«b»{{{ Guest blogging by NotDeskmerc }}}«/b»
«i»(By the way, would all the freaks who keep stalking me - and you know who you are - please go away and quit reading Deskmerc's blog. You should be ashamed of yourselves. I'm a mother!)«/i»
I really respect Deskmerc's effort at rendering organics. They are a bitch-and-a-half to do believably. It's taken me a few years to get it down.
«a href="http://deskmerc.com/archives/Kyoto.jpg"»«img alt="Kyoto.jpg" src="http://deskmerc.com/archives/Kyoto-thumb.jpg" width="200" height="189" border="0" /»«/a»
This was my first attempt. Sucks, huh?
Then there was this one.
«img alt="Deliverance2.GIF" src="http://deskmerc.com/archives/Deliverance2.GIF" width="150" height="167" border="0" /»
Slightly better, but still very bad.
The problem that I had was just a basic misunderstanding of how the software works. So, if you are truly interested in learning how to make realistic 3D people, first and foremost: RTFM.
Second. Do not use the Poser rendering engine for your final image render. It's gay. Grab your stones and hack, crack or buy a decent 3D suite. I use Cinema 4D. 3DStudioMax, Lightwave and Maya are acceptable alternatives. Poser rendering is for fags and amateurs.
Third. There is no such thing as a 3D suite available for use on regular PC's that can render hair and such so well that you won't need to do any postwork. Think about it. How many hairs do you have on your head? Kind of like counting jellybeans in the jar, isn't it? The computer feels the same way. So, give that aspiration up for now. Consumer-affordable technology isn't there yet.
So, this means that you will need an appropriate piece of software for doing your postwork. I will always be a Photoshop apologist. There is, in my opinion, no other image-editing suite that can out-perform. Again, hack, crack, buy, whatever. You'll want the latest version, which is, I think 7.0, but it might be CS or something like that. I use 7.0.
If you're reading this thinking that this is already way more work than you wanna do, having to get all this software, then go get your jammies on and have mommy read you a bedtime story, because this is just the beginning. Every piece of artwork I do, from start to finish takes me at least 12 hours to complete. And that's now that I know what I'm doing. It will probably take you a few days your first time.
And it will still look crappy.
But, if you have the nads to pony up to the task, 3D art is some of the most satisfying art you can do.
I will explain a little bit of what goes into the average piece of artwork that I do.
First thing's first. Assuming you have messed around with the software enough to have some idea of how it works, the next step is understanding your subject. In this case, I'm going to assume that you want to render a woman.
So, go look at chicks. I know, I know... what a chore. But seriously...
«a href="http://deskmerc.com/archives/bettiepaige4.jpg"»Click here, because this isn't safe for work.«/a» Bettie Page inspired a whole generation of pin-up art, including that of my favorite artist Olivia deBerardinis.
«a href="http://deskmerc.com/archives/25nobath.jpg"»«img alt="25nobath.jpg" src="http://deskmerc.com/archives/25nobath-thumb.jpg" width="150" height="353" border="0" /»«/a» Painting of Diane du Poitiers, the famous mistress of Louis the Somethingth, who ushered The Renaissance into France.
«a href="http://deskmerc.com/archives/matisse_blueNude.jpg"»«img alt="matisse_blueNude.jpg" src="http://deskmerc.com/archives/matisse_blueNude-thumb.jpg" width="150" height="95" border="0" /»«/a» Matisse, who understood that perfection isn't the point of the beauty in the female form.
«a href="http://deskmerc.com/archives/grable13.jpg"»«img alt="grable13.jpg" src="http://deskmerc.com/archives/grable13-thumb.jpg" width="150" height="190" border="0" /»«/a» Betty Grable. A biscuit in her day.
Now, you may wonder why I didn't post a bunch of pictures of Cindy Crawford or J-Lo or whoever. Well, it's simple, really. They don't look like this in real life, either:
«a href="http://deskmerc.com/archives/112ask.jpg"»«img alt="112ask.jpg" src="http://deskmerc.com/archives/112ask-thumb.jpg" width="100" height="136" border="0" /»«/a»
You get that result only after «i»hours«/i» of careful retouching with the software I mentioned above. So it is not an accurate representation of what women really look like, or for that matter, how gravity works, and it will therefore not suit your purposes. You are going to edit your woman «i»after«/i» you render her, not before, so save your fantasy boobies for post-production in Photoshop.
In the mean time, take a cue from the likes of Degas or Renoir, and think of a beautiful woman that you know. If you don't know any beautiful women, then go find some amateur porn with an attractive woman in it.
Your brain normally probably overlooks a lot of the imperfections in a real woman. The way her breasts sag a bit, even if they're nice, or maybe one is bigger than the other. Or maybe she gets that tummy roll thing when she sits forward. Or maybe the fat under her arms wiggles a little when she waves at you. Maybe her nose isn't quite straight, or her teeth. Or one eye tends to open more than the other. Her armpits have a dark spot where she shaves and the hair has grown back a little over the course of a day. Etc, etc.
But she's still beautiful, because your eye doesn't seek out all those things. You take in the whole picture and interpret her as an attractive female. Unless you are actively looking for imperfections, most of the time, you don't see it. She is an animated, alive creature who has personality and sex appeal.
However, in a still image, you have captured a woman in a moment in time, and because she isn't moving around, it's a lot easier to spot the imperfections, hence the need for retouching.
But first, you have to create a living woman. Then you "take a picture" of her by rendering a single frame of your model. Then you retouch. It's just like photography, except you get to play god and make your own Eve. Or Lillith, as the case may be.
A company called DAZ3D makes a popular model for use in Poser called Victoria. There are a few generations of her. I still use Vicki 2, because I'm attached to her. Now, the brilliance of the Vicki model is that there are so many ways you can tweak her. There's a setting for everything from the crook in her nose to the droop of her breasts. You can make her fat or thin or anything else. You can create nearly any expression you can think of. So, don't be afraid to mess with those settings.
