Real People?

[Codeman]

Hello,

I have pretty much avoided modeling people until now. I think I need to explore this area. However, I am so tired of the buffed out super people I constantly see. Doesnt anybody model real people?

Im curious about other peoples thoughts on this. Have you ever made a real person or only super duper fake people? I would love to see some work posted here of more real people for inspiration. Thanks ahead of time.

[cookepuss]

However, I am so tired of the buffed out super people I constantly see. Doesn't anybody model real people?
Sure. I would agree with you. I'm as sick of these idealized models. For one thing, they perpetuate the existence of these unrealistic body types. For another, they further widen the gap between the real world and CG. One of the problems in crossing the "uncanny valley" stems from an unwillingness to accept anything but perfection.

Real people have fat asses, weird noses, lopsided breasts, & freaky moles. Real women aren't all size zeroes & 36DD Penthouse models. The idealized form goes from 7 to 8 heads in height. A real person tends to be about 6 or 6.5 heads high. Compared to the ideal, most people seem rather dumpy and certainly less than heroic in stature.

There are certainly artists that stay within these realistic guidelines. You see their work pop up on ZBrush Central frequently. Unfortunately, as is the way with everything in this world, sex sells. The more idealized and perfect a model is, the more appealing it may be perceived to be. Take the newspapers for example. Today's cover of the NY Post has Jennifer Aniston's Photoshopped GQ cheesecake photo on the cover. That story makes it to the 2nd page. The real news, about real people, gets buried deeper within.

It isn't fair. That much I agree. However, we live in a society that's becoming increasingly superficial.

CG falls into two real categories nowadays: hyperreal or cartoony. If you're not a Lara Croft you're a Princess Peach. No in-between. Realistic body types are rare in CG.

As for what I model, I try to stay within realistic proportions. Apart from it being easier for me to find or shoot references for, there's something different and refreshing about it. You don't have to necessarily worry about insane 6-pack abs or over sculpted delts. Saddle bags become okay, as do other ridges of fat.

I'm not 100% in favor of totally realistic CG either. Don't get me wrong. If the goal was to emulate reality then we'd probably start to limit our possibilities. Part of what's nice about CG is being able to expand our horizons, hyper realistic or otherwise. There's as much room in this world for photography as there is abstract painting.

I'd much rather not do muscle dudes or busty bimbos. They serve their purpose in certain cases, but they're not a magic bullet for all situations requiring CG. For that, you might as well resort to Poser.

[KEDavidson]

well, i don't know if this counts for what your looking for, but my Hancock model for the Comicon challenge was meant to be a partial exercise in reality (though to be fair, Will Smith isn't exactly average).
if you're just looking for realistic proportions in general, there's Mirrors edge and most of the Half-Life characters, plus just about every character in Fable 2.

[ReplicA]

Wow, Cooke, looks like you've thought about this for a while. I'm kind of on the other side of the fence on this debate, though. I find realistic models to be ultra-boring. I see real people everyday, why would I want to see them in cg work? I like ultra-buff guys, with unrealistic amounts of muscle detail, and proportions. It's fun to make them, and fun to see them in-game, or on-screen.

I've always said, you want realism, go take a picture, or shoot some film, just keep it out of my cg. cg is where imagination takes over, where the unreal, becomes real. So keep your realistic stuff to ACTUAL people.

However, realistic textures are what make those unrealistic buff guys believable. And I gotta say, when it comes to women, I really prefer more realistic looks. I can NOT stand big boobs, in real life, or my cg. It's a massive turn off, and I don't even wanna look. There are instances when realistic cg people NEED to be buffed out, and ripped, but then comes the proportion issue. Those same realistic folks, do not need to be comic style big.

Also, after saying all that against realistic models, ESPECIALLY in-game ones, I absolutely love the models in Left 4 Dead. Very realistically done, totally believable, and engaging to look at. I don't think I'd feel the same about the game, if it were hulking dudes with plasma rifles, and a big titted bimbo with collagen lips, and a minigun.

I guess I'm really the opposite of you guys. You don't mind the occasional comic book-proportioned characters, but look for more realistic stuff. I don't mind the realistic stuff, but look for more comic book-proportioned characters.

I guess it's a taste thing.

[cookepuss]

I'd probably consider Will Smith to be average. He did put on a fair amount of muscle after "Ali" and during "I, Robot." However, guys that look like him are pretty much a dime a dozen here in NYC.

Not sure I'd consider the "Half-Life" models to be totally realistic. Although some are clearly based on real people, the art team did take a few liberties.

I blame this whole problem on increasing GPU power and the existence of programs like ZBrush. Artists are acting like kids in a candy store (ie. no restraint.) Look back on the history of sculpture and the masters. Once you get past the exaggerated fertility figures you see that there's a lot of overly idealized forms early in each artist's repertoire. There's such a firm desire to know the human form that reality almost takes a back seat. Not every guy looks like David, nor does every woman look like Venus. :) As the artist's work begins to mature you start to see realistic forms take over - self portraits and such.

