd join in anyway as it's interesting to have a go at.
    So if the competition organisers want to discount it, that's fine, but I'd still like to engage in the process.

    I've only worked on this for a few hours this afternoon and realise it's not done yet, but I'm happy enough with it to post it for now.
    I have to go out tonight but hopefully I'll get back to it tomorrow.

    Any thoughts would be appreciated. :)

    I started with the picture of Betty Page, which being an illustration itself, I'm not sure that the pose is actually 100% possible.

    The basic pose looks great. The hands are different though. This might seem picky but the hand poses in the original image was somewhat iconic. The eyes are looking into the camera to engage the viewer in the original pose. Mmm, finally... well, the outfit on the original is a sultry sexy as is the pose, whereas the outfit here is more of the whips and naughty type, but this last part comes down to your individual interpretation. It kind of reminds me of the girl off of CSI doing Betty Page, which is it's own creative interpretation ;)

    To get the mouth any closer unfortunately would probably only be doable with a custom morph, so I think you did pretty good with what is available for mouths at the moment. Expressions are one area that could use much in the way of expanding their capabilities (nose wrinkles, smiles, posed eye variations, etc..)

    Post edited by Joe Cotter on
  • Dave SavageDave Savage Posts: 2,418
    edited December 1969

    Thanks Gedd.

    Yes, I just wanted to cover her up to post the pic. Tomorrow I'm thinking of working on a 'second skin' outfit for her as I have nothing that remotely looks like what she's got on in the original. And her bends rule out using ready made long gloves and stockings.

    Will also sort out the fingers tomorrow, just ran out of time for today... Got to go now.

  • Joe CotterJoe Cotter Posts: 3,258
    edited December 1969

    Good luck, and good to see you join in :)

  • ChoholeChohole Posts: 33,604
    edited July 2012

    Yeah, it's great to see people join in and give the New Users encouragement, and why not do it by showing what you can do. It is certainly looking good.

    We never object to NAEs

    Post edited by Chohole on
  • JaderailJaderail Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Tip: TheSavage64 if you just wish to show the POSE the grey Genesis is fine to upload for that purpose.

  • AydenShadeAydenShade Posts: 10
    edited December 1969

    ok last draft, will make a few more changes if someone sees anything needing changing, then submit it

    contest.jpg
    247 x 326 - 28K
    wip6.png
    574 x 585 - 315K
  • frank0314frank0314 Posts: 12,139
    edited December 1969

    Looks good. Just needs for more arch in the back.

  • Scott LivingstonScott Livingston Posts: 4,314
    edited December 1969

    Frank0314 said:
    Looks good. Just needs for more arch in the back.

    Agreed. It's good as is, more arch would make it better.
  • Scott LivingstonScott Livingston Posts: 4,314
    edited July 2012

    My latest...finished working on the pose (I think...and that doesn't include the facial expression), and started putting the scene together. Lantios Lights 2 really makes the whole thing pop. Any and all feedback is appreciated.


    As far as the pose is concerned, it's definitely closer to balanced now, and I've also tried to make it more dynamic-looking, as if he's in the midst of turning around.

    highking3a.png
    618 x 800 - 404K
    Post edited by Scott Livingston on
Sign In or Register to comment.