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
Welcome muse.
You have made excellent progress with a very difficult pose.
As for render settings you could try adamr001's Render Profiles for DAZ Studio. They are free and there is an information thread on them here.
I use them on every render.
Finally here is my first approach to the topic. I guess the flu doen't make one very creative :down: . For the fun of it the girl and the guy shoud be together. Could I make a double image of them the way I posted the originals?
Well I found that posing is much more complex than I anticipated as the angle of the camera has a huge impact on the things you actually see. I'm not shure what to do about their hands on the bike. Now they are as close as I could get them to the original, which doesn't make to much sense as the motorbike is somewhat different.
And I simply don't get the light in the render right.
As well I still have to find out how to fit those shoes. I got a set that would be pretty good for the scene, butI will probably have to hand fit them.
You all already have made very nice posing renders, don't have much energy left for commenting right now, but good work.
Linwelly, the bike you are using has a greatly differing front angle and so your models hand positions have to adjust and not match the reference exactly, just as you stated. On your modeled bike, it would be helpful, imo, to go into materials and repaint the white on the front red to match the rest of the bike.. being red it would show your figures resting their hands on it better than the white does.
The hands aren't that far off, but the hard line between red/white makes it appear that they are.
Welcome Muse! Now that muse has arrived, we will all find our inspiration. :-P So glad you decided to wade into the fray. You have made a great start on a challenging pose.
To add to what Teofa said, to make it so the limbs will exceed the posing boundaries Daz has placed on them, in the posing pane select the limb, and in the upper right hand corner will be several little buttons, a heart, a lock, and a gear. Clicking on the gear will bring up the box she mentions. "Use Limits" will be checked... uncheck it. Also, I find it helpful to uncheck "use percents" as well. This allow you to use the actual numbers of the setting and will allow you to match one limb to another, or one characters pose to another. Instead of dealing with my ability to control a mouse for tiny adjustments, I type in the number, sometimes changing by tenths or hundreths of the setting for things like fingers.
For someone who claims no idea on the lighting, you are doing a good job! To figure out the direction of the light source, I pick an area with a strong sense of light direction, such as her lifted leg. I draw an arrow with its base at the bright area, through to the dark area, and then down to the shadow. Light that is correct will create the light side and the dark side, and cast the shadow correctly. There is often more than one light in a scene.. in this case it does not make sense that both the top side of the upper arm of her raised arm would be lit by the same light as is hitting the underside of the same forearm, so there must be a second light going upwards that would not cast a shadow on the ground. Sneaky photographer ;-) Also, you can "drive" the lights into the right position by looking at your scene through the camera that is parented to them as you position them. Most people usually have 2 cameras in their working UI, one as the render camera and the other free to do the "work" on the scene. Control L is a lighting preview in the render port.
Are you using an uber environment light in your scene? If you aren't, it will help. I usually start with one distant light set to 40% and an uber environment. The uber will give you fill light, but will also cause render spoltchiness in dim light if the settings for the uberlight are not high enough. (This is in the light settings for the uber light, not the render settings but the 2 work together). I do not use ALL the settings of the default high setting of uber light or I would be rendering all day. The most important settings from the uber lighting that affect render quality are Occlusion samples (how many samples it takes in the shadow areas). I set this to at least 16, and if there is splotchiness, double that to 32, and then 64 if need be. The other is x and y and I set that to 8. Another important setting is the raytrace distance. A larger number usually means the light will get more bounces, meaning more opportunities to light the surface well. Each block in your port window is a meter. 400=400 cm, which means 4 meters, or 4 of those blocks. Ideally, the light should leave the source and hit a ceiling, a wall, or the inside of an HDRI ball, and bounce back into the scene. Use the minumum number necessary- and probably leave at the default unless you 1. notice a problem or 2. are using a highly reflective surface. The more lights in your scene, the less noticable the uber's "mood" effects.
