FWIW.

Quote - It doesn't matter whether the goal is realism or illustration, or even what the media is, the problem/goal is exactly the same. When I look at an image with V4 I and start thinking things like 'wow, nice morph' or 'that temple looks chilly, she'll catch cold dressed like that' then it may be a technically good image but it's missing something, and that's where I'd place everything I've done with Poser.

Or...maybe you're just not the right audience for that image. 

I suspect that for a lot of the gallery images, neither the artist nor the average viewer looks much at the face.  ;-)

Seriously, though...when I look at Michelangelo's "David," I think, "Why would someone go into battle naked?" and "Why is a nice Jewish boy like him not circumcised?"  It doesn't mean the piece is lacking anything.  It just means I'm not the viewer he had in mind when he did the piece.

in reference to the "aboriginal book cover" and this isn't a criticism , just a personal observation, I presume you are trying to illustrate Native Americans, First Peoples? not Australian Aboriginees' , I actually don't see much resemblance to those nations in the image. I can sort of make out some features that could be remotely recognised, but they do seem like a sort of a 20th generation post disposessed Cherokee , white anglo mix if not more white anglo than native. Before anyone picks me up on the fact I am British and have no idea what I'm talking about, we lived and travelled extensively in the USA from 1996 to 2003, I've always had a fascination with the native peoples and their cultures, and as my US family lived on the aptly named trail of tears, it further stirred my interest, so I visited many reservations in the USA, and met more than a dozen indigenous tribes, yes the facial features have become diluted in many cases from intermarriage, and that is what I see in the book cover. Just my opinion, not a criticism as I stated.

Slightly OT, one old guy I met on an Osage res said "If every Amercian that claimed to have cherokee heritage actually did, the trail of tears was better for that peoples  than fertility drugs" LOL

One thing makes me wonder and may be completely OT now, after all these pages and minor quarells.

Why do so many people equal real to "not pretty"?

Why the skin needs to be patchy/uneven/acme ridden? I mean, I've been there. I once did a texture called Plain Jane and it had pimples, extra hair and stuff. But it was intentially too imperfect (like morning bathroom look imperfect ;))

Defining "proper" didn't work out well in the thread, I see. Defining "real" is no different ;)

i don't think anyone apart from me in my qualifying post above is equating real to not pretty, but more looking at the options that are available with products to create average rather than pretty. I'm sure we can start another discussion on the definition of pretty, but it's all imho subjective to the person.

Quote - in reference to the "aboriginal book cover" and this isn't a criticism , just a personal observation, I presume you are trying to illustrate Native Americans, First Peoples? not Australian Aboriginees' , I actually don't see much resemblance to those nations in the image. I can sort of make out some features that could be remotely recognised, but they do seem like a sort of a 20th generation post disposessed Cherokee , white anglo mix if not more white anglo than native. Before anyone picks me up on the fact I am British and have no idea what I'm talking about, we lived and travelled extensively in the USA from 1996 to 2003, I've always had a fascination with the native peoples and their cultures, and as my US family lived on the aptly named trail of tears, it further stirred my interest, so I visited many reservations in the USA, and met more than a dozen indigenous tribes, yes the facial features have become diluted in many cases from intermarriage, and that is what I see in the book cover. Just my opinion, not a criticism as I stated.

Thanks for the comments. My reference point is more northern Alberta, so keep that in mind. I practically grew up on Indian reserves (especially in my teen years), so know the subject matter pretty well. :)

Quote - One thing makes me wonder and may be completely OT now, after all these pages and minor quarells.

Why do so many people equal real to "not pretty"?

Why the skin needs to be patchy/uneven/acme ridden? I mean, I've been there. I once did a texture called Plain Jane and it had pimples, extra hair and stuff. But it was intentially too imperfect (like morning bathroom look imperfect ;))

Defining "proper" didn't work out well in the thread, I see. Defining "real" is no different ;)

I definitely agree with that. It's one thing to observe that V4's default facial features are not realistic, but the flaw is not that she is too pretty. (In fact, a lot of folk find her ugly, but that's another story.) There are many beautiful people out there, and most folk aren't going to do that many renders of ugly ones, which is okay. But if they took the time to pay attention to realistic facial proportions etc, they could still end up with beautiful without screaming "V4! V4!"

Quote -
I definitely agree with that. It's one thing to observe that V4's default facial features are not realistic, but the flaw is not that she is too pretty. (In fact, a lot of folk find her ugly, but that's another story.) There are many beautiful people out there, and most folk aren't going to do that many renders of ugly ones, which is okay. But if they took the time to pay attention to realistic facial proportions etc, they could still end up with beautiful without screaming "V4! V4!"