The CG industry is no different. It might be a hair more commercial, but it's pretty much the same. We're still like those kids at the candy store - pushing every limit and testing our own knowledge of human anatomy at the expense of reality. I don't think that CG as a collective whole has matured enough to realize the importance of true realism as opposed to perceived realism. That's probably why I dig those models of old people. There's nothing so idealized or sexy about a 90 year old bag of wrinkles. It's raw and real. Now, if only more artists would apply that raw realism to their everyday models. Then again, how many people would want to play a FPS where the hero is an overweight balding 53 year old? :p

[cookepuss]

I find realistic models to be ultra-boring. I see real people everyday, why would I want to see them in cg work?
True. How long until you're bored of the 36DD Lara Croft & Schwarzenegger ripoffs though? You may not be tired of them now. Give it 10 years. You'll be as sick of them as you are your co-workers. :)

I've always said, you want realism, go take a picture, or shoot some film, just keep it out of my cg. cg is where imagination takes over, where the unreal, becomes real.
I thought about that when I first posted. Then it occurred to me that there are traditional masters that chose to excel at photorealistic painting even though photography existed. It's a choice. It's a style. They could have just as well have been painting red cuboid rooms or Daffy Duck. Realism has its place in CG. It can exist alongside cartoony and hyperreal work. Right now, it just doesn't. Saying "go take a picture" is a bit unfair.

I also think that, unless we never plan on crossing the uncanny valley, pushing that realism envelope is a necessary evil. It's a necessary exercise. It will also narrow that gap between traditional and digital arts. Every dope with a monitor and a mouse would sooner try to model Hellboy than Jessica Tandy. I'd wager that Tandy's a more complex form to get right. To put it bluntly, very few CG artists working out there right now are up to that task.

[Codeman]

All very well thought out responses. I admit I like the buffed guys/girls in moderation, but to me it enforces the same sterotypes on people as the fashion industry has. I think it would be ideal to make heroes out of the "overweight balding 53 year old".

[Maph]

I've done my share of human sculpting yes. It's called 'studying anatomy'. :D
I enjoy a good realistic cg human a lot better then space marine or Orc #20004156130320350685032030.3
And I honestly think it's a crucial stage when dealing with (digital) sculpting. Personally, I feel it's more gratifying finishing a superb human double than a demon or whatever.
Look at some of today's masters like Scott Eaton and Krishnamurti Costa to name but a few. They really capture the human form beautifully and that alone deserves truckloads of respect and awe.

Some might and will say that it's too boring to look at, but as with all art, you need to be able to look beyond that. Otherwise, art can't be appreciated, how vile or bland it may be.

[cookepuss]

Here's a good example of one artist covering the whole spectrum (hyperreal, cartoony, & more realistic.)

ZBrushCentral - Callahan Sketchbook (http://www.zbrushcentral.com/zbc/showthread.php?t=63785&page=1&pp=15)

http://www.zbrushcentral.com/zbc/attachment.php?attachmentid=87897
http://www.zbrushcentral.com/zbc/attachment.php?attachmentid=110617
http://www.zbrushcentral.com/zbc/attachment.php?attachmentid=116200

Love that Michael J. Fox sculpt.

[Codeman]

Great refs cookepuss.

You know the only reason I am contemplating doing some humans is because I want to get a gaming job and it seems you have to specialize. Either character or Enviro. I love doing creatures but have honestly zero interest in modeling people, unless they are average joes. I was told to be a character modeler you have to do people.

I actually prefer enviros over people, but I love doing my creatures. Kind of sucks having to niche yourself. At this point I think it is more of a personal artisitc challenge.

[KEDavidson]

y'know, if you prefer enviro's over people, why aren't you looking into that? from what i've seen(and i've been looking for a while:( ) there's WAY more enviro jobs than character/creature ones.

Cookepuss: awesome examples. the Half-Life models are stylized sure, but i'd still say they fit in the "realistic" realm.

[Codeman]

y'know, if you prefer enviro's over people, why aren't you looking into that? from what i've seen(and i've been looking for a while:( ) there's WAY more enviro jobs than character/creature ones.


I am just trying to hedge my bets. I am truly equally into both and do not want to limit my opportunities. If a pesron is what they want to see, a person is what i hope to give em.

On a depressing note, most jobs seem to be getting shipped off to 3rd world country slave farms anyways except leads.

[KEDavidson]

yeah, waaaayyyyy too true,
not to bring up Valve again, but if you're in Seattle, why not give them a shot? maybe some out-of-shape rebels or survivors?

[Codeman]

Dude Valve is an awesome place. But their shields are up. Beleive me I have tried. That would be a dream job.

