/3/ - 3DCG

pic rel isnt retro

>>959300
Lot of wannabe retro artists think the software makes the art for you and that the retro-look comes from the tool used.
In reality making retro-styled graphics with contemporary tools is the way anyone in the know would make such graphics if they where so inclined.

It's not the retro-graphics that are controversial it is a certain kind of retro-arist.
Much the same way Anime isn't controversial but a weeb is.

>>959304
They also think somehow that it would be easier.

>>959304
Pyw. The people that say that couldn't prove otherwise.

>>959300
because of the "forced soul" phenomenon among zoomers.
you will never be soul, zoomer.

>>959304
The vast majority of them open up an early version of 3ds max for 5 minutes, shit out some le vaporwave primitives, then never touch it again

>>959304
>Lot of wannabe retro artists
can you give any specific examples? i've actually been looking for artists who use older software but can't find any examples

>>959449
They don't last because >>959440. They arrive at the idea of making retro graphics because they think contemporary graphics have become too high barrier to entry that they deem it's beyond them. So they get this idea in their head that graphics was a lot easier back in the day and try to replicate the legacy look, but find this too complicated.
So they get the idea that they should use more primitive tools to make this retro graphics easier just like those cavemen artists of the early 90's.

So they install the legacy software and discover that it's even harder in those legacy suits that lacks a lot of the polish, functionality and performance we have in today's more mature tools that seen another decade or two of development benefits. This kills the retro wannabe and you therefore never find them: because there are none.

>>959479
Do you actually think the only reason people do retro graphics because they think modern graphics are too hard?

>>959480
No, I do not believe it is 'the only reason', but I do believe it to be the main reason.

Contemporary graphics capabilities puts very few constraints on what we can create whether we pursue near photrorealistic PBR or stylized NPR.
Anyone with an artistic vision that then limits themselves to reproduce the look of yesteryear tech do so mainly because this provides subterfuge for
not pushing their visuals and appeal to 'it's supposed to look a bit shitty' under the guise of it being 'true to being retro'.

Few to none who posses unlimited art skills in terms of what style they can opt to engage with would ever intentionally replicate
the compromised looks that only where developed because of the technical limitations as to what sort of imagery could be rendered.

>>959449
the most common one i see is bryce but i dont know if that counts as "retro"

There's nothing innately wrong with retro 3D as a style, it's just right now it's a bit of a fad among novices.
I think anyone worth their salt who is interested in this style should interrogate
>why they find the style appealing
>what do good examples of the style evoke emotionally
>what EXACTLY makes something look retro and what EXACTLY makes something look contemporary. it's not good enough to say "the renderer is different".
The idea of using the old tools is to me very juvenile. Ideas about authenticity and "sovl" are very appealing to teenagers, as they want to be taken seriously and be grown ups. The artists of the past who used these tools were trying to make cutting edge modern graphics, so the intentionality of the retro artist will always been inauthentic.

There's nothing wrong with any of this, at this point I'll support any kind of artist when the alternative is proompting, but it is a little annoying. I just hope these young artists stick to some kind of art when the fad grows stale.

>>959449
>use older software
>implying zoomers even bother

>>959515
>is there abandonware that still gets maintained and updated

>>959514
Personally I just prefer the feel and look of older software and hardware. I will admit that I am a novice, but it's a lot easier to achieve a retro look right out of the box than trying to figure out how to configure a million different settings and shaders.

>>959517
>I just prefer the feel and look
Use your words anon, try to think about this more deeply.

>>959518
As far as the layout, interface, GUI, intuitiveness, and overall relative simplicity, I prefer older software. Ultimately it does come down to nebulous concepts like "sovl" but at the end of the day it's all subjective. It's not like I couldn't achieve the same effect with modern software, it's fairly easy to do anyway, but rendering on archaic technology is a more engaging and interesting process for me, even if it is more limiting.

>>959520
>Ultimately it does come down to nebulous concepts like "sovl" but at the end of the day it's all subjective.
This is the thinking I want you to refine.
It doesn't actually matter what software you use really, the benefit of using modern software is just that it forces you to understand exactly the effect you want. Is it:
>sharp shadows
>texture resolutions
>limited colours
>cube mapped reflections
etc
The more you understand how to evoke the feelings you want, the more interesting your work will be.

As far as sovl, just spend some time thinking about how this stuff makes you feel.

>>959515
for fucks sake

>>959515
Sorry for my generation, we just born wrong

Does somebody here still uses anim8or?

Because back then they didn't use limited graphics as a choice. Going back makes no sense when you aren't as limited

>>959515
He's probably talking about stuff from the late 2000s most of which still works on windows 10

Luh Bryce 7.

>>959300
A lot of artists choose lowrez / pixel / etc. kinds of ''retro'' artstyles not because they think it'll improve their work but because they think it requires less effort;
While this may be true on the tech side (you -can- make renders of simplistic shapes in like a few seconds with today's PCs, something that would've taken days 20+ years ago), this still requires actual artistic ability to look good.

