/3/ - 3DCG

>hardsurf some basic headset
>kitbash the fuck outta it
>drag into substance to do the usual nonsense
>render and composite onto real image of man smoking
>post-process
...your point?
Any decently skilled artist can easily accomplish something like this, anon. And all of this has been in Blender's capabilities for a very long time.

>>642438
Well... Post results then?

>>642438
its based on a 2D concept btw, so it's not 100% kitbash bullshit, meaning there's at least some proper modeling involved

also the dude is CGI as well

>>642446
>implying anyone on /3/ has skill

>>642447
Did you even scroll further down?

>>642447
>its based on a 2D concept btw
And plus, going off concept art makes it even easier. Don't have to think of where things go, how to make things look right, etc., just go off the concept since all of that's already been done for you. Just a matter of reproducing in 3D.

>>642449
Yeah, again, say that only when you can show me something better

>>642450
I'm just saying, if you find that impressive then you've got a long way to go. Visually impressive? Sure, beauty in the eye of the beholder. Technically impressive? Not so.

>>642449
you make it sound easy, but you'd be surprised at the amount of fucktards I have to deal with who can't properly create an asset based on a concept

pajeets are especially bad at this stuff, they got zero sense of proportions or shape interpretation

>>642448
shit, my bad
that beard still looks fake as fuck though

>>642454
>"they can never get eyes right"
>thinks the photo is remder..

you are meme brow..

>>642449
mostly 3d artists do that. 3d artists are not desigheners. but doing it right is the main skill. if you are not abl to do it from concept art, you won't be able to design a shit.,
what you are praching is uneducated bulshit, I really don't get whom are you trying to impress here..

BTW, I myself only do my original works(at least 95% of the time). should I look down on people who make fanarts? or work with someone's concepts?

>>642433
Like it or not, but this shiny kitsch is what impresses the normies, not your autisticly topology with perfect flow that took you weeks to figure out...no, stuff like this.

>>642479
*autisticly crafted

FUCK phoneposting,

>>642479
>only final result matters
>mind blown

>>642482
A lot of artists do not understand this.

>>642482
>>only final result matters

>>642486
>ironically posting Marcel Duchamp's performance
how original of you anon

>>642448
That's a photograph.

>>642438
hey man srry could you elaborate on "do the usual nonsense"?
im trying to pull this off this week

>>642451
Who gives a shit if it's technically impressive or not? If it looks good, it looks good.

>>643518

This. If something looks great then you arbitrarily decide you dont like it because of the way it was made....then you are a jealous mong. You are simply looking for anything to shit on a visually great piece of work because you cant do it yourself.

99% of the time, the people that have this mentality are either very average or straight up dogshit tier.

>>643528
I stand by this 100%
trying to undermine something, with bulshit reasons is pathetic..

I also think pointing out that this is made in Blender is bulshit.. I mean is that more imressive this way, than fi it was made in MAYA(for example)?
as much this image is made in blender, is also made in Photoshop tho..

>>642433
why do people try so hard to make photorealistic renders when the most realistic view they will ever get is looking out their windows?

NPR all the way, niggas.

>>642433
You shouldn't have said "Blender", that instantly makes the no3d's of the board start in with pretending it's shit.

>>643518
I don't agree with that fag's useless assessment, HOWEVER technical proficiency is very important.
Why? Because it is an objective way to talk about something without getting subjective.

>But HOW! Beauty is in the eye of the beholder!
Well first you set some criteria, the criteria usually conforms to some sort of standard set by your studio or by the client or is your own criteria based on some other pragmatic consideration like work within the same genre, even if you disagree with the core criteria the analysis is still objective and the metric can still be applied to other criteria meaning the system of analysis doesn't get thrown out the moment you decide someone's taste is shit.

Examples of stuff you'd objectively evaluate for technical proficiency purposes: Edge flow (for things that deform or animate or have materials whose properties might be influenced by edges, such as glass).
Color theory: Aesthetic is learned, so what looks "good" is subjective but what ISN'T subjective is if you're deliberately adhering to things like complimentary colors because these are relationships on a color wheel (in other words they're essentially ordered pairs)
Lighting: There's a lot of different ways to light a scene but there are still some "standards" such as four point lighting.
Composition: Again, lots of different METHODS or STANDARDS for composing a scene, such as "Does the negative space in the scene direct the viewer's eye to the subject?" or "Is the golden ratio being used?" or any of the other compositing standards.

