Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2025 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
I keep wondering when they will lower the price on that and the bundle it can also be contained in.
It is a good figure and texture, but Reby is quite short. She also caught a crapton of flack from the haters for having her body scanned.
Here you go, a figure with a supermodel body.
Some more supermodel bodies:
Christy Turlington
Naomi Campbell
Cindy Crawford
Does seem odd that the price is currently so high, I agree. Especially given the limitations of V3's joint movements. Got her in 2005, and rediscovered her when I restarted in March. For limited, standing poses with straight-ish limbs, she still holds her own against G8F.
Checkout SC Karen at Renderosity...
S.
One fairly recurring feature you may notice with supermodels: the transitions in the area going from the neck down the shoulders to the arms are generally very defined. Their shoulders are almost perfectly horizontal, and the transitions between these three areas are almost angular. Compare this area with, for example, an athlete, then you'll quickly notice the more developed muscle behind the collarbone (I believe it's the Trapezius), which (optically) shortens the neck and softens the contours.
I doubt they actually have strabismus, having had a cousin that actually has it & seen the behavior of his eyes 1st hand. What people are noticing is normal asymmetry and normal eye dominance. Those are present in everyone but, well, much to the relieve of the general public (and myself really), I don't get the gawking and dropped jaws Heidi Klum, Claudia Schiffer, and those types get, such that every nuance of their asymmetry is noticed and remarked upon in public.
This seems about right. I would add: enhance her cheek bones, lengthen her neck, and set her eyes slightly wider apart to make her look just a little alien.
I work in the fashion industry. I have little to do with models, but I do have a little bit of knowledge on the subject, for what it's worth.
(I only skimmed the thread, I hope I don't make too many points that have already been made...)
- It's worth mentioning that runway models have a different build than underwear/swimsuit models. The latter tend to have curves, the former tend to have a spindly build.
- You seem to differenciate between "supermodels" and "no-name models". Some models certainly are much more fameous than others, but the difference has little to do with their build. Just like a famous popstar isn't necessarily a better vocalist than a struggling singer. A lot of different things factor into fame: talent, luck, nepotism, "that certain something", etc. All fashion models, "super" or otherwise, have similar builds. When preparing for the runway the fashion houses make their entire collection in only one size and all runway models need to be able to wear that.
- Someone mentioned Marilyn Monroe. She did work as a model but that was more than half a century ago. Her build is nothing like what a fashion model in 2019 would look like.
Don't you get double vision if the eyes are statically asymmetric?
Worth getting just for those related morphs.
Not sure where they're from, but there are also some spine enhancing ones too; they basically show the spinal column bones poking out.
Not usually. It's a neurological abnormality rather than a physical one. Some people have surgery to look more "normal", but most of the time, their brains turn the eyes back to their original orientation.
i'll add fwsa river (g3f) to the suggested figures list.
j
What a great observation. Yes, I see that; clearly defined "vertically oriented" neck lines, with de-emphasized trapezius muscles and/or de-emphasized anterior neck tendons. Combined with level, equidistant shoulders, and horizontally-oriented shoulder lines. Very observant.
Yes, there is "normal asymmetry" and then there is strabismus.
I will add to this that in every industry, in every line of work, and at every skill or experience level, there are people who are not in the proper role. Some should be working at a higher level. Many are in a higher level than their skills deserve. So in addition to "talant, luck, nepotism", there is also "who you know", and it does not take that many people in positions of power or authority to change the culture. If the power brokers at just 3 or 4 fashion houses decided to fire all thin-n-talls and hire only 4 foot 150 pounders, it would take less than a generation for all of the other fashion houses to do the same thing.
How do you think they got today's "reality TV" to include people voting each other off an island, trying to prove themselves at ballroom dancing or mining for gold or marrying complete strangers on first sight, or to convince people to live in a big fake house with roommates having nothing in common and cameras in every room?
All it took was a few people to fund a couple of endeavors, and then a few more the next year, and the next year and the year after that. Before I knew it, "Bridezilla" was not just a cultural term, it was a thing you could tune into and pay for in your cable bill.
This is absolutely true.
So I have some experience in this area. I have a strabismus, which is a mis-aiming of the eye due to muscle or tendon vagaries. As far as I know, my skull is mostly symmetrical and my eyes are on the same horizontal plane and are equidistant from my nose. I have a slight astigmatism, but not in the eye that strays.
For the aiming thing, I did have corrective surgery for it over 45 years ago. Before that, my left eye was almost permanently aimed maybe 15-20 degrees to the right. I don't remember having vision problems when I was a kid. I had no trouble riding a bike and I don't remember ever having difficulty catching, throwing, or avoiding getting hit in the head with a ball, frisbee, or squirt-guns. Today, my left eye (the one I had surgery on) mostly tracks with my right eye except for when I am tired. That's when I can feel my left eye drifting to the right and then I do see double until my brain compensates.
I think the compensation is mostly that the brain defines the "correct view" as the image that mostly lines up with where the face is pointing, and learns to ignore the "incorrect" view. Now, if there were vision problems with my right eye (or maybe an injury, etc), then maybe my brain would have ignored that one in favor of the off-alignment eye. That would have been bad, I'm certain of it.
I'm convinced that the brain figures out how to separate and ignore certain things, and here are a few examples:
I wear bifocal glasses now. I also wear contacts. One is distance, the other is close-up. For extended reading or fine detail work of any length, I still wear readers or even a pair of magnefiers. But for most things, my brain figures out how I need to see and I don't need to make a conscious decision which eye to use.
Shooting a gun properly: This one is very interesting. If I'm shooting without the aid of a laser (that is to say, using the sights, not just "point-shooting"), then I need to be able to see my front sight. Anybody shooting without seeing their front sight probably can't hit the broad side of a barn, and that's no joke. As you might guess, the front sight, being on the end of the barrel, is seeable by one eye or the other depending on the length of the barrel and the length of my outstretched arm. So if I'm shooting a handgun with a 2 to 4 inch barrel, I'll use my close-up eye. Yes, this is the correct way to shoot a handgun.
If I'm shooting a very long-barrelled handgun, a carbine, or a rifle, then the sight will be farther away and I'll automatically use my distance eye. If I'm using my laser, then I'll use my distance eye, and of course I have a better aim with my laser, especially the big bright green one that can be seen plainly at night or during full daylight. With a handgun, I shoot equally well with both hands (because I train that way). No matter how I shoot, the brain automatically compensates, even considering that I have one eye that sometimes moves to the right and I'm wearing two different contact lenses!
The brain really does figure things out pretty well. If I'm looking at a scene IRL, let's say a fountain in full sunlight, my brain does not get confused by all the reflection and refraction going on in the scene. But there's no doubt that there is a LOT of reflection and refraction going on, which might very well be visible and even distracting if I took a picture of the scene and showed to to somebody who has never seen that scene in real life. Their brain now has to translate all these things from a picture with very little of the context that was available to my brain when I was standing in front of the fountain with my camera.
As for the eye-aming thing, I really only get into trouble when I overthink things and ignore that silent part of my brain that already knows how to do those things. Or if I get a weeper in the eye that my brain really needs at that moment in time.
This might be worth a look https://www.daz3d.com/topmodel-bundle-for-genesis-3-female-s