I have found that the "natural breast" setting, combined with adding a little weight to her to soften her hips and her belly goes a long way toward making her seem less "polygonal" and more believable. Maybe you prefer the more emaciated look, but I don't.
«a href="http://deskmerc.com/archives/lovers3.jpg"»«img alt="lovers3-thumb2.jpg" src="http://deskmerc.com/archives/lovers3-thumb2-thumb.jpg" width="150" height="150" border="0" /»«/a»
(Click to see the whole thing. Not safe for work.)
As you can see, the woman's breasts have a certain sag to them. One is slightly larger than the other. Her stomach is not six-packed and she's overall more soft and rounded.
This is the same woman, different position:
«a href="http://deskmerc.com/archives/loversb.jpg"»«img alt="loversb-thumb.jpg" src="http://deskmerc.com/archives/loversb-thumb-thumb.jpg" width="150" height="150" border="0" /»«/a»
(Again, click to see the whole thing. Not safe for work.)
The point of these examples is to illustrate that 9/10ths of the believability of a given image is in the plausibility of your premise. Is it really plausible that a woman would «a href="http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=740994&Start=1&Artist=ShiningStar&ByArtist=Yes"»
look like this? Ever?«/a»
Even though that artist did a good job with the lighting and the inorganics, the body is just not believable. Neither is the pose, which brings us to the next topic...
Human Bodies Don't Exist In A Vacuum.
This means that gravity does not just apply to breasts, but also to joints and muscles. Thus, if you have in mind to create a reclining woman, you would do well to study an actual photo of a woman in repose. Really look at how her shoulders rest, the way her arms sort of squish into whatever she's leaning on... she has weight. She doesn't float on top of the couch or floor or what-have-you.
I find that in this case, it is best to over-compensate a little when you are making a limb come into contact with a surface. Actually drive the limb partway through the surface, then use your joint-control dials to pull it back slowly. You will need to get up very close to your subject to be sure that the fingers/arm/butt/head is touching the surface. This is especially tricky with fingers and hair.
The secret to hair, by the way, is to remember that there is a head underneath it. Your surface contact point on the body should be the actual head, not the hair. You can retouch wayward hairs out of your picture later, but you can't make the image look right if your model's hair seems to be made out of a material reslient enough to support the model's weight. So go ahead and push that head down until it touches the couch/floor/bed/wall.
You must also take into account the matter of balance. When you sit, you automatically balance yourself on your center of gravity. Unless you're drunk, then you fall over. But finding your model's center of gravity can be a real bitch, since there is no reference point for it in Poser. The result of an unbalanced model is that she looks unnatural, contorting herself to hold a position that gravity seems to dictate she shouldn't. Sometimes it is a very subtle thing, but it's that subtlety that ruins the image.
Really, truly, the very best way to find the center of gravity for your model is to assume the position yourself. If you can't do it, then chances are, neither can she. Of course, if your model is not supposed to be holding still in your image (say, this is an action shot, and she's running or walking) you will need to take into account the shifting of her center of gravity. This is called motion-control, and it is so hard that not even Industrial Light Magic can do it well all the time. And they have piles of funding to block out the sun. All you have is a PC and some GUI software.
So, if you're dead set on making an action shot with your model, then you will need to study. Watch movies with people doing whatever it is you want your model to do, and pause the frame during the "ideal shot". Or, you might be able to find a still image of an action shot on the web. Try your best to mimic the joint positions, like thus:
«a href="http://deskmerc.com/archives/Marieta.jpg"»«img alt="Marieta.jpg" src="http://deskmerc.com/archives/Marieta-thumb.jpg" width="150" height="171" border="0" /»«/a»
But, in the end, no matter how perfect your positioning, lighting and modeling, you will have to resign yourself to post-render image editing. There are inevitable "artifacts" of your posing and the render process that will need to be retouched. You may want to make color and contrast adjustments. Perhaps you will want to add a little film-grain effect to make it look more convincing as a photograph. But above all, you will need to «b»paint your hair«/b».
Regardless of how cool and detailed your hair prop might be, you'll still never be able to make hair look real on a fresh render, unless it's really short. The best way to paint hair is by using the old-fashioned smear tool in Photoshop. This is the tool that looks like a little finger ready to pick a nose. The settings for this tool allow you to adjust the "pressure" and size of your "finger". I set my pressure to 90% or higher and the size at one pixel.
The pressure setting is very important. You will want to vary this setting as you paint according to how long you want the hair to be. The higher the pressure, the more of the hair color you will push/pull into the rest of your picture, and the longer the resulting strand of hair. Thus, if you have it set to 100% pressure, you will continue to pull hair color all around your picture and it will never taper off. Anything less than 100% will slowly transition as you paint from the original color of the pixel you began with to blend with the pixels you are pulling the color into until you get a nicely tapered hair-like effect.
Just keep doing that over and over, using different shades of hair color until you achieve the desired effect. Go ahead and study real photographs of hair to get a feel for how light filters through individual strands and clumps, curly and straight, thick and thin. The end result should look like this:
«a href="http://deskmerc.com/archives/kiss2.jpg"»«img alt="kiss2.jpg" src="http://deskmerc.com/archives/kiss2-thumb.jpg" width="150" height="135" border="0" /»«/a»
Notice how the hair slips through his fingers. All that was painted using a mouse in Photoshop, so there's no excuse for bitching because you don't have a stylus. Squint and be patient. And use the zoom tool. And the "history" feature, so you can go back and undo any screwups you make.
Well, that's enough for now. It's late. I'll make a more illustrated tutorial next time I'm rendering.