HOME | DD

kobaltkween In reply to corpor8chic [2014-08-04 08:19:41 +0000 UTC]

Oh, thank you very much!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

kobaltkween In reply to Wolfberry-J [2014-08-04 08:19:50 +0000 UTC]

Thank you!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

kobaltkween In reply to HardBargainArt [2014-07-25 05:32:41 +0000 UTC]

Thanks so much!  Actually, Dawn has a DS version, and a fair amount of DS content.  I don't use DS and make a lot of dynamic clothes, so I don't have any DS products.  But I'd like to find a partner for DS versions of products that can be converted.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

HardBargainArt In reply to kobaltkween [2014-07-25 12:39:44 +0000 UTC]

I'm embarrassed to confess that I did not know about her DAZ version! But now you shall hopefully accept the blame for informing me of another model with which to experiment with some formal nudes, and perhaps see about some content if all goes well. Maybe you would be interested in seeing whatever results I achieve. I thank and, and curse you!

I'll do some research, but would you happen to know if there is any compatibility between awn and any Gen4 or Genesis/Genesis 2 Female assets? I guess we'll find out!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

kobaltkween In reply to HardBargainArt [2014-07-26 18:11:50 +0000 UTC]

Oh, never be embarrassed.  It's so easy to have information pass you by.  And I totally understand the wonder and frustration of discovering new and appealing figures.

No, Dawn isn't compatible with other figures.  That said, she's not scaled or shaped so differently than DAZ figures that conversion is very difficult.  So I'd expect Auto-Fit to work with her?  Poser's fitting room works on any figure, so I'm kind of assuming DS works the same way. 

That said, the whole reason I don't make conformers is getting tired of not being able to use them on the inevitable new figures without a lot of hassle.  There's a hair style I own that I only used once because it was for version 3 figures and came out not that long before V4.  Ironically, I find conforming generally makes even long hair behave unnaturally.

I find Dawn easy to morph (even for someone as inexperienced in morphing as I am) and easy to make clothes for (I'd only like her  zero pose more if it were more of an  A).  The texture she comes with is a merchant resource.  So I guess I just don't worry much about old content with her. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

HardBargainArt In reply to kobaltkween [2014-07-26 18:52:24 +0000 UTC]

Well, you have created a monster, and I am simultaneously grateful to you, and cursing you. After we commented yesterday, I researched, and got Dawn for free, and invested in a few anatomical morphs and some starter morphs. And of course there are some free clothing items out there that are of surprising quality, and I availed myself of some of those, though I do a lot of nude work, so getting Dawn to meet my anatomical standard is more important than clothing at this point. I am also creating some bump-based vascularity maps for her... one thing I have never seen for her as yet. Mine are understated and natural looking and I really like them. I have not created color vascularity maps yet, but the default skin is olive toned, so that's okay.

In early character development with her, I have solved the genitalia issue with a V4 prop that works wonderfully. Most V4, M4, Genesis, and a lot of other hair figures will also work. V4 clothing is another matter, as Autofit is contingent upon having a shape for it to work with. So, no luck there at this point.

Dawn, I am finding, is also very tolerant of V4 poses. I do almost all custom posing, but it's nice to have a place from which to start. And the way that she handles muscularity is also quite accurate. The biggest issue I found was that her biceps are symmetrical north to south, like a "bell", and the human bicep is not. So, because I don't have any re-sculpting tools or know how (yet), I used d-formers to adjust her biceps to a more realistic profile. And the advantage to the d-formers as opposed to a linear morph is that I can make each bicep behave as I wish.

People have complained about Dawn's face, but I think she's handsome... reminiscent by default of Angelina Jo around the mouth.

Sometime this week, I will likely be posting a small developmental set with her. Perhaps you'll be interested. I ended up being glad you mentioned Dawn's DAZ version, and perhaps you'll be pleasantly surprised with what I'm doing with her.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

kobaltkween In reply to HardBargainArt [2014-07-27 17:04:40 +0000 UTC]

Oh, that does sound interesting! When you post, you should add it to the Dawn-of-a-New-Era group. 