I think i will try my hand at a human character though. Maybe a tourist in Bermuda shorts....

I really appreciate everybodies thoughts on the subject. I think the world could use some more average joe heros.

[ReplicA]

Ah, cooke. Not sure if you read my post wrong, or if I read yours wrong, but I meant no offense with the "take a picture" comment. It is the way I feel, I'd much rather look at something that is not in my daily life, when being entertained, than see something I see all the time anyway. But still, I wasn't meaning it as jackass-ish as it came it across.

Also, did you read my entire post? Honest question there, cause in it I stated I HATE big boobs, so why would I have any interest in croft ripoffs? ;) And just for your information, I'm 33, I've had plenty of time to "outgrow" the superhero proportions thing, and I haven't. I'm a comic-kid, grew up on them, and that's the type of art I love (sans big boobs). I know, some of you will say "but that will limit your jobs, and put you in the poor-house", which could be somewhat true several years down the line. But I highly doubt games like UT, Doom, or any other number of games will go out of style anytime soon. And even if they did, there's always monsters that need to be done.

Anyway, I meant no offense to anyone with what I said, or will say on this subject. I know what I like, I know what I want to do, what I can do, and what I wanna see. It's my feelings that I just don't give a crap about realistic models. They bore me to tears, especially the omni-present "old man bust" sculpts, and ape bust sculpts... Not to say they're bad, they're not. Most are exceedingly well done, and take a massive amount of talent, and skill to get done right. I just couldn't care less. Show me a shot of one of the new Locusts from Gears, and I'm super-psyched.

In the examples you gave, Cooke, those are all well done. And of the three subjects, the Michael J. Fox one, although technically brilliant, is the least interesting to me. I understand realistic modeling needs to be done, but I don't have to like it.

And Maph, I hear ya. I'm sick of space marines, and especially orcs, as well.

I'll agree, realistic sculpting should be done by everyone, and while the artist is making that sculpt, it's fun, but after that, I just don't care.

[Mtg_kirin]

I once tried to model a "real person" and posted here and polycount.

many posts at polycount were saying pic someone hotter/ or a model. But then there were a few posts saying it was a refreshing site to see a girl with a bit of weight.

http://boards.polycount.net/showthread.php?t=54899

that was my thread.

[JacqueChoi]

Idealization of unrealistic body types have been around for centuries. Its more culturally specific than anything, as its an iconographical representation of the aesthetics for a period or place in time. This dates back to the drawings of cavemen, the Mona Lisa, to now, and is carried through till today. Achieving a figure outside of the realm of possibility.

Peter Paul Reubens used to paint girls with substantial girth (as fat was a sign of wealth back then, and was considered to be attractive). Not many people who could only afford to eat half a meal a day could afford to look like this.

http://www.canvasreplicas.com/images/Rape%20of%20the%20Daughters%20of%20Leucippus%20Peter%20Paul%20Rubens.jpg

Early Italian Rennaisance artists idealized forms to different heights:
Michelangelo's David has impossibly large hands, among many other types of proportional disfigurments.
http://invisiblehandinyourpants.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/michelangelo-1.jpg

Heck the geisha's used to paint their faces white, and cram their feet in the smallest wooden shoes ever (small feet were considered attractive to their culture at that time).

Idealizing beauty kinda helps us understand it, and as artists we can almost utilize it or take advantage of it.


Not denying hyper-realism as a invaluable skill to have, but I think it's VERY important for commercial artists to push the boundaries of idealised beauty more and more, as it's always evolving and changing, and always out of reach.

[janus]

Michelangelo's David was sculpted by him nd ddesined ot be seen from below on its plinth, when you do it loks fine..but see it on the level and the proportion problems are more obvious. The genius of Michelangelo was that he sculpted David to be seen in certain light and in a certain place.

Wayne...

[Codeman]

I must be a heretic because I personally do not think Michelangelo was as good as he has been made out to be. Dont get me wrong he had talent, but David is just butt ugly to me. I realize this is against what most people think, but it is how I feel. Defintiely a better painter than sculptor.

This guy however is a true genius: http://www.zbrushcentral.com/zbc/showthread.php?t=065506

All that at 24 yo. Holycrap!

[Raventhebird]

I have work for my company for a photo realistic render samurai, too bad it can't post it here, the only thing i can say is, I love it so much :)

[cookepuss]

Michelangelo's David was sculpted by him nd ddesined ot be seen from below on its plinth, when you do it loks fine..but see it on the level and the proportion problems are more obvious. The genius of Michelangelo was that he sculpted David to be seen in certain light and in a certain place.

Wayne...

Genius? Eh..... Perspective correction was sort of a typical game plan for certain types of sculpture back then, especially if they were view dependent.