Getting a good render is also a matter of turning the lights in your scene to raytrace instead of deep environment map, which will increase render time but will give better results. (This is a balance. If you have 12 lights in your scene and 3delight needs to make 12 maps each time it renders, raytrace sometimes ends up being just as fast as deep shadow maps.) Keeping shadows off if you arent working with lights,or the lights set to ambient only to speed things up
As far as render settings go, using the settings from barefoot dancer is a great start. The one setting that will make the most difference in getting quality details in the skin is shading rate. For test renders with the spot render tool, I leave the shading rate at 2 or 1. For final renders, depending on how complex my scene is, I am able to go as low as .3,but when there are a lot of render intense items, sometimes I have had to settle for .5. Some people are able to do .1. Render intense itemes are anything transparent or reflective like hair, glass or water, anything using a displacement map, and volumetric lighting, among others. Hiding anything you cant see in the render will decrease render times. See fiona's new series, "Characters Without Pants.."
Rendering skin well is one of the biggest challenges of Daz. Some suggestions... if you are using a shader such as AoA subsurface, with subsurface scattering, and thus red green and blue absorb/reflect settings... write down the default settings so you have them, and then change the blue and green setting to whatever the red is set at for both settings. This will give your skin a neutral color tone to set the lights by. Second, when setting up lights, in the beginning stages of creating a scene, stick to white lights. Colored lights can wash out skin details. Set the lights to as low intensity as you can get away with to give a highlight and work up. Skin details are easily washed out by over-bright lights. And lastly, in the diffuse and ambient maps areas, leave the color of the map either white or a light grey (red/blue/green values the same). Coloring the diffuse and ambient maps will also wash out details.
These things arent about the pose but I hope they help
Welcome back Linwelly, I was missing you and wondering where you were. I am sorry to hear you have been sick, and glad to hear you are on the mend. No worries about not giving feedback yet, just glad to have ya back!
You are absolutely dead on about the camera angle playing a huge part. I am fortunate that my reference is a sillouhette. I set my camera to be 100% straight to front, made planes with the image on it for references in the scene, and then angled the planes and my characters to the camera, keeping that camera locked at all costs! Moving the plane forward/ backward from the camera to cut through the center axis of the part of the body I was working on was key. In my case I found distance of the 2 characters from the camera was playing a huge role... be glad that your two characters are in different windows. I was also fortunate to find a gif animation someone had made of them dancing- when I saved it and opened in photoshop, come to find out it was 10 different still shots of them in the same pose, from different angles. I made planes for left, back, and right as well as front. (Some of the angles werent perfect 90 degrees so I had to adjust)
As was kindly mentioned to me... this is not a challenge to make the body frames identical, but to make the poses identical. I understand that... but for me it really helped to look at their proportions; things like the length of the limbs, neck, shoulder width, head propegating scale, hand size, and make sure they were the same as the picture. It is impossible to get an arm to bend the same way as it spans the distance between the shoulder socket and the bike if it is not the same proportions to begin with.
Right now I am seeing:
Her, your characters neck, longer. shoulder, slightly wider(? see below it may be the twist), upper and lower arm, longer. Upper and lower leg, longer
Him, your characters neck much longer and thinner, shoulders much wider, chest much broader and deeper, upper leg much longer, lower leg slightly longer.
Changing those will help with getting things to bend correctly for the hand to meet the bike and to meet the shoes. I would say, keep the hip, pelvis, chest, abdomen, collar, shoulder and forearm bends/up down and twist the same as you can to the reference and then adjust the bend/twist/side-side of the hand if the shape of the bike wont let you match them up. Also, there are many, many free bikes available out there, if you want me to look for one that is shaped better in the front I will, unless you have already searched and this is the best available OR you happen to like this one better. I figure being sick, poring through the internet for freebies might not be your cup of tea at the moment. ;-) I can't believe you are up for tweaking poses!