One thing people tend to not realize about the default V4 is that she's not made to be rendered as is. She is made to be morphed to something else... and that's why she doesn't have a lot of realistic features... she's rather featureless. The reason is because it's easier to sculpt in whatever you like than to spend time taking them out just so you can make it into something else.

I remember this character. I think you used a variant of BB's Aged Skin with your own modifications on the freckles?

I just went through my early PP2012 play with nodes and SSS. This was in the pre- EZ skin days. Here's my Pre-EZ skin modification using Mec4D's Mamita and a variation of BB's Elder skin from late 2011.

EDIT: I just realised that she looks a lot like a young friend of mine. Dang.

EDIT 2: I'll see if I can take some pics of her-and if so I will be motivated to move Mamita to Zbrush and see if I can recreate my friend's face there. I was mostly successful with Meg Fox-and it would be even more fun with a real person that I actually like. The skin is pretty close already.

Quote - M4.

Thanks, Eric, yes, that's my mod of BB's aged skin shader.

Your pic looks really good, although the mouth still looks pretty default V4.

“Or...maybe you're just not the right audience for that image.”

Very true. The viewer’s POV is a huge factor. One person may perceive a Madonna and Child as a beautiful picture while in another, it may evoke deeply emotional spiritual experience. Setting is important as well. The same image may be perceived somewhat differently in a museum than in a church. I’m not sure how/whether those factors play a role in the perception of ‘reality.’

I posted this in the ‘Blown Away’ thread and it may have been posted here even earlier – at any rate, this (at least a few years ago) was considered by some the state of the art in 3D facial realism: Digital Emily 

I hope the original poster got enough material for their psychology paper or alien research project. Always fascinating, these hit and run posts ÷)

Thanks. It might be-I'll have to check. I diverted to modeling Meg Fox after that.

Quote - Thanks, Eric, yes, that's my mod of BB's aged skin shader.

Your pic looks really good, although the mouth still looks pretty default V4.

Amazing! Do you think the post was devised to examine "thread drift?"

Quote - “Or...maybe you're just not the right audience for that image.”

Very true. The viewer’s POV is a huge factor. One person may perceive a Madonna and Child as a beautiful picture while in another, it may evoke deeply emotional spiritual experience. Setting is important as well. The same image may be perceived somewhat differently in a museum than in a church. I’m not sure how/whether those factors play a role in the perception of ‘reality.’

I posted this in the ‘Blown Away’ thread and it may have been posted here even earlier – at any rate, this (at least a few years ago) was considered by some the state of the art in 3D facial realism: Digital Emily 

I hope the original poster got enough material for their psychology paper or alien research project. Always fascinating, these hit and run posts ÷)

"Do you think the post was devised to examine "thread drift?"

LOL. I don't know but the 'What is the meaning of life (exits). Discuss amongst yourselves' threads are usually quite entertaining. As the Boss said, "The poets down here don't write nothin' at all. They just stand back and let it all be." * *

HAHA

I always see long threads as being akin to having one person whisper a sentence into another's ear-and having that propagated through a long line of people. What comes out at the end may be quite different than the original sentence.

In this case-we start with an ambiguous thread title- and we see it morphing into- "Post your favorite V4 (or M4) faces!" Or " What is Art?" or "Is Realism Good?"

Quote - "Do you think the post was devised to examine "thread drift?"

LOL. I don't know but the 'What is the meaning of life (exits). Discuss amongst yourselves' threads are usually quite entertaining. As the Boss said, "The poets down here don't write nothin' at all. They just stand back and let it all be." * *

Quote - I don't see anything wrong with using the default V4 face, just that it's not very pretty and the definition of features isn't as good as it could be.  Carry on.

 

Quote - The eyes are too big.  Not subjectively too big, really too big.  Yes, you can correct it but then it's not the default V4 face.

HTH. :)  

Yep. Very large eyes. Noticed that! But I never use the default face. I either dial spin, load a free or commercial likeness morph-or move polygons around for my own morphs.

She does have an  easily morphable face-which is good.

Quote - > Quote - I don't see anything wrong with using the default V4 face, just that it's not very pretty and the definition of features isn't as good as it could be.  Carry on.

 

Quote - The eyes are too big.  Not subjectively too big, really too big.  Yes, you can correct it but then it's not the default V4 face.

HTH. :)