Female figure on curved up background (not suited for work)
-
Eric... Booooooo
-
Where is that 3ds model ??
By the way nice work. -
What a nice model, Chris!
You're a true artist...
-
Thanks!
...And the last one of the series.
The image is meant to emphasize on the beauty of the female body and not to be disrespectful. if people would find this last image to be offensive I'll kindly remove it. (I hope not though).Cheers and thanks for watching,
Kwistenbiebel
RAW Fryrender output:
-
It was just a matter of time...LOL
She has a pet.
-
It's merely a shadow
-
christ,
the viewpoints you have shared here are much even surprising... excellent.
-
Thanks Nomer,
I wish I had your artist skills and use these images as a starting point for a real painting...
I did do some paintings some years ago, but I can't control oilpaint that well as you can. -
Can you explain a bit of the process for FryRender. Is it a standalone renderer? do you export the image from SU and import it to Fry. Is there a plugin for SU to work directly with Fry?
Just curious how it compares to VRAY or Maxwell
-
Fry has a Sketchup plugin that contains a pulldown menu and an icon bar.
When you have a material selected in SU's material list and click on the Fry paintbucket icon the Fry material editor pops up. Sun and sky setup has it's own panel, just as the general settings and camera panel.It takes some getting used to, but after some experimentation it works quite smoothly.
You start the rendering by choosing the export>3dmodel>Fryrender in the file menu of SU.Once the export is done the FRY standalone GUI will pop up and the rendering starts.
That GUI has a 3D viewport where you can change the view and you can also change mlaterials/environment/camera/render settings over there (actually the same things you can set up through the Plugin itself).
The Fry standalone isn't as elaborate as the Maxwell studio as the developers wanted to make a 100% 'render from host' product.You can download a demo on the Fryrender.com website.
It is fully operational (though the size image is max.800X600 and watermarked ).Cheers,
Kwistenbiebel -
@kwistenbiebel said:
The image is meant to emphasize on the beauty of the female body and not to be disrespectful.
It's not so much emphasizing the female body as emphasizing a particular part of the female body. I'm not offended, but that last pic (and to a lesser extent the first one) is a bit tasteless IMO. -
With all due respect, I firmly disagree. If Christ's renders would have been pornographic, then you'd have a valid point. But are they pornographic? In my opinion: no. They merely show a naked body. Nothing wrong with that: the nude has been an artistic genre for centuries.
Maybe it's because I studied art, but these images seem fairly 'common' to me. They're just your average tasteful, even bourgeois nudes. (Not meaning to insult you here, Christ.)
-
Thank god for the open minded people. (cheers Stinkie )
Personally I had it with the negative comments from the moderators.
Too much nude, not enough Sketchup...
Anything else?
You're pushing me away here. -
@kwistenbiebel said:
Personally I had it with the negative comments from the moderators.
Hey, don't lump us all in one single minded category here
The only comment I made was a Booo to Eric's bad joke.
I like the images. At first I thought to myself: "There is no way this is computer generated". So I had to look closer -
Thanks Tom and Eric.@Eric, I should have said 'some' moderators.
-
IMHO: the thread title is enough warning for the faint of...well, taste. (Though I will admit my first impression was other than "what a nice rendering of a really accurate 3d model", since it actually is an amazingly realistic rendering of a perfectly realistic 3d model :`)
If we didn't know what is was and what it took to produce, then maybe I'd wonder why the image is here...but we do. And so: WOW! Nice work, indeed!
-
@unknownuser said:
With all due respect, I firmly disagree. If Christ's renders would have been pornographic, then you'd have a valid point. But are they pornographic? In my opinion: no. They merely show a naked body. Nothing wrong with that: the nude has been an artistic genre for centuries.
Maybe it's because I studied art, but these images seem fairly 'common' to me. They're just your average tasteful, even bourgeois nudes. (Not meaning to insult you here, Christ.)
I also studied at art school for 7 years so I'm by no means prudish when it comes to artistic nudes. Please note my criticism was directed at only two of the images: the ones that are centred predominately on the genital area of the figure. If you were to analyse these images from an artistic standpoint, the choice of "camera" angle is vital in interpreting them, so my criticism is valid IMO. Maybe I'm being more critical than others as I used to frequent the Renderosity forums a lot for Vue tips and was frustrated by the overwhelming number of renders there of nude and lingerie-clad female Poser figures (usually unrealistically skinny, with enormous breasts and practically teenage faces
). There is no doubt in my mind that the renders on Renderosity are soft porn and frankly made what was otherwise a very good CG forum feel somewhat tacky and creepy. I'm not saying that Christ's renders fall into that category, but judging by Renderosity it's a fine line when nude renders start being posted before they start flooding in and their content becomes more questionable.@kwistenbiebel said:
Personally I had it with the negative comments from the moderators.
Too much nude, not enough Sketchup...
Anything else?
You're pushing me away here.