The biggest thing that is impacting the pose, I feel, is that while your characters hips are mostly correct and silouhetted to the camera, (they may need to be twisted a little based on where the leg is coming down from the hip, she needs to be twisted more away from us based on that, and him towards us, slightly), but the bigger issue is that shoulders are turned too much towards us. To see the difference, draw a line from the ball of the right shoulder through the ball of the left shoulder. Also, the head on your male character is tilted back too much and twisted towards us.. on the reference we cant see the underside of the chin like we can in yours. When looking at the twist and bend of the arm, think about how much of the inside of the elbow we can see and the angle of the crease. On the male reference, we see the inside of the elbow and the crease is at a more vertical angle meaning the elbow is pointed away from him/us. (This is actually controlled by the twist of the shoulder dial... just the same as the way sometimes the hand angle is controled by the forearm twist). You have the elbow twisted in closer to his body. Same thing for his foot... we are seeing slightly too much of the bottom of his foot
I dont know what 2-d programs you have available to you, from the last contest you must have a good working knowledge, it seems. I found making a transparency overlay of my reference and placing it over each successive render attempt to be a very useful tool to see differences. I didnt have a hip bone or I would have started there... so I started with the shoulders. I made renders til the shoulders lined up as close as I could to the overlay. I then moved on to the neck, chin, and on up through little things like the eye height, nose length, etc. As was stated, those dont have to be the same as the picture for the contest, but for me, whether the noses lined up told me a lot about whether the pose was right.
I know I made it seem like there are a lot of differences... but even when I said it was "much" this or that, in reality they are just tweaks and you are well on your way towards the perfect pose. They are cool poses and I look forward to seeing where you take it. And feel better! :-
Hey all, I'm back again.
After thinking long and hard about my frustrations with my Sound of Music render, and the kind advice given to me that the pose needed to be the same but not the figures, I thought about what I *liked* about the pose. I like it because it is dramatic, and because of the romance, not necessarily because it is those two figures in that movie. But I felt really stuck. I do pictures of kids, warm and fuzzy. I do goofy "har har" bad comedy. I do realism. But romance is not something I have ever looked at creating. I am not the type of person who reads cheesy romance novels, I am the type of person who makes fun of Twilight. So... why did I like the romance in this pose? I think it is the chivalry of the whole thing, for one. And the historical aspect. And then I thought about... what do I really WANT to make, what do I really want to work on? The answer to that is ever since Linwelly's cylinder last month, I have been itching to do something with characters in a glass container.
And that's how I came to the idea of a snow globe. I originally wanted to make them ice sculptures inside the snow globe, but with the chrome shader on them, the high reflective surfaces were already looking hard to read, I didn't want to make it worse by adding transparency to the list of optical distortions. I liked the chrome, it seemed modern and edgy, while still being romantic, as if they were sculptures or a wedding cake topper, but the contrast and lack of colors made it seem washed out to me. Making the glass of the globe less transparent also made it ever more washed out. Then I thought about the 40s, and how they first color photographs were "colorized", so I thought about colorizing the chromes. And then... keeping to the 40's theme, it was very common in that time period to add stars to a blue background. And that's how we got where we are now. (I also broke off my relationship with Toulouse hair.. after dating a few other hairs, I am now going steady with Nordic. :-P)
The highlight of the couple in the background: The couple is, as mentioned, inside a "snow globe". Also inside the snow globe is a dark blue colored "alaska" image on a cyclorama plane with a mirror shader as well applied to the plane . The stars are on the diffuse of the rounded snow globe surface, with an opacity map so you can still see through the glass. The inside reflective surface of the glass is capturing the image of the couple and sending that light backwards, away from the camera, towards the mirror, the mirror captures it and reflects it back again towards the camera, hence the fact that the couple in the reflection are reversed.. if we were seeing a straight reflection in the mirror, it would not be reversed. Again, TY Linwelly for the inspiration to work with glass and you and Dollygirl for your help with handling glass surfaces!
