A self portrait. (with tutorial)

Artwork Works in Progress
1

Well, I think its safe to say that I have started my last small project before venturing back to the AIRMAN (but dont be surprised if I get stuck on this one and jump back to the AIRMAN here and there before this is actually finished even though I dont plan on getting stuck ;)). Now, the material study I conducted (see below) was specifically for this project.

http://www.landisfields.com/vase_002.jpg

I am sure that you are wondering how a vase has anything to do with me…well…I am doing a digital self portrait in the form of a sculpture… basically 3D with a rennasaince twist.

Now, this might seem to be a very “drawn out proces” (no pun intended) but if you know me or have been following the AIRMAN project, you will see that I dont rush things much. In fact I do a bit of the opposite…beat the HELL out of a dead horse until I am happy with it.

This roject will consist of various studies for each of the parts of my face. The sculpture will ultimately be a snapshot of me from the kneck up. I will have hair but it will be sculpted so unfortunately there will be no sign of Beast in this project ;).

So, having said that, here is the first image from my self protrait project…a sketch for the study of my eyes…

http://www.landisfields.com/eye_study_sketch_001.jpg

…and here is my first render for this effort…

http://www.landisfields.com/eye_study_001.jpg

Now I cannot stress this enough…this is a STUDY of the eyes. This is NOT particularly geometry from the final mesh! I plan on using the computer on this project as much as my sketch pad so be prepared for some changes on this one. I am going to put as much attention into this as I am sure some of the greats did on their pieces. Take care and as always, thank you all for taking the time to view my work.

Cheers,
Landis

2

Landis, I’m a fan of your work. I appreciate your work ethic and your attention to every aspect of the final render, not just the modelling but the lighting, material, and so on. The sculptural approach to learning modelling has catapulted me into totally new territory over the past few months with my Historia project which is all virtual sculptures. I submerged myself in sculpture literature, etc. for quite a while and am still in that ocean of thought because there is so much to gain from the experience. The greatest artists of all time spent incredible amounts of time on their work, down to details imperceptible unless you came very close to the sculpture or canvas. Working at that intense level helps you grow as an artist and develop an even more profound appreciation for what they did, what you can eventually do if you stay with something long enough, and also for inverse things like the beauty sometimes simpler modelling can offer in contrast to more developed works.

As with your other works, I look forward to seeing this project develop and wish you well in your progress.

RobertT

3

This is a very neat idea and I’m glad to hear you plan to get back to airman but for the tning at hand I think it is a very original idea in a good way. And I have a suggestion, use the final product somewhere in airman like just some pot sitting next to some tent or something just a thaught.

Rush out.

4

YESSS!!! I want to touch upon the sculptures of the past. In my oppinion those works made todays pieces look like garbage…and I feel that 3D can be appreciated in the same light ESPECIALLY when the data from a piece has been machined into a “real” work. I am not sure if you have heard of these devices but they are basically 3D printers. This machine may not make others appreciate digital art in all of its glory but it would put it right there in front of them to touch and feel (not sure of bump and displacement maps are supported by such a technology but it would be nice). Now, I do not plan on selling my soul so that I can have this done to my self portriat when it is finished but its just a point that I wanted make. Anyways, thanks for your words man, and from the sound of it you too have found a great appreciation for sculpture. Keep track o this thread and if I do my job correctly (or as intended rather) than you should like what I come up with.

Take care and Blend on!

Cheers,
Landis

5

Thanks, Landis. It’s refreshing to hear words resonate with such enthusiasm for the real artistic potential of 3D art. You are absolutely right: compared to the masters of the past much of the works we see today, even many of the “best” ones pale in comparison to the depth of artistry now almost entirely resigned to items collecting dust in museums and images in art history books. For all the high-tech software and modellers out there, I think 3D art’s potential has yet to be understood and revealed. Once the technical limitations subside and silly eye-candy-look-what-I-can-do phase passes I think 3D artists who value the word and their craft will begin to dig deeper and maybe eventually come out with something that can honestly stand beside a Michelangeo or a Rodin for all the effort that has gone into it. Sculpture and 3D art are quite analagous. The tools and media may differ, but the concepts and required sacrifices and intense attentions of the artist do not. True art is either very simple or very difficult to attain depending on the subject and manner of its manifestation. Brancusi for example. There is real essence to be reached. 3D artists can get there if they want to. They have to want it bad enough and understand it IS possible to reach a greateness in their work comparable with the “masters” once they look past the surface differences between natural media and digital art and discover the underlying universal principles at play in art of any medium, be it sculpture, painting, dance, music, drama, architecture, or literature. I’m desperately trying to reach the slightest bit of that essence with Historia, but I have to keep digging :slight_smile: A long way to go. It looks like you’re well on your way with this self portrait.

Yes, blend on, and blend well.

RobertT

6

Ok, I have a question…

is there a way to model something and merge it into another mesh? a good example would be to model a nose seperately from the rest of the face and then merge it (even though they have a different number of vertices, etc.). The reason I am asking is because this way I can concentrate on the features and not on the number of vertices I am going to have to connect at the end through welding…that is simply not realistic for higher rez models. Also, I remember doing this ALONG time ago in Blender so I am sure there is a way, however, I remember that it wasnt that reliable.