Christ, I don't know what to say other than what's wrong with a bit of negative criticism, whether it's from moderators or not? You can hardly say we're being unfair as we've praised your other work plenty of times. Coen's criticism of posting images of purely imported geometry is valid- this is an SU site, so geometry created solely in other software is not really relevant here. Of course we all import and export stuff, floor plans, topography, figures, etc, but when the entire featured geometry wasn't in any way modelled in SU then this isn't really the place for it.Like "Stinkie" you seem to have misread my post and assumed I have some issue with "too much nude"- it's nothing to do with "too much nude"; if I must spell it out I felt there was too much focus on the perineum in the 1st image and on the vulva in that 4th to be tasteful.
@kwistenbiebel said:
if people would find this last image to be offensive I'll kindly remove it. (I hope not though).
So why the threat of "You're pushing me away here." when I post some criticism of it? I didn't even ask you to remove it!Seriously, this shouldn't turn into a big deal, it's simply a minor reminder from one moderator that posted work should be SU based and a criticism from me (in a non-moderator role) regarding the camera angle in a couple of renders.
-
"Please note my criticism was directed at only two of the images: the ones that are centred predominately on the genital area of the figure. If you were to analyse these images from an artistic standpoint, the choice of "camera" angle is vital in interpreting them, so my criticism is valid IMO."
I have no problem with a render centering on the vulva. That certainly has to do with all the nude drawing I had to do in highschool and at the academy. To me, a drawing, painting or render of a vulva is no different from one of, say, a shoulder. This may sound strange to some, but I'm serious.
"Maybe I'm being more critical than others as I used to frequent the Renderosity forums a lot for Vue tips and was frustrated by the overwhelming number of renders there of nude and lingerie-clad female Poser figures (usually unrealistically skinny, with enormous breasts and practically teenage faces
). There is no doubt in my mind that the renders on Renderosity are soft porn and frankly made what was otherwise a very good CG forum feel somewhat tacky and creepy. I'm not saying that Christ's renders fall into that category, but judging by Renderosity it's a fine line when nude renders start being posted before they start flooding in and their content becomes more questionable."I see your point. I even agree. It is a fine line. But, as you've probably guessed, I don't think Christ crossed it. I may be some sort of deviant, but when I looked at the images, I didn't go "oooh, ssssexyyy!". No, I was genuinely surprised by the quality of the render. What distuingishes Christ's image from porn, IMO, is a certain ... tenderness.
"Like "Stinkie" you seem to have misread my post and assumed I have some issue with "too much nude"- it's nothing to do with "too much nude"; if I must spell it out I felt there was too much focus on the perineum in the 1st image and on the vulva in that 4th to be tasteful."
I didn't misread. I know exactly what you meant. Again, the vulva is just another part of the body, ready to be srutinized by the artist. I don't mean this as a derogatory remark, but I find it quite strange to lump parts of the human anatomy into moral categories. This one's tasteful, that one's not. Seems a bit primitive to me. (I know this sounds a bit rude. I apologise for that: if this were a Dutch forum, I'd probably be able to bring my point across in a much more subtle way.) Magical thinking, you know?
-
@unknownuser said:
I didn't misread. I know exactly what you meant. Again, the vulva is just another part of the body, ready to be srutinized by the artist. I don't mean this as a derogatory remark, but I find it quite strange to lump parts of the human anatomy into moral categories. This one's tasteful, that one's not. Seems a bit primitive to me. (I know this sounds a bit rude. I apologise for that: if this were a Dutch forum, I'd probably be able to bring my point across in a much more subtle way.) Magical thinking, you know?
You put your point across extremely well actually; your username belies your intellect! Regarding "I find it quite strange to lump parts of the human anatomy into moral categories", I couldn't agree more however you obviously understand that all art must be analysed contextually. If a female artist creates images or sculptures of female genitalia it would be highly unlikely that she is doing so with an intent to degrade or objectify women. If a male artist created identical artwork we have to analyse it differently (or do we? Discuss! ) as there is an entirely different implication in the context of the male gender traditionally having dominated and objectified the female gender.I would suggest that even the greatest artists (and their patrons) tend towards objectification (i.e. lumping parts of the human anatomy into moral categories)- how many of Michaelango, Canova or Rodin's sculptures feature elderly figures, or flat-chested females, or short men? There is a massive imbalance towards young, large-breasted females (although Michaelangelo personally may have tended towards male figures for obvious reasons). Looking at the endlessly repetitive and unrealistically proportioned renders over at Renderosity it is clearly implied being old or having small breasts for example is somehow un-feminine- a notion which should be offensive to everyone. All I'm saying is if we shouldn't interpret body parts as having distinct meanings then why are so many nude images focussed on the breasts, backside or genitalia and the female rather than male body? There's very clearly an intent there, one which I find a little tasteless unless it's intellectually justified.
-
"There's very clearly an intent there, one which I find a little tasteless unless it's intellectually justified."
Well Jackson,
I am not going to say that the things I do are always intellectually justified.
It probably isn't all of the time.Here's a mockup of a playboy magazine I did some months ago.
It was meant humorous....and to celebrate the Podium community at that time for becoming a lively bunch of people.
Advertisement