I included a mass of photos. The reference, what it looks like with "normal" shaders, what it looks like with the plain chrome shader inside a plain glass dome before I made my own "colorized" chrome maps for the figure surfaces and star image map, and my rendered image. I would appreciate whatever feedback folks are willing to give me, be it about the pose or anything else to do with the image. This is not the only "idea" and I am not even sure it is a good one. In some ways it reminds me of that cheesy school photo style that was popular in the 80s with a superimposed semi-trasnparent silouhette behind the kids head. (Once again, dating myself) The stars could be cheesy. The chrome could be cheesy. The colorizing could be cheesy....I dont usually do romance, I am much too much of an old cynic and the whole genre seems it might be kinda cheese to me, so tell me if the image is cheesy and bad, please!! I have no reference.
The idea of making the dancers ice statues in a snow globe is pretty cool (no pun intended). There's a few details though: if you want them to be ice statues, the material should have a slight transparency, and it would need subsurface scattering. For the former, you could try to drop Opacity a few points, for the latter, you could try AOA's SSS shader which comes with Daz Studio. In my experience, it's quite user friendly.
The second thing is the details. With strong reflectivity, there's the danger of blurring out the details. In the last render in your post - the one with a background - I find it a tad difficult to get, at a glance, what's going on. Possibly the solution is as easy as darkening the background a bit. Not sure.
In ny case, it's a great idea!
yeah, I quit before I really tried on the ice concept.. maybe I *should* work on it if its "cool". And I like puns!
The backdrop in the original is a bit darker than yours, which puts some more emphasis on the characters. The original also has some overexposure on the characters. I'm not sure how to do that within Daz studio (in postwork, it would be a matter of increasing Contrast I guess).
With the hands, I think you have little choice but to adapt the hand to the bike you're using. You could try to use the Yamaki Rapture instead if you have it, the front part of the Yamaki could be more similar to the bike in your reference; but I'm not certain whether this little detail is that crucial.
As an aside: your reference is great. :)
As a non-native speaker, I mostly make puns by accident :)
As a non-native speaker, I mostly make puns by accident :)
Well, apparently you are becoming good enough at English that you know that "cool" is colloquial for "good" and you now know at least that pun when you see it. Aside from visiting your deviant art gallery and your comment just now, I would never know you aren't a native speaker. But here in America, it is sad but true that many European educated non-native English speakers use the language more correctly than your average American educated person on the streets.
The backdrop in the original is a bit darker than yours, which puts some more emphasis on the characters. The original also has some overexposure on the characters. I'm not sure how to do that within Daz studio (in postwork, it would be a matter of increasing Contrast I guess).
With the hands, I think you have little choice but to adapt the hand to the bike you're using. You could try to use the Yamaki Rapture instead if you have it, the front part of the Yamaki could be more similar to the bike in your reference; but I'm not certain whether this little detail is that crucial.
As an aside: your reference is great. :)
I think you get contrast by adjusting gamma and gain with the cameras? And also maybe by adjusting the contrast setting on the uber env? Not sure.
THANK YOU for posting that, I bookmarked it. I was going to go look for that very reference to offer because I had lost my link to it, and you posted it first. Rock on.
Looking good! I see just a few subtle differences, mainly in the lower arms, hands, and face. Not sure about the right leg, given the angle of the foot and the angle formed inside the knee joint, I think the thigh might need to be rotated towards the front. The rest of the body seems pretty close to spot on, from what I can see.
Your pose looks very natural, and I like the perspective you've chosen rather than copying the one in the painting (I'll have to ask the other judges about this, but if you enter the contest, you might want to include a render from the same angle along side your actual entry, for comparison purposes). If the intent is that she's gazing back at another person, make sure her eyes are looking in an appropriate direction for that..right now, it looks like her gaze is directed towards the ground.
Only differences I'm noticing in the pose: the angle of her left ankle, right toes, fingers of her right hand, and some slight differences in the arms (look at the negative space between the arms and the torso). Still, this is an excellent job matching a beautiful but tricky-looking pose.