Just look at the friezes carved into the entablatures of both Rome and Greece architecture. Head on, these sculpted scenes had some wonky proportions. From ground level, where it was meant to be seen, everything looked normal. Foreshortening set the apparent proportions back in line. It's not really genius or anything. No more so than drawing in perspective.

David's proportions are equal parts stylistic too, as manneristic influences are fairly apparent.

Peter Paul Reubens used to paint girls with substantial girth (as fat was a sign of wealth back then, and was considered to be attractive). Not many people who could only afford to eat half a meal a day could afford to look like this.
Very true. Every culture values something different. It's also generational.

To my grand parents who were born in the early 1920s, any woman under 130-lbs is borderline anorexic. She probably can't afford to eat. Keeping in mind that my grandparents were born in a time period shortly after the Great Depression, that kinda makes sense.

You don't even have to cross generations to see how others perceive beauty. Just look over at some of the cultures deep in the heart of Africa. The perception of beauty and body type are totally different. Not only is it affected by that which they physically/perceptually value, but also by elements of tradition that extends back hundreds of years in some cases.

but David is just butt ugly to me. I realize this is against what most people think, but it is how I feel. Defintiely a better painter than sculptor.
Again, this apparent "but ugliness" is an affectation brought on by both style and technical necessity. Had he been perspective corrected, which can be seen on some Photoshopped pictures floating around, he has a more pleasant looking appearance.

Now, if you don't like it because of the somewhat more personal tastes then that's something different. Then again, that's like saying that I think that J-Lo or Fergie are ugly (which I do.) Obviously, somebody finds them attractive. Just not me. It's the old truism, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." David has that classic sort of appeal which invokes a strong set of ethnic character traits. I may not be a fan of the aesthetics in fertility art, but that must have appealed to somebody at some point.

[Codeman]

Spot on cookepuss - For me it is a personal opinion on David. I think the pose is boring, and the off putting scale is probably a factor too. I guees my main impetus though is that he is always being stuck in our faces as genius and I dont get it. I wouldnt look twice at the sculpt otherwise. Moses is a more interesting sculpt than David. I do like the horns!

[cookepuss]

I think the pose is boring
That's something that has to be put in historical context though. Look at the evolution of character oriented art. You don't even have to go as far back as cave paintings, though that would illustrate the following point as well.

In a lot of art that predates the so-called "golden age" of Greek & Roman culture, there was less of an emphasis on technical or creative aspects relating to balance, center of gravity, gestures, and so forth. I wouldn't necessary call the pose that David's in "boring" as such. It's more of what we would now call an excellent proof of concept, no offense to Michelangelo. There's this very prototypical design that sets the stage for many works to come. The contraposto stance. The relaxed artsy staging. The stroked hair.

Look back on Eygptian art. The much clearer delineation between ruling & working classes as defined by pose. The general and intentional lack of center of gravity.

A piece like David was, in its day, nothing short of a marvel. It wasn't the first to do what it did, but it did practically stand up as the prototype for centuries of art to come.

I guees my main impetus though is that he is always being stuck in our faces as genius and I dont get it.
It's like when somebody says, "That was the best thing since sliced bread." WTF?!?!?! Sliced f***ing bread?!?! :) To be fair, sliced bread probably was a marvel of convenience and nothing short of genius when somebody first came up with the idea.

David may not seem like a genius work nowadays. It's been shoved down our throats since grade school. Doesn't make it any less important or vital. We certainly see stuff better than this on ZBrush Central. However, it has to all be taken in context. Without somebody to lay that lay that foundation, we'd probably still be drawing stick figures or sculpting totem-like people.

Mona Lisa falls into that same category. We've all seen it so many times that it's hard to appreciate it for what it represents. We're just sick of seeing it. The Mona Lisa becomes significantly less impressive when you see somebody speed paint it in MS Paint. :) Still, you've got to acknowledge your roots even if you are sick of them.

Technology has really ruined a lot of people. No doubt about it. Pick up a slab of marble and a chisel. You'll be screaming for UNDO inside of 10 minutes. :p Take the "marvel of David" from that POV. It's nothing short of amazing. We're spoiled.

[Codeman]

I get what you are saying, and I do understand the importance of evolution. To me though it is like a lot of art. It is all about the hype so that it can be over inflated and proftiable. Often talent is secondary.

[cookepuss]

That's probably bit more jaded than how ancient Greeks or Romans might have seen it though. We're certainly more hung up on hype or money than they were. They were too, but not to the extent that we are. There's a reason why it was called the "golden age." It's Not just that were they at their peak. Arts & philosophy weren't just valued. They were encouraged as an integral part of a civilized society. Art for art's sake was as valuable as being in the senate. I mean, where else can you have an unemployed & illiterate guy sit around and just chat up the abstract ideals of the universe to crowd of people? Nowadays, we call those guys are bums and there's a Socrates or Plato on every subway. :p