7

Yes, but please don’t try this method just yet on your real model so you don’t mess anything up unintentionally. Say you have a nose and half of a face. You can join the two separate meshes by selecting one, then the other, then pressing CTRL J. This simply combines the two separate meshes into one object. Now comes the hard part.

In order to completely join the two meshes, you may need to first remove faces on the two (now “joined”) meshes facing each other. This is so you don’t wind up with a “non-manifold” mesh (basically a screwed up mesh with normals and/and other issues). You can remove faces from areas that need to join without deleting vertices.

Okay, picture this: you have two cubes side by side. You joined them using the above method, now you want to connect them physically. The faces on sides of the cube that face one another need to be removed. This creates an open side on each of those cubes. Just select the face, press DEL and select ONLY FACES. You can now proceed to build intermediary faces by selecting the 2 pairs of parallel vertices from one cube to another on each of the sides of the cubes and pressing F. This creates a new face. You can continue around the cubes until they’re finished.

That’s a simple example. You will find combining more complex meshes harder to do. Even if they have different vertices, they are joinable once you establish intermediary edges and faces during this manual welding process.

Since this process can leave you with normals issues (faces incorrectly facing inside/outside) you need to select all vertices (A key until all points are yellow) then press CTRL N to recalculate normals outside. If you have any black areas on your mesh after doing this you may need to repeat the CTRL A or go back and move or delete vertices based on the mesh you’re working with.

Another two issues that arise when joining objects into one mesh are materials and textures. If you join two objects with their own materials into one mesh, the second object’s material is added to the material indices box in the Edit window and the vertices are still assigned that material until you delete the additional material (again in the Edit window) or select all vertices and then assign the material you want. On the texturing end of things, if you bothered to uvmap textures to the individual parts, those parts, once joined, will need to be uvmapped again, since apparently there can only be on uv map per mesh.

While this is all possible, you might as well consider doing the entire model and then for study purposes breaking out parts of the mesh for separate study renders (select vertices, press P, click Selected). It’s an interesting challenge. I wound up doing the reverse with Blossom: attempting to do everything by extruding one mesh. Eventually it got utterly complex that I had to diverge from that concept, but it did prove to be an interesting challenge, so you may even find the challenge of welding multiple parts an interesting exercise.

RobertT

8

Well, the bad news is that I already know about CTRL-J so that isnt exactly what I meant, however, I am VERY happy that you misunderstood me because you brought up a VERY interesting modeling strategy…

THATS IT! Break it down, reverse engineer each component by seperating the portion to be tweaked while keeping concious of the vertices towards the edge for successful re-joining later! This should work. This combined with edge loops and my latest trick, I should have a nice model to work with. Thanks bud.

Cheers,
Landis

9

no, there isn’t really merging that I know. you can select the verts and beauty fill them to create missing faces, but that doesn’t create a good looking clean mesh. I suggest you dont create the parts separately, but just model them in. that way you can also keep more in touch on the whole looks of the model.

you talked about the great masters before, sculpturers, I’m sure they didn’t create a ear, nose and eyes separately, and then clued them in :slight_smile: the same goes here. you are molding a one mesh… not constructing from several pieces.

(ofcourse, there’s a method for everyone… who am I to say anything. )

.b

10

THATS IT! Break it down, reverse engineer each component by seperating the portion to be tweaked while keeping concious of the vertices towards the edge for successful re-joining later! This should work.

It works!

I often start with a raw volume model , extruded from a cube.
Pick up a detail modify and rejoin. With the new knife tool and face loop cut a real pleasure to do. It is almost like working with clay.

bjornmose

[edit]
in modeling stage i abuse “vertex groups” to select details, say “ear” “nose”… some times “hiding” the rest does it. so i don’t even have to split off.

11

hey landis!

looks like a great start here, dont know how to put it, but I am sure I can’t wait to see it finished :slight_smile: …as with all your great art

12

Landis,

 Wow, your amazing.  I always look forward to see what you will be sharing with us next.  Keep up the great work.

This summer is coming quickly and San Francisco is calling your name.

13

Landis,

Its nice to see such an artistic approach to what is often viewed as something purely technical. I know that when I show my family members pieces I’ve created with blender, they get the impression that somehow the computer did the work for me and that I’m cheating. However if I’d drawn the scene by hand, they’d obviously feel differently. What they don’t realize is that it can take just as long and can be just as difficult to create something digitally as it is with taditional methods.

You STILL haven’t filled me in on how you make such fantastic noise in your images. I’d really like to know how you accomplish it. Thanks for posting!

14

First off, thanks everyone for the encouragement…I assure you I will NOT let you down!

Desoto,

All I do to gain an “erosion” type effect is apply various layers of grime maps to my final piece inside of photoshop. Now, the key to this isnt just the grime map itself, but the way in which you “blend” the layers. I like to use soft light, multiply, lighten,…pretty much a trial and error thing there. I also play with the opacity levels of each layer on the fly as I play…it is a very fast process. I would just do a search for “grime…” or “grunge map” on the net for some good images. Dv garage has some good ones that they occasionally release on the cover cd of 3D World mag and I am sure that they have some free samples on thier site. Doesnt take long to build up a decent library of about 10 or so and I have found that this amount is MORE than enough for a nice size collection. I usually only have to use one by simply duplicating each layer containing the grime, and rotating and flipping it.

Now, these maps work GREAT in Blender as well, especially when used on