@fionathegood SCA looks very interesting, never heard for them before. But I aminterested in history and RPGs :) playing Ad&d for 20 years now. My renders are for now mostly fantasy driven but I am hoping that some day it might be something more. I live in Montengro and I am very religious person, been reading a lot bible and so on. Gustave Dore would be probably my choice for something religiously inspired. Boris Vallejo is just not my cup of tea, although he works are fantasy i somehow don't like it that much (maybe a bit too realistic for me). I like Frazeta, and like that Tofas picture :). My favorite fantasy artist is Keith Parkinson and few others, notably Larry Elmore.
My picture is something like angel (I probably will name it Angelic), but it might be also a winged elf or just a winged person. For now it is not that important I think, as I am still just practing and good thing is that I have managed to do shadow relatively ok. I think I got pose too, and I think I have learned most things needed about it though i still have to read those PDF tutorials. This just an image that I am trying to put up and make a nice character that I will probably try using later. Male version would be also good.
Picture for reference is this and I am mostly using it because of Barbara Blank :) because it reminds me of her https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTF3QWpI_1w
Ok here is the picture, I probably can do some more work on it
@ fiona
I like where you are going with this. I agree with Tobias that the idea of figures in a snow globe is "cool" (pun intended ;-) )
I like the colourization you did to the chrome but the background is a little strong and therefore distracting. I tend to agree with Tobias (again) that perhaps darkening the background will help. It may not take much.
As for the render settings...I really need to bookmark that thread myself. Whenever I want to mention it I have to go and track down the thread. :roll:
Looking good! I see just a few subtle differences, mainly in the lower arms, hands, and face. Not sure about the right leg, given the angle of the foot and the angle formed inside the knee joint, I think the thigh might need to be rotated towards the front. The rest of the body seems pretty close to spot on, from what I can see.
I find I get to the point where I am not seeing the forest for the trees which is why the perspective of other people is so helpful. That and leaving it for a few days or a week and them come back with, hopefully, fresh eyes.
And when posing a figure and all else fails, there is nothing like striking the pose yourself. Just ignore the funny looks you get from your family members and/or pets.
:) Gulan. Kieth Parkinson defined the art of Everquest, for me.
Gulan7, the idea of the winged ones is one that fascinates me as well, but I shy from that for now, so you rock.
Some things come to my mind, for one, while the original art is very cool, there ist a bug in the foreshortening of the left wing in it. So don't be irritated by that.
I guess that the person in the original has some kind of attac stance, left leg a step forward and the knees are somewhat bent. In your version the person is turned forward in the hip but the stance is static for now. But that's really the only thing that I see.
Ok I'm not repeating the pun, but yes the chomatising is an interesting twist on the scene. I have to agree to the others though that it makes the posing hard to read. So great direction for the render but maybe you can reduce the shinyness of the chomejust a but. Artistically I would absolutely go the step to the icy couple. What I think is that the idea of the snow globe is not getting clear from the detail of your render, maybe you could show the snow globe in your overimposed full view of the coulple.
Oh come now, every pun bears repeating. Spoilsport :-P
Thanks to you, and everyone else who gave me feedback. This version of the stars background was the less starry version, so I will tone it down even further. (Back to photoshop and the tileable image generating... blech... boring, tedious, no fun! Why is it that the nice stock image I found couldn't just WORK? It worked fine before the reflection, but adding the reflection somehow quadrupled the number of stars.) And for some reason, even though the image is tileable, the default UVsfor the dome are giving me 2 seams that I need to keep out of the image, as well as manage where the stars fall... I cant see either the seams or the reflected stars in the viewport... so its test render, adjust, test render, adjust. And I had darkened the background once, but it seemed to go too far, so I made it a more intense blue like you see and less of a navy color. I guess I will aim for darker while keeping the saturation. And as far as making the chrome less shiny... yes. I had already done that with Georg's hair, and doing so perhaps just for the clothing will make the image easier on the eyes while not losing the overall metallic feel? I am afraid of it turning cartoony without the shine. I must say am pretty proud of figuring out that chrome skin shader, it has blue and green in it besides just the skin color, just like how I would paint skin! Its not perfect but not bad for a noob. I love looking at how other people made their shaders and figuring out what they did to make it work. It makes things like...making tilable textures.. worthwhile.
