Guest diggity Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Originally posted by TheTruthHrtz I like photoshop as much as the next guy but I personally don't like using filters or these 3-d rendering programs. I think you are selling yourself short using those programs... Anything that those programs can render can be done with a wacom tablet and photoshop IF you have skills. If not, then I guess those programs are for you... but don't think you are foolling anyone with your intangible, abstract, rendered, lighted pieces of crap. I think that truly depends on your intent of what your doing. Photoshop filters can look good, WHEN used in moderation. Wacom tablets are wonderful tools. I'll agree with you there with out a doubt. hyrax, shoot me an email, i'd like to chat on aim about a few things. i think i read your using 3dsm. I used that for a bit but am now learning Cinema4D, its far better suited for what i do. Have any of you found a suitable replacement for Streamline on OS X? Have any of you managed to put your hands on the new photoshop and illustrator cs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casekonly Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 i wish that i was a mac user... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casekonly Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 romperoom....really nice, you have more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romperoom Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 casekonly: you don't need a MAC to do design. All the 3d guys I know use a PC. Mac is great for motion and making dvd's, but as far as flash, photoshop, illustrator etc. pc's are exactly the same... except macs run flash a little slower than a pc. as far as more wallpaper, were posting some more at aerosolwarfare.com pretty soon. keep checking the site for updates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casekonly Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 i wanted a mac because i do some video editing...it would only add to my creative path thing...haha. maya is also available for macintosh...so, that makes it a little more appealing considering the stability of macs....i'll check the site...i just wanted to see some more of your artwork Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_El Mamerro Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Originally posted by hyrax it's called graphic design. it's meant to be aesthetically pleasing. it's not meant to have depth. it's not meant to have meaning. it's not meant to outlast the mona lisa. it's meant to look pretty. so eat it, dickface Are you in some way implying that graphic design is not supposed to have depth or meaning beyond being aesthetically pleasing? I disagree. I wouldn't say this 3D render stuff is graphic design in any way, it's digital artwork. If you are goddamn nasty with a brush or a Wacom tablet, you CAN do them by hand. But if the tools are there to make the process easier, it'd be pretty stupid to ignore them. That said, in some way I sort of agree with TruthHrtz that by relying on those programs to create the main visual impact of your piece you are selling yourself short. The process is so automated and the degree of decision-making so small (compared to handcraft, of course), it's not hard to come out with something that looks cool with relatively little effort. Having this in mind, every time I see one of these pieces I raise my judgement criteria and become much more critical than I'd be with a handmade piece. You can probably generate a 100% random shape, spend a few minutes going around it until you find a neat angle (this takes a good eye and skills, but still minimal compared to handwork), render it, tweak it a little in Photoshop, and boom, you have a cool, aesthetically pleasing image. Most of the best 3D digital artwork (in my eyes) is succesful because it incorporates other techniques and aesthetics to play with the 3D shapes, and you can tell the artist's skill because of the composition, color choice, scale, typography, rather than just how cool and shiny the 3D shape is. The splash page on www.thehorusproject.com is a good example. That shit crushes on many levels, not just because of the 3D. Hyrax seems to be adept at composition by choosing empty spaces and light/dark spots to make the layout, but I wanna see more beyond the 3D, there's very little to no 2D presence, beyond a little type. I wanna see more of those white outline pieces. Actually my fave by him yet is that "Reborn" piece, which has no 3D, and shows he has skills beyond knowledge of 3dsmx. Casek sometimes adds 2D, but in some cases looks just thrown together with not much thought behind it, still relying on the 3D for the strength. You have a good sense of shape and composition but I feel the final product still lacks a bit... it's thrown on a plain white background or on some kind of tabletop and just left at that. I think if you took some time off the 3D and did all-2D pieces it'd improve your final work tenfold. Enough rambling... take what I say with a grain of salt, I'm just jealous cause I don't have any 3D programs to play with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casekonly Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 mams, you're right on so many levels, but i tend to disagree on some points...and i have proof that my artwork is alot more than thrown together. for example, the latest piece i'm working on has been on my desktop for a week and a half now. i