Whether a render or a mesh utilizes these standards is an OBJECTIVE measurement. Whether those standards are good or not is the subjective part, and the useful analysis is two fold: 1) Did the artist make good use of (let's say) four point lighting, or did they screw something up? 2) If they did it right but the scene still looks off, did they screw up with something else? Or, would the scene look better with different lighting (and why)?

>>642438
>Anon thought it was a photo of a real human bean with the hardsurface layered on in post
Kek, that's pretty high praise Anon. If you take even two additional seconds you'll see the human is also a mesh and a real hero

>>643813
human is not a mesh anon, it;s a photo.
artist just has placeholder in 3d space, then he changed it wirth photo in post.
also if you'll check he's other work, there he also uses same technique.(photo and 3d) it is common practice in graphic design/marketing

I'm not that anon and I also edon't think that this is bad or anything...

>>643538

see the fucking tutorial with blender guru.

>>643812

Major copepost

>>642451
Still... not showing anything

>>642450
>>644011
Shut the fuck up with that stupid fallacy. Nobody needs to show anything to be able to criticize something. What the fuck are you? Twelve?

>>643813
>If you take even two additional seconds
Ironic, since if _you_ took that same two seconds to go to the Artstation post you'd find out it was a photograph and not a mesh.

>>643530
>I also think pointing out that this is made in Blender is bulshit.. I mean is that more imressive this way,

it's worth pointing out if something can be done with free tools for those who don't want to bother with pirating or can't afford the pro stuff

Test

Ok, this guy made some impressive shit with Blender

Neat. I really like Josan Gonzalez's work. Didn't expect to see someone "covering" it in 3D.

>>644269
>It's 35986th rendering a Zbrush sculpt with Blender
It wasn't actually made with Blender if all you use is Cycles

>>644330
Blender sculpts too, you know.

>>644269
Almost threw up.

>>644331
Not that you want to sculpt in blender when there are far better tools to do so.

>>644258
it sounds like OP is trying to prove that blender is capable of modelling... everyone knows that it can... if someone is denying that, they are just trolling you...
but calling OP picture "blenderart" is bullshit, when there are many softwares which can do literally the same...

if you are trying to help beginners, you should explain to them that it is about artist, not software.. if they are shitty artists no software will help them achieve good results... and if they'll know how to do something in one application, especially modelling stuff, they'll be able to do the same in other softwares. I have not touched blender, even once, but I'll be able to model anything in it that I can in other Apps, if I'll watch 30 minute Blender guide..


>>644318
I love this guy's work!! he's works is one of main ispirations of character I'm making now..

>>644269
This is one of the most disgusting thing I have ever seen. Is that a furry fetish or something?

>>644364
also, BTW blender as app is fucking awesome.. it is very, very impressive, that app like this exists at all.. no other medium aside from 3d, has free app like Blender, neither in graphic world nor in music.

whoever is denying that, is either an idiot or trolling...

>>644364
>I'll be able to model anything in it that I can in other Apps, if I'll watch 30 minute Blender guide..
Sorry, no. It's the same as if you became a pro in Mudbox and then go into ZBrush. The UI's so alien you're gonna be fucked for hours. You'll end up doing fine, of course, but at a great initial cost.

>>644387
of course I won't have same efficiency at first. agree on that 100%.
but I'll still do better over someone, who is blender user but is worse as an artist than me. (I'm not boasting that I'm great artist or anything, I'm just bringing this as an example)

>>644387
Zbrush is an evil clusterfuck created as an artificial barrier to entry securing jobs from new competition.

Which is a good reason to learn sculpting with blender, just to avoid having to deal with that shit.

>>644409
Uh, no. ZBrush's interface is quirky, sure, but after a few hours of use it becomes second nature. Even more, you can mold it to your preference, something which is more difficult to do with other sculpting software.

>>644412
the entire workflow of Zbrush is absolutely esoteric.

>>644412
>but after a few hours of use it becomes second nature
let's say a few months..

>>644409
>zbrush is a barrier
>use blender instead
you played yourself m8, there's no real job on the market for blender users

>>644416
top zozzle, agreed

>>644409
>>644416
>>644417
>3d artists avoiding software because of UI(which is in reality good)
>3d artists avid software because of meme...