Since everyone seems to like the snow globe idea, what I might do instead of stars is try to get the effect of that glittery snow that is falling around inside a snow globe that has been shaken. The background image is not superimposed afterwards, but is rendered, so controlling how much globe wall reflection appears in the image is going to be a tough call. I tried moving the mirror and it distorted the reflected image, so I got scared of messing it up. What I like about having the reflection is that it shows the full pose, and potentially the globe too if I can get the settings adjusted, while still allowing the benefits of the up close image. I will work on making it more readable as a snowglobe, but I dont want to pull the camera back so far that you can see the whole thing. A... challenge. So I guess I will go the two versions route again...one the chrome, and take one towards looking more like ice and snow, and see what works best.
As far as the contest goes.... if we make changes to the final render that make the art better but the pose less readable, such as changing the angle, or in my case adding shader effects and or placing the pose inside an object...would it be okay to submit the "intermediary" image that shows the pose for side by side comparison? And...fwiw,since I posted my first side by side, I had to pull the figures apart some. Maria has too much cleavage for Georg's jacket. Not in real life, of course. Julie Andrew is definitely an A. But as flat chested as I could make her in CGI-land....she was still tooo busty :-P It didn't matter if there was some major poke through when it was just a closeup, but now... well. Such is life.
I have another, completely non related idea for this pose that I may work on as well. We'll see how much time and interest I have in the project. ;-)
I am also working on a different pose, something I would be more likely to use in future renders and so want to have regardless of the contest. (An aspect of posing that I should have thought of, in the first place). It is giving me an opportunity to step back from looking at this, which I need.
@Linwelly Thanks, mostly the good word about my work can make me try to do it better. Here is with improved lightning, and with figure resized.
I know this is completely OT, but my knowledge of fantasy artists is shamefully lax, but I liked the references you showed! I am not into chicks in non realistic armor, as a rule, though. Being a female fighter, it is a pet peeve. You have NO idea how many guys come into the medieval group and push their girlfriend into wearing medieval armor only to be sadly disappointed that women have to wear a single piece chest protector, and that those "cups" you see in renders are actualy dangerous for a real woman's breasts. (Not to mention the lack of armor most artists put everywhere else! Thank you for not takng the skimp armor route!) And some will continue to push their gf's to fight even though the woman doesnt enjoy it because they think girls in armor are hot. It's sad. And on the other side of the spectrum, you would not believe how many butch lesbians will force themselves to fight out of some odd girl version of "machismo", even though they don't enjoy it at all and may actually grow to hate fighting. But they force themselves to do so to fit some image they have in their mind of how they are supposed to be. And there are guys who are the same way... "I am not a real man in this group unless I fight." The war between the image of what they are supposed to be and what they really enjoy creates an internal war in their brains, that leaks out into the world as this awful bitterness, resentment, and anger. Its silly, really, to force oneself to live up to some societal understanding of gender/sexual roles, even when doing so is making you miserable week in and week out! Ok. getting off a completely OT soapbox now ;-) But as far as fantasy artists goes, I know this guy named Randy Asplund who supposedly made some Magic the Gathering cards. His art is in the anniversary book they are publishing. And my personal favorite fantasy artist is a friend of mine- not sure what artist name she uses, but her SCA name is Portia, and she rocks.
As for your figure... the pose looks good. Are you intending the cartoony effect? I am not sure what is creating that. It is reading a little flat and not round, 3 dimensional. Also. The figure in proportion the roadway is still way too small. Instead of making her bigger, is it possible to make your background smaller? Scale down the whole cyclorama pane, if thats what you are using... Each of those lines in the road is for a tire. Imagine how big a car would have to be to make tire tracks that big, and then how small your figure in in comparison. It still looks like she must be a shorter person of some sort.... not the overpowering muscular person the rest of it says she is.