I use Blender for my morphs, mostly the sculpting tools.   I do post-pose touch up with the morph tool in Poser, though I'm beginning to want to go to Blender post-pose.  It's too bad DS doesn't have a similar tool, or fitting tools that work on any figure rather than specific ones.  I don't use the fitting room much myself (I'll make fits in Blender if I really want them), but I use the morph tool all the time.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

HardBargainArt In reply to kobaltkween [2014-07-27 17:25:48 +0000 UTC]

kk, the first panel of a small (likely four panel) set is up; you can find it here: hardbargainart.deviantart.com/… I hope you don;t mind that I gave you a mention/backlink. Please do let me know if your group accepts nudes, as most of my work is nude/fine art nude and fetish.

I may have to investigate Blender. I recall looking briefly at it once, and found it quite cryptic. For instance, I solved a bicep shape issue of Dawn's with d-formers.

Hopefully, you'll like my HBA iteration of Dawn; I'm already very pleased with her. Thank you for all your ongoing communications, incidentally. You are most helpful.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

kobaltkween In reply to HardBargainArt [2014-07-27 23:57:57 +0000 UTC]

Oh, it's not my group at all.  I'm just a regular member.

I think newcomers' problems with Blender's UI has about three separate aspects.  I could get into them, but it's probably not helpful.  And not relevant if all you want to do is make morphs.

I started using Blender as a simple sculpting tool.  I just wanted to make morphs.  Head morphs at that.  I was, by my own evaluation, bad at it, and I'm still not nearly as good as I'd like to be.  I know Dawn is a good mesh for sculpting because even I can sculpt her into a little girl or different women.  If I actually knew anatomy, I think I could do tons with her.  Still, when just starting, I managed to make a decent Alek Wek head morph for V4. 

It's _really_ easy to use Blender's sculpting tools.   Even back then, I found it easier to sculpt fixes in Blender than use magnets (the equivalent of DS d-formers).  You just set up the interface for sculpting by setting the 3D view to sculpting mode and letting the brushes and options show.  You don't really need anything else.  It's a good idea to start with x-mirroring on.  Even if you go for asymmetry in your morphs, it's best as a last step.  I had even set my default scene to load with V4's unmorphed head mesh scaled up for sculpting  (back then, she was my go-to figure).  The only tricky part to the interface that might be worth it for pure sculpting is the "layers."  My current default Blender UI has scaled up versions of Dawn, V4, A4, S4, and G4 in 4 different layers, so that I can fit each figure as I need (I rarely need the V4 morphs, since I work mostly with dynamics).  Blender has presets for export, so you just make a Morph preset and save it.  Mine scales down by 0.4 because I work at 2.5 times Poser scale in Blender, which seems to work as a conversion in Poser's scale.

If you research starting with Blender, it will give you all this information about shortcuts.  Which might seem daunting.  But if you only want to sculpt morphs, you don't really need to remember any shortcut keys beyond the numbers for different views.  There are shortcuts for the different sculpt brushes, but they're just useful, not necessary.  Like Photoshop tool shortcuts.

If I had your knowledge of anatomy, I'd be making morphs for all kinds of figures.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

HardBargainArt In reply to kobaltkween [2014-07-28 12:52:21 +0000 UTC]

I am more than grateful for the tie ad trouble you took to provide this information on Blender. Its free, correct? Perhaps it's time I took the time to really pursue it and some basic morphing with it. I have copied your info to a text file for reference. Hopefully, you won't mind if I direct questions to you. By the way, I am posting to the group. Thank you for telling me of it!

(Interestingly, in the past three days I've been working with Dawn and sharing my results, I have found other Dawn users to be much more forthcoming and friendly than users of other platforms. I can't explain why that might be, but I don't think it's my imagination.)

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

kobaltkween In reply to HardBargainArt [2014-07-29 02:26:15 +0000 UTC]

Oh, you're welcome!  And feel free to ask questions.

