Gorodin opened this issue on Feb 17, 2003 ยท 22 posts
Gorodin posted Mon, 17 February 2003 at 12:30 AM
I'm trying to create a realistic character with a realistic body, closer to the 1920's bathing beauties. I'm also going for a non-cookie cutter face. But I still want people to look at her and go "wow", like a classical venus.
Feedback?
Gorodin posted Mon, 17 February 2003 at 12:37 AM
Gorodin posted Mon, 17 February 2003 at 12:45 AM
TCSP posted Mon, 17 February 2003 at 1:10 AM
would you consider adding some weight to the figure...? classically speaking, a woman of semi-modest girth was more attractive.. it was a sign of good health. (things have changed) even boticelli gave some heft to his venus... ((nobody take my 'heft' comment personally please)) i love the nose... selion to nostils... perfect personallity for the greco-roman culture. ~;)
Gorodin posted Mon, 17 February 2003 at 1:28 AM
Yeah, I started with a heavier figure, but I had trouble fleshing out the face to match properly. She was looking unbalanced. I will post a pic...
Gorodin posted Mon, 17 February 2003 at 1:36 AM
lalverson posted Mon, 17 February 2003 at 1:38 AM
Kinda looks like barbra striesand, I'd say you have done well.
Gorodin posted Mon, 17 February 2003 at 1:39 AM
EricJ posted Mon, 17 February 2003 at 1:48 AM
It may just be the lighting but the top half of her face looks much lighter than the lower half. I personally prefer the first version you posted (the thiner one). Eric J
TCSP posted Mon, 17 February 2003 at 1:50 AM
yeah... nice morphs! those are the details that sell images for me :) i think you could get away with not adding any type of, heft, to the face. the rounded jaw and short chin are enough, the combination almost takes the part. the make-up is great... but is that a 5oclock shadow? or just a lighting thing? ;P
TCSP posted Mon, 17 February 2003 at 1:53 AM
oh and great hair too :)
Gorodin posted Mon, 17 February 2003 at 1:54 AM
The shadow is a lighting thing. I've seen it a lot with the global sets from DAZ. I usually use a spotlight fill on the face for final renders.
TygerCub posted Mon, 17 February 2003 at 8:56 AM
The one thing included in the heavy morphs for Vickie that should NOT be there for a "classical" look is the indentation around the waist. This indentation is a result of modern clothes being cinched in that area. Such an indentation would not be as dramatic until the late 30's, when it began to be fashionable for women to wear a shirt/skirt combo, and sometimes wear men's trousers.
pdxjims posted Mon, 17 February 2003 at 9:33 AM
Early, mid, or late 20's. The 20's were a rapidly changing era. The early 20's women were considered sexy with smaller breasts and big hips (pear shaped), long hair. Mid 20's were the flappers and deco, slim, almost boyish with bob styles (I've got a picture of my grandmother as a flapper, too cool). Late 20's things were getting bad, and a fuller figure woman was coming back. Softer curves, still slim, but more feminine. The hair style was just getting into the Marcell.
Zenman53186 posted Mon, 17 February 2003 at 9:37 AM
Very nice face; definitely a change from Marketplace and Gallery standards. You didn't mention, but I'm guessing this is V2, which means the "Heavy" body morph is probably being used to make her heavier. In which case people can add their own heft...:-) (or Rubenesque for V3).
wdupre posted Mon, 17 February 2003 at 10:56 AM
Gorodin posted Mon, 17 February 2003 at 11:19 AM
Head larder on which version? The thinner version's head scale is at 105%. The thicker version is at 103%
Patricia posted Mon, 17 February 2003 at 11:27 AM
I like her, except for the end of her nose...! If you look at classical statues, the noses start out like yours, but the tip of the nose is farther out from the face---as if you were to take a magnet and pull the tip straight outward from the plane of the face, elongating the nostrils, too. As it is, it looks squished in and too small. Those noses were referred to by many names, but most often as a Classic Grecian nose and it was just slightly large compared to modern standards. It's like we've gone in the opposite direction, if the Poser Galleries are any indication ;)
catlin_mc posted Mon, 17 February 2003 at 11:53 AM
I think she is beautiful, but the "heft" has got to go. As for the nose, it is fine the way it is. Many women of mediteranian decent end up getting a nose job because it is pulled out too far, too long etc. Catlin
Patricia posted Mon, 17 February 2003 at 12:26 PM
Attached Link: http://www.humanitiesweb.org/cgi-bin/human.cgi?s=g&p=c&a=p&ID=2
Um....I didn't say she needed a nose reduction job, I said just the opposite: the tip of her nose is too small. Take a look at one of Alma-Tadema's works and note the larger size of the women's noses. They all project out from the plane of the face *farther*. He was painting to Victorian standards of beauty, BTW, but they idolized 'classical beauty, heft, big noses, et all!sandoppe posted Mon, 17 February 2003 at 12:36 PM
I really love her look Gorodin! I prefer a slightly heavier one than the first. The hips on the second one are just about right. The face is exquisite! :) Is this your hair? The hair is wonderful as well. I would add her to my wishlist....that's for sure!
catlin_mc posted Tue, 18 February 2003 at 10:50 AM
Try reading my post as what would happen if the nose was any bigger and I am speaking about reality and not art hystory.