Coming along nicely!
edit: I am not sure it is the proportions of the figure that are the problem, or that your background image is being distorted. The trees are too short and the road is too wide. The background is also what is making it look flat. Are you using a cyclorama plane and one of Hobobobs images? They are big enough to read very nicely and scaled correctly to fit the plane. Here is a link to one. He has many great ones to choose from, just search for "cyclorama" http://www.sharecg.com/v/79998/browse/11/Poser/Autumn-Forest-03-Cyclorama-texture
/shrug. Some people don't like to see "unrealistic" armor. I don't like to see lurid religious themes. Everyone has their own take.
I should perhaps qualify my post about chicks in unrealistic armor. Its not that I dislike them so much as when experience gets in the way of being able to enjoy the image to its full potential. Unable to suspend disbelief that the unreal is real. And I guess we all have our "things". I am not the "period police" as we call folks who point out the flaws in other people's attempts to recreate something. From an artistic standpoint, a well done image is well done, whether it has chicks in skimp armor or not. I prefer a genre that is not my fav if it is done well over something theoretically to my tastes but executed carelessly- or worse- executed the same way as the last 1000 images the artist created. Creativity is a big thing, for me, particularly in pushing oneself to solve problems in innovative ways. Thats why we are here and why only 2 contests in and I love this place. :-) Lots of creative people.
Teofa you'r the first person in ages that gets me to look up words I don't know in english. It's funny.
As for fantasy art, I don't know a lot either, and I'm not the biggest fan of unrealistic armour, but more importantly the oversize and neglect of gravity pull of certain body parts is what drives me of. Currently I do like some well drawn webcomic very much.
back to Topic
@ gulan7: I like that you gave her armour and wings an lighter colour. The focus more on you figure is a good step as well. As fiona mentioned the skin colour looks somewhat washed out to me. And I still would take a look at her stance, she seems to static to me.
@fiona: went to look for a different bike and what can I say, theres a very similar model available. I have to admit that I didn't even try to compare, I just took the fist bike that came to my hands. I'm a lazy person. Now I "only " have to go an make the changes on their poses.
I am a bit hesitant about changing the body attributes, as I fear that it could lead to the wrong conclusions. If you have, as you mentioned that you did , other images of the same personage from idfferent angle, adapting body attributes works well. With only one angle to look things like foreshortening could lead to the impression of shorter limbs. So I will try to get as close to the original whit the sizes that are given, and then maybe adapt them in the end. Well as soon as that other render is done an my working computer is free again.
Edit: well I do have an artist that inspires me, but that's a completely different style: Stephanie Pui-Mun Law
Hi all, here is one of my ideas. I am also a Frazetta art lover. I have maybe three or four ideas I am trying to work on to see what works out best.things I am still tweaking the pose and positioning of objects, lights. This and the others are a WIP. This is another Daz3D studio and Bryce combo.
That looks interesting. Look forward to seeing how you get on with it. :coolsmile:
Hello again.
Many thanks to Teofa, Kismet2012 and fionathegood for your wonderful help and pointers.
I have had a busy few days, but will have the head space and time to put your suggestions into practice tomorrow and hope to post further improvements for your consideration and assistance.
Teofa - I knew there must have been a way to override the pose settings! I have clicked on everything except the gear... figures.
Kismet2012 - thanks for the link to the render settings. I really rely on other's knowledge in this area.
Fionathegood - quite a bit of what you wrote has gone over my head on first reading, but I am sure it will all make sense when I have the program open in front of me. I understand what you mean about rendering skin - I hate the plastic look that a lot of renders can get. I believe the light set I am using does indeed have an uber environment - but those things confuse the heck outta me and I often end up with renders that look pale and washed out!
I appreciate and value your feedback and look forward what you have to say about my next attempt at this. I must say, it is rather fun!
PS - Foinathegood - I really like your sound of music people. They remind me of ice sculptures. Or the little figures that stand on a music box and twirl around...