The Dawn community _is_ very friendly, due to a very simple principle.  Leading by example.  You can't foster positivity with rampant negativity.  HiveWire3D decided to take advantage of DAZ3D splitting the market by deliberately marketing themselves as cross platform.  So they wanted both DS _and_ Poser developers.  Which meant acting as a bridge.  That takes diplomacy and positivity.  Also, they're ex-DAZ3D heads, and their forums remind me a lot of how DAZ was back in the early PC days.  . 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

HardBargainArt In reply to kobaltkween [2014-07-29 18:56:25 +0000 UTC]

That might be part of it, but after almost two years of trying to share my 3D art here with my medium peers, I have a clear sense that they generally seem to operate in consonance with a "policy of exclusion" that's based on process, parameters, and procedures... not art; in spite of my best efforts to foster discourse, I'm aware of an almost palpable sense that unless one is "riding the unbiased renderer train", or practicing a certain communally ordained workflow, the ladder gets pulled up. Oh... you do *postwork*?! Beat it! Where are her cell mitochondria?! Get lost! I find it flattering, but very curious, that most artists who are interested in my work are traditional artists. With literally a handful of exceptions, other 3D artists just can't be bothered. This is a very strange place.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

kobaltkween In reply to HardBargainArt [2014-07-29 23:36:08 +0000 UTC]

Well, if you mean the 3D community at large, I think it's a combination of a few factors.  One is that art is sort of in the middle of being a feminized field, like teaching and librarianship.  When those were masculine fields, they paid well and were very highly regarded.  As more women entered the field, they became very poorly paid and treated as unimportant.  Art is a feminine hobby, but a masculine profession.  So the pros often spend a lot of time emphasizing the more traditionally masculine aspects (and, occassionally, emphasizing how few female artists practice them).  High art emphasizes the more "masculine" intellectual aspect, while either disparaging or ignoring emotional aspects (which are generally seen as "feminine").   Ethical or spiritual objections to works are treated as ignorant, art with mainly emotional appeal is treated as banal and unimportant.   Commercial art emphasizes a male perspective (in POV, in subject matter, etc.) as "good business," generally ignoring or patronizing female audiences.  No matter what the field, commercial art tends to operate around a very limited and stereotypical notion of gender roles.  And both high and commercial art cultures emphasize process and craft over more qualitative and personal assessments. 

In art, professional and elite tends to distinguish itself from hobbyist and common by exalting stereotypically masculine qualities and minimizing stereotypically feminine qualities.  It tends to reinforce the gender division in artists by emphasizing skills that need to be passed from teacher to student while maintaining a culture that discourages female students.

Which leads to a second aspect.   In 3D, craft means mastering computers.  And there's a decided bias against the slightly more feminized field of 2D CG.  I personally find modeling _worlds_ easier than texturing and materials.  What I find most difficult about modeling is coming up with the best topology and process for UV mapping.  And I find all of it easier than drawing a good, solid, detailed concept.  But no one talks about the rampant infringement on concept designs as theft, or writes long rules about photomanipulators openly identifying their sources.  No one says 3D artists have to cite their texture and photo resources, or even list the artists involved in designing the characters, vehicles, and clothes they post.  No, all the rules in CG groups are about the meshes.  All the ranting is about meshes. 

The general attitude in the CG community is that the more technical the tool, the more worthy the work.  I can't tell you how many times I've seen modelers look for texture artists as if their work was trivial.  They've "already" done "all" the modeling.  The models "just" need UV mapping _and_ texturing.  I don't believe it's a coincidence that the bulk of women I know in 3D CG are texture artists.  Most of the women I know in 3D modeling are either in the content community (mostly self-taught artists who started as  hobbyists) or do architectural visualization (I think the connection to interior design makes it more accessible to women, but that's a pure guess). 

I find culture surrounding 3D is a mirror of the culture surrounding programming or information tech.  The more artistic the aspect, the more it's treated as easier even though it usually involves more work done in a shorter time and with more revisions, more random and opinion-based feedback, and whole lot less respect for limitations.  Most importantly, what's given less respect are the types of things more technical people actually find harder to do.  Generally speaking, the 3D pro community respects modelers who use other people's textures, but not content community texture artists. 