>>644430
I literally can not believe that you guys are even capable of doing anything productive, beccause of that attitude..
if you are pussying out of software which will give you edge over another, because it has slight curve, just because it has slightly different UI...and couple of things are named differently..
how the fuck did you guys got in 3d? it is the most complicated thing digital art wise(I mean technically)

>I'm gonna go the hard wat, because in Zbrush mesh is called subtool, I can not deal with that!!!

I mean, I'm not saying that you guys suck or anything, I'm just amazed how stubborn you are.

>>644435
I am a 2d artist and I think i killed a couple of weeks trying to sculpt a statue in Zbrush.
The workflow is a fucking brick wall, shit gets broken, mesh gets holes, smooth tool doesn't work on high poly mesh, retopo takes ages, then I do the wrong kind of retopo and it all breaks, then I need to boxmodel an elemrnt and it's done with a fucking brush, subtools inside the tools are fucked and there are some grups inside the tools that weld and unweld, or more like unveld and dont weld back, Z-sphere based skeleton I needed to pose my T-pose sculot got lost along the way oh fuck I could go for ages.


Holy shit that was a nightmare.

>>644440
well, you should have killed 2-3 days learning how software works, then you would not have these problems.. especially if you are 2d artist and are not coming from 3d, to just rage that it is not autodesk based UI (same shit applies to Blender tho, most people bitch that it has no autodesk based UI and because of that "it's UI is shit"(I don't agree)

>>644412

The Zbrush interface is pretty much an IQ test. The people that whine are double digit tier.

>>644469
>>blender's UI is shit
>thank you captain obvious would you like a prize for your acute observational skills
>>zbrush's UI is shit
>try growing a brain you fucking cro-magnon neanderthal

>>644562
Blender interface is actually good in a weird way.
It's unlike anything else but it has it's own consistent logic and becomes intuitive.

Zbrush interface is juct fucking retarded.

>>644469
>The people that whine are double digit tier.

As opposed to what? Triple digit? IQ doesn't go that high, retard.

>>644620
low iq detected

>>644620

>>644606
ZBrush interface is actually good in a weird way.
It's unlike anything else but it has it's own consistent logic and becomes intuitive.

Blender interface is juct fucking retarded.

>>642479
>autisticly topology with perfect flow


recruiters don't give a shit about that either...

>>642479
>topology
All humans faces are topologically equivalent to a sphere. Just turn in pic related.

NOW a donut, that's something different. In my own experience only the best of us can do a donut using the best tool available on the market (which, coincidentally, is free).

>>642449
I'm sure Michelangelo was super frustrated he had to look at people for reference while sculpting.
Same goes for orchestras that play some dead guy's concertos, ballet dancers that put on a play already written or actors that bring to life characters someone else came up with.

Not that I think this blenderguy is Michelangelo, I just think your are retarded.

>>642451
An idiot can work his ass off for a year to make an unappealing landscape and a master can finish an emotional drawing in a couple of lines.

Don't get stuck on the effort, it's a rookie mistake.

>>642433
>anon tries to start another software wars thread
>other anon derails the entire thing with his stupid pedantry
based other anon

>>644440
All that stuff is part of the learning curve. Sounds to me like you made one model, got attached to it and gave up.

The first skill you need to learn when learning 3D is when your model is fucked, which opens up two courses of action:
1. Realize you can't fuck it more and make the best of it. Take any risks with it and practice whatever you want till it either becomes a mess or somewhat decent.
2. Abandon it and start again repeating fewer mistakes. Don't delete your model, it's nostalgic and it helps your confidence to look at your early shit sculpts from time to time.

>>646156
I fear the joke is a little too mathematical for /3/.

Remember than most of /3/ are ``artists'', which means they have only a passing knowledge on the most basics of mathematics. They aren't engineers, or indeed have any well paid, intellectual job valued by society.

>>646193
The "joke" can't be funny if its premises are wrong. We are more similar to a donut than to a sphere (think of the the gastrointestinal tract, how we are basically flesh and other matter around it*). That is why, in fact, Andrew Price decided to use a donut for his beginners' tutorial -- considering that the goal of many newbie 3D artists is to make digital humans, using a donut lays a better foundation than using a sphere.

*You may be asking, but what about what's inside, isn't it also important? I'm not denying this, but most people are interested in modeling, and that is mostly concerned with the external appearance. What's inside is more of a task for the FX department, which, as a career option in 3D, still remains niche.

>>642438
who fucking cares? Work like this is what lanbds people jobs, it's extremely well done, and could easily be used for a promotional artwork or something