have been working with it almost every day. i take alot into consideration when doing a project with 3dsm...lights, placement, effects, materials, everything. it's like a crazy, frustrating jigsaw puzzle sometimes. i appreciate criticism. i really do. sometimes, i find the need to defend my artwork, as alot of it isn't shown off online. you are correct about the 2d stuff. i'd like to spend some more time working with it, but 3d has caught my attention in the last couple of years. every once in awhile, i'll pull out photoshop and leave the 3d stuff behind and do a little project. anyway, i'll drop some older 2d pieces on here and let you critique them, if you'd like. i've currently got a project going on which doesn't allow me to do much more. here ya go....thanks for the criticism. it's refreshing. i'll remove these after a day or so http://images.deviantart.com/large/indyart/dark/nondescript.jpg'> http://images.deviantart.com/large/photography/photoportrait/grandma_x3.jpg'> http://images.deviantart.com/large/indyart/indymisc/fertive_version_2.jpg'> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoink Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 nice post mam, casek I cant see 'em might just be me though, thought id let you know in case there not working. and if its just me...then damn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casekonly Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 yoink, thanks for letting me know...i'll ride it out and see if anyone else has the same problem, and maybe pull them tonight. sorry about that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_El Mamerro Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 Casek, I wasn't implying that your 3D stuff is thrown together (2D is another issue, which I'll cover below), I remember you once explaining what your process behind it was like and it certainly didn't sound easy. But I've also heard other people who achieve similar results with a process that relies much more on randomness than deliberate decisions. What I'm trying to say is that it's hard to tell from the 3D images whether there was a lot of effort behind it or not. This is a matter of personal opinion I guess, but it's why I have to see something beyond the 3D to be convinced there was a lot of decision-making behind it. I say personal opinion because there is a lot of abstract (handmade) art that may or may not have taken a lot of effort to make, but I don't feel the need to question it. That first green face is amazing, the texture and colors are insane (by the way, they seem to work if you open them in a new browser window, yoink). The grandmother one I'm not too fond off, because I feel it's an amazing picture by itself and the filters don't seem to really add much to it. Instead of getting the feeling of "painting", I get "Photoshop>Filters>Artistic". The last one is strong on the lower right corner, the face on the left seems to be filling out space that would be awesome to leave blank. The diagram overlay is great (though harmed by the jpeg compression), but the gradient bars are exactly what I mean that some of your 2D stuff looks thrown together. I get a feeling that you added them cause you felt you needed something to be there but couldn't figure out what to put, so you created simple, square gradients to fill it. It's a mere one step removed from just placing solid-colored rectangular bars, which is the ultimate cop-out. Actually no, you're two steps removed. One step removed would be placing solid-colored TRANSLUCENT bars. Now there may or may not be a deeper reason for you placing those exact bars on that exact spot, I'm just saying that's what it comes off as. Hope you understand what I'm trying to say... keep up the good stuff and thanks for not taking it the wrong way! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casekonly Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 mams, thanks for the compliment on the first face (over 13 layers)..lemme explain the grandmother...it's not filters that makes it look that way. it's a ton of airbrushing. that photo is over 100 years old and was originally not in very good condition. it took days and days and days to get that shti back together and take out that oldness. now, let's move on to the last pic...ok, that one, i'll admit, was kind of thrown together. the girl in the lower right and the face on the left were both original parts of that picture, as were the schematics placed over it...originally, the schematics were to be alot more transparent than everything else, but, it wasn't that serious of a project. but i did more a little time into the girls. the last part of it was the part that was thrown together. it reflects that, too. you are clearly correct. as for that bar...i agree. fully. those are cop outs. i haev used them. i'm a weenie. haha. seriously, i appreciate your type of criticism. alot of people just say, "i don't like it" why???? why???/ why don't you like it???? ahhhhhh!!!!!! you know? ok, well, i just got back from mob town, alabama after almost running out of gas and a bunch of frustrating phone calls while on the road, sooo....i'ma go drown my sorrows in cheap beer and watch house of 1000 corpses. thanks again, mams. i'll tip one up for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desiple Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 you guys seriously have skill feeling it all. which 3dsm are you guys using? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoink Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 I saw em casek just downloaded em , for some reason It didnt work not even in another browser. I personally like your first one the best. But i do remember seeing these on deviant when I was browsing your stuff...I actually like your grandmother one esp. after your explanation of it, i like the digital painting feel of it, but people can be soon to pass it off as a filter. Hey Mams, Im gonna go ahead and nominate you for resident design critc/advisor, just go ahead and stop by this thread every once in a while, tear us apart, and we will....send you a 12 pack of bass or some cigars every once in awhile...ok? good great grand. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casekonly Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 desiple. i use 5.1 yoink..thanks...good idea to nominate mams as the resident art critic. we should send him seekings fruit basket. seeking doesn't need it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest diggity Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 Originally posted by casekonly i take alot into consideration when doing a project with 3dsm...lights, placement, effects, materials, everything. it's like a crazy, frustrating jigsaw puzzle sometimes. [/img] yeah these are areas that you dont consider at all unless you've actually worked in 3d and found out how much of a pain to setup your lighting and camera settings. And when keyframes are set but your animation is going beyond those frames and then returning to them. Materials play such a cruicial role in things as well. any of you ever watch the credits to a 3D movie like Toy Story? ofcourse its a great deal harder when your matching real life versus building everything yourself. another thing that you have to know with 3d is that even though theres almost a million different ways to build any object, if you dont think through what your building before you build it, you can get stuck and have to completely start over or some options will not be made available to you. theres definatly alot of planning that goes into it. I've been learning alot about it latly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casekonly Posted October 4, 2003 Share Posted October 4, 2003 wow, another 3d head...haev you posted any work on here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyrax Posted October 4, 2003 Share Posted October 4, 2003 Originally posted by El Mamerro Are you in some way implying that graphic design is not supposed to have depth or meaning beyond being aesthetically pleasing? I disagree. I wouldn't say this 3D render stuff is graphic design in any way, it's digital artwork. If you are goddamn nasty with a brush or a Wacom tablet, you CAN do them by hand. But if the tools are there to make the process easier, it'd be pretty stupid to ignore them. That said, in some way I sort of agree with TruthHrtz that by relying on those programs to create the main visual impact of your piece you are selling yourself short. The process is so automated and the degree of decision-making so small (compared to handcraft, of course), it's not hard to come out with something that looks cool with relatively little effort. Having this in mind, every time I see one of these pieces I raise my judgement criteria and become much more critical than I'd be with a handmade piece. You can probably generate a 100% random shape, spend a few minutes going around it until you find a neat angle (this takes a good eye and skills, but still minimal compared to handwork), render it, tweak it a little in Photoshop, and boom, you have a cool, aesthetically pleasing image. Most of the best 3D digital artwork (in my eyes) is succesful because it incorporates other techniques and aesthetics to play with the 3D shapes, and you can tell the artist's skill because of the composition, color choice, scale, typography, rather than just how cool and shiny the 3D shape is. The splash page on www.thehorusproject.com is a good example. That shit crushes on many levels, not just because of the 3D. Hyrax seems to be adept at composition by choosing empty spaces and light/dark spots to make the layout, but I wanna see more beyond the 3D, there's very little to no 2D presence, beyond a little type. I wanna see more of those white outline pieces. Actually my fave by him yet is that "Reborn" piece, which has no 3D, and shows he has skills beyond knowledge of 3dsmx. Casek sometimes adds 2D, but in some cases looks just thrown together with not much thought behind it, still relying on the 3D for the strength. You have a good sense of shape and composition but I feel the final product still lacks a bit... it's thrown on a plain white background or on some kind of tabletop and just left at that. I think if you took some time off the 3D and did all-2D pieces it'd improve your final work tenfold. Enough rambling... take what I say with a grain of salt, I'm just jealous cause I don't have any 3D programs to play with. Sorry if it seemed as though I was implying ALL "graphic design" work doesn't have depth. I know some of my work has been done at my absolute worst, and the "mood" of it as a whole reflects it (ie. Sinking or Shattered), but I see a lot of people getting into this and they really don't seem to put a lot of thought into it. I used to do strictly 3d work until I came into a phase where I stopped using colour completely and was doing purely black and white work (ie. Reborn) In all honestly, I don't have a clue when it