Within the content community, there's similar trends, but since it's a hobbyist community, they have two sides since.  Sure there's a lot of unbiased renderer proponents, but there's just as many who say photorealism is inherently unartistic.  Same goes for regular vs. linear workflow.  Regular workflow is just plain wrong.  It's Spanish read like it's Italian, replied to in Italian, which is then read like it's Spanish.  Linear workflow just means translating between those languages.  But I've had people who actually _use_ linear workflow as soon as they switch to unbiased renderers tell me how linear workflow is just a crutch for people who don't know how to light correctly.  All because they've built up expertise around working with regular workflow, and don't want to give up what they know.  And can't just admit that.  Some people who just use native renderers and avoid linear worklflow will post at length about how those using more physically accurate methods only produce inferior works that all look the same.  Conversely, some people using unbiased renderers or working with physically based materials and lights will tend to use the word "artistic" in the same way they'd use "stupid" or "wrong."   

I think it all comes down to fear.  I find a lot of technical people have serious problems dealing with anything that lacks structure and a single correct answer.  And that they often respond to this by acting as if they're superior, and people who don't think like them are inferior.  As if their method is the correct one.  I find a lot of non-technical people work by instinct, and have serious problems dealing with anything that has a great deal of structure.  They often react self-deprecatingly (e.g., "I just can't wrap my head around [insert technique here]," "I'm too dumb to understand that,"), but sometimes they'll get hostile about even discussing technical aspects.  As if the mere presence of a technical solution to a design problem implies they should use it.  Both sides will attack without provocation because they feel beleaguered even when they aren't.  Because they fear their weaknesses. 

Me, I fear my weaknesses, but I _know_ I do.  That's actually my major weakness.  ;D  I'm fine with learning tech, I'm fine with learning handcraft, and I'm really comfortable with being a student rather than a master (otherwise I'd try one craft at a time, rather than a bunch all at once).  But I fear my intrinsic flaws so much that I question my choices a lot.  Luckily I _know_ that's true.  So I tend to acknowledge my own part in my insecurity, even when I can see someone else's role.  And I can often see the fear motivating their actions when they do. 

Postwork, though, is more of a specific issue in the content community.  Pros use it all the time as a matter of course.  But in the content community, postwork is like painted textures.  Part of a past based on lower quality tools.  Poser was originally just a reference for Painter, back when they were owned by the same company.  It came into its own as a 3D tool completely organically.  And DS was specifically based off of Poser, dividing the Poser user base.  So both Poser and DS communities have a basis in advancement through rendered realism replacing painted realism.  The more advanced the software became, the more tools for realism they added.   Generally speaking, when it comes to software communities, what's past is low quality, what's future is high quality.  On my own, I've painted a face texture I find more realistic than most textures on the market.  Certainly, it was more detailed.  But the history of Poser (and therefore DS) is such that painted = low detail, low realism, low effort.  It doesn't matter that pros often paint their own textures from scratch.  Same goes for postwork.  Because it took effort for artists to learn the new tools rather than just do what they'd always done and achieve almost everything in post, people now see post as "cheating." 

Well, and also because we publish and promote so much within the community, which is based on the 3D tools.   People don't just look at our images for pleasure.  They look to see what's possible.  It's as misleading to achieve realism in post but not say so as it is to achieve it in Luxrender or Octane, but not say so.  If someone tries for a week to accomplish something in Firefly or 3Delight, when it's something those renderers can't do, it can be really frustrating.  I'm definitely to the point where I want to know what's a background image and what's mesh when it comes to scenery.  I don't care which someone uses, but I do want to know more about techniques, average use, and time.  That said, I think it also gets back to that same fear issue for some people.  Some people are comfortable painting realism.  And some people resent that you can paint it, and they can only work with dials, numbers, and math.  That said, I've rudely talked down to about physically-based techniques by many people who rely heavily on postwork.  Which I might have learned from if those people did more artistic or meaningful works, but their work was pretty shallow in terms of meaning and message. 

Which is probably the major lesson.  The people who resent you most are the people who share your goals but can't use the same methods you do and feel insecure about it.  The ones who are confident in their own methods and limitations are usually OK with you using yours as long as you don't attack them.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

HardBargainArt In reply to kobaltkween [2014-07-30 11:23:28 +0000 UTC]

What a treatise! Seriously, though, there is a lot to be contemplated in what you're saying, especially for someone like me whose only exposure to art is about two years of self-taught DAZ and some recent dabbling in drawing. I don't have the experience to dispute or affirm the experiences and impressions that you cite. I do, however, find the gender-related factors that you mention to be interesting in respects that I had not considered. Curiously, though, it seems ironic that, here at dA, one's being female - or even representing oneself as such - seems to result in no small amount of fawning over, whether one's art merits it or not. But the 3D arena here is very likely male-dominated, and the sort of behavior I describe is just as likely found in a crowded bar on any night of the week. Social factors, more than art-related.