...which is why a lot of 'retro' art is less 'retro art' and more just lazy faggots throwing low rez assets together that doesn't really add up to anything artistic.
A lot of retro renders like your OP, >>959513 and >>961454 feel like ancient tech demos, not art.
Art invokes some sort of feeling / emotion, a lot of those types of renders were made in the 80s and 90s because it legitimately was hard without frying your PC, it wasn't made for any sort of artistic value.
It's forgettable and generic. There's nothing in such works that really sticks with the viewer.

Picrel is an example of retro art that sticks with you. Is it weird and awful? Yes. But it invokes something in the viewer that no amount of weird random dolphin mountain pillar shit can.

>>959514
i tried making retro graphics, it turns out it takes a lot more artistic skill to make a good retro thing than a high poly one

>>959300
you're not getting backlash because the topic is "controversial", you're getting backlash because you are constantly spamming 100% empty threads with the same fucking beginner questions that you yourself don't even follow up on. you are annoying beyond belief. if you were *genuinely* interested in retro stuff, showed us an actual learning curve by progressing and became knowledgeable enough to even teach it (like a SANE person who made such a thread would), you would even be liked and get kind of a following.

but you're not actually interested in retro graphics, otherwise you would progress beyond uber newbie mode.
nobody knows why you constantly spam, so you rightfully get nothing but well-earned hatred.

you will, of course, ignore my post and make an identical thread in like a week or so, because you're basically a non-sentient annoyance AI.

Deep and profound zoomer for the zoomer pussy. I don't blame them if I had access to SoundCloud at a young age I could've been laying pipe inside a zoomer girl

>>961475
Absolutely. It's the same with anything in art, it's a lot harder to do more with less.

>>959300

They're not controversial, they're just garbage, and the people who like them are idiots with awful taste. They'll pop up frequently, asking the most inane questions, and talking about how old graphics had so much "soul", but the reality is they're FUCKING IDIOTS.

>>961459
It's funny that you think you know what is "art" and what isn't.

>>961527
human face with emoting expression = make viewer feel something = art, it's easy.
That abstract landscape stuff like >>959513 is just tech demo = not art

>>961527
That anon is completely correct. Yes okay random primitive shapes in an old render engine counts as art. Does it have value? No.

>>961529
Haha! Good one anon.

>>961537
This is a strange argument. How much "value" do 99.99% of art pieces have? Is all value not subjective? One man's trash, and all...

>>961539
>Is all value not subjective? One man's trash, and all...
Yeah yeah art is subjective, you get a participation trophy and you don't have to push yourself to achieve anything or have any point for making what you make.

>>961540
What's the point of embarking in any artistic endeavour? What's the point of anyone on this board for making anything they make? What's even the point in living!

>>961539
>How much "value" do 99.99% of art pieces have? Is all value not subjective?

the statement "all value is subjective" is literally perfectly equal to "there is no order whatsoever", which is a way of saying "my IQ is literally (!!!) perfectly Zero.

to paraphrase it: if you see no solution to any problem whatsoever, you are perfectly retarded. congratulations, anon.
.
.
.
.
" endless orgasms for infinity or maximum pain instead? HAHA ISN'T EVERYTHING THE SAME? AFTER ALL MY STATEMENTS CONCLUDE THAT I LITERALLY DO NOT EVEN POSSESS A CONSCIENCE LMAO LOL YOLO"

t. you

>>961539
>How much "value" do 99.99% of art pieces have?

>>961542
Ok???? Seems like a bit of a stretch to me m8 but that's what you get for talking with some one with 0 IQ.

>>961543
Debatably part of the 0.01%, but again it's sUbJeCtIvE :^).

>>959544
>late 2000s
Not retro.

>this whole thread is everyone nonstop shitting on the thing ive been learning to make in the name of shitting on aesthetic zoomers
fellas how should i kill myself?

>>961743
It's ok to enjoy yourself making images you like. The people here are fuckin downers.

>>959494
>>959479
Very well worded, a hard pill to swallow. Found myself in your texts. I often try to limit myself because then I can shift the blame from my skills over to the limits I artificially imposed. Cool post.

>>959300
Name one example

>>961766
> I often try to limit myself because then I can shift the blame from my skills over to the limits I artificially imposed.

It's understandable for a young or new artist to act a bit like that that. Reason I understand it is because I went thru similar thinking when I was
at a stage of my own artistic development that I started to become capable but yet where not capable enough to operate at the level of visuals I idolized.

At this point I started to gravitate towards styles that where within striking range of my skill-set to do well.
Thing is it's perfectly fine to do things like that as it'll keep you engaged and working your craft and taking joy in the process.
You can reach a level you are comfortable at and stay there, art isn't just about fidelity and I certainly enjoy art by artists
who practice styles that are naive compared to the work I do today (20+ years in the art game).

The lesson I would've taught my younger self is that I'm not advancing at the same rate doing something I'm comfortable with as I am
when I intentionally push beyond my boundaries and set out to do a piece that eclipse where I've previously been.
Let your ego die a bit and understand that who you are today does not represent who you'll be some years from now if you start intentionally pushing back
against your limits and keep patience and perseverance in struggling with things you currently fail at.