comes to 3DSM, I've always just used stuff like Rhino and Bryce to get the job done. In my 3d work I want the focus to be the 3d, with the 2d work in the background. Anyways I'm veering off topic. The point I was trying to make is that this kind of stuff is completely different from traditional analogue work, it requires a different mind set. A painting has so many qualities that digital art cannot have (like physical texture, materials, medium, etc) I don't think it's right for anyone to compare them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casekonly Posted October 4, 2003 Share Posted October 4, 2003 this thread is slowly coming back to life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joker Posted October 4, 2003 Share Posted October 4, 2003 Originally posted by diggity Have any of you found a suitable replacement for Streamline on OS X? I've been searching around and have come up short in all efforts. Most people I talk to don't even know what Streamline is. I need something that works cleaner though. Maybe I just don't know how to set the settings correctly or something but Streamline completely butchers the cleanest drawings. It's kind of upsetting. Especially when you have an art show coming up and you want to do some digital prints to sell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joker Posted October 4, 2003 Share Posted October 4, 2003 Originally posted by QbaOner here you go man just fnished it in ps... http://www.fatcap.co.uk/host/files/target2.jpg'> Oh... oh, yea. That little green slab is doing it for me. Makes the whole thing jump off. Amazing... simply amazing. Why can't I do stuff like this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romperoom Posted October 4, 2003 Share Posted October 4, 2003 Yeah you have to use Classic mode to use Adobe Streamline, and Fontographer. Joker: how do you prepare your work to get into streamline? It works pretty good for my stuff. To get super clean lines though you have to draw it out in Illustrator. I did this with streamline then colored it with Illustrator: http://www.aerosolwarfare.com/L2/graff/cop.gif'> I drew this with the pen tool in Illustrator: http://www.aerosolwarfare.com/L2/graff/2AM.gif'> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiSe Posted October 4, 2003 Share Posted October 4, 2003 i suck at 3D modeling, i suck with photoshop, but i tried.... http://www.fotango.com/p/eba00366660f00000018.jpg'> and what do you know, fotango made the quality real shity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest diggity Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 Originally posted by casekonly wow, another 3d head...have you posted any work on here? nope, not so far. to be honest i rarely work in 3d and have just taken interest in it again. i've used 3dsm before, right now i'm using Cinema4D, thought about going to Maya but for what i use 3d for, c4d serves just as good of a job. I'm assuming what was done on the pictures in this thread was extruding and point pulling then various materials and lighting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casekonly Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 i used to do point pulling shit, but now, i use alot of spline based shit..nurbs are fun, as well. point pulling has become way too popular and it looks kinda silly. i prefer the more organic shapes...anyway...what do you use cinema 4d to make? would you post some of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoink Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 Ok, First Maya work, Its a test render in a series of test renders to get some camera angles and ideas of the scene. (before I actually start the animation) Its pretty much modeled and done, some lighting needs to be tweaked but im satisfied, especially for the first one By the way its a drunken moneky ala cartoony style hopping across an antarctic lake being chased somewhat by a (nerd style to the max here) chicken walker my very own version of the star-wars AT-ST (all terain scout transport? a.k.a. chicken walker.) its intentionally cartoony and motion/lens blurred. be gentle.;) oh by the way this might be a link, cause its from deviant-art, all the current photo hosts are shit so....bear with it. http://images.deviantart.com/i/2003/40/e/d/Chicken_walker_drunken_monkey.jpg'> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoink Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 hey casek you might have to tell me how to fucking link from deviant art on here.... oh and im on a mac, and i still havent figured out how to get to the image properties...so...im semi lost. trying to give the link to the image. click me yo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casekonly Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 yoink...damn, dood...very nice. i dig it. keep working with maya, it looks like you're off to a great start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deph Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 Originally posted by romperoom http://www.aerosolwarfare.com/L2/graff/2AM.gif'> his is very cool.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackson Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 Wouldnt it be great... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QbaOner Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 yea nice ones romperoom.. just wondering, is pen tool easier to use in illustrator than in photoshop? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.