With regard to the use - exclusive or combined - of the primary 3D app and postwork, I am just an untrained, simple guy with an image in his head that he is trying to express visually, so I see the 3D app and postwork as closely allied in that objective... not discrete disciplines that shall never meet, or that are incompatible or mutually exclusive. And I think my observation - and seemingly yours as well - is that many 3D artists, especially those with a more technical bent, tend to see them as disparate disciplines, postwork somehow being perceived as a detriment to "realism" rather than a tool in its pursuit. So, for those "purists", the unbiased renderer becomes most holy.

I have no problem with unbiased engines (though I don't use them) in theory. My heartburn is with the way I see them being employed. Artists here claim to enlist them in pursuit of their holy grail - "realism" - and then sabotage their own efforts right out of the gate. Case in point: I cannot tell you how many times I have seen a particular artist here (who is by his own declaration a "realist", whatever that is on a given day), with obvious compositional talent, post images of women with near-photorealistic skin... yet, her hair will invariably look like dead weeds in Potter's Field, and her shoulders, breasts, and other rounded profiles are heavily and hideously faceted because the character has not been properly prepared (subdivided). In this and other such instances, any pursuit of "realism" is effectively negated - and the entire image compromised - *because the artist(s) appear(s) to be using unbiased engines in an apparently compensatory effort to absolve themselves of the responsibility to tend to basic elements.* It seems as if he/she is compelled by some sort of strange enslavement to the pursuit of "realism" to achieve it in one area, even if all other areas suffer in the process. And the result is an image that lacks parity across its elements, and ends up being an ironic disservice to "realism", and a cruel joke that the artist plays upon himself/herself.

Hence, the importance (for me), of postwork, both for quality control and the application of effects. I am a neophyte at this, but I *can... not... abide* faceted hair or grossly evident mesh. IT... RUINS... EVERYTHING. So... I prepare the models/figures to the extent that I can, and I paint in post. To each his/her own, of course, but to me, selectively ignoring elements in a composition and eschewing postwork, while touting "realism", is like investing time, money, and effort in building a show car, and then not buffing the orange peel out of the paint. At the show, the joke is on the creator of the vehicle... not the onlookers. To my eye (personal judgment here), 80 or 90 percent realism *across the elements of an image* is ultimately a more manageable and pleasing objective than 95 percent realism in one element at the expense of others. And this assumes that "realism" is even the goal, which is not the case for all artists, of course. Me? I just want my girls to be "real" enough to evoke, while still being "surreal" enough to inspire dreams. After all, that's where they come from.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

kobaltkween In reply to harrylr [2014-07-25 05:28:38 +0000 UTC]

Thank you!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

kobaltkween In reply to adult-SWiM3 [2014-07-24 18:10:50 +0000 UTC]

Thanks!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

kobaltkween In reply to ttobserve [2014-07-23 12:13:42 +0000 UTC]

Though I'm not sure if you're referring to this image or my EM 02 set of materials, in both cases the answer is Poser Firefly.  Oh!  If you mean why I list Blender, it's because that's my modeler of choice.  Every mesh but Dawn in this scene was made in Blender.  I know that doesn't look like a lot, but that's the clothes, the hair and wrap, the cyclorama, the softbox off screen, and the "panel surround" off screen.  Simple stuff, but really necessary for me. 

I'm really not sure what you mean by my starting point?  The base figure is Dawn, the reference was that photo I linked to by Andrew Eccles, and I used Blender's sculpting tools to make the FBM that's here on partial strength.  That was made with other references.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ttobserve In reply to kobaltkween [2014-07-23 14:42:18 +0000 UTC]

Dawn, yes: your answer is Dawn!   ...clothes, the hair and wrap, the cyclorama, the softbox off screen,
and the “panel surround”... all Blender.    

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

kobaltkween In reply to AetherDreams [2014-07-23 12:15:08 +0000 UTC]

Thank you!  This is the default satin material.  You can make the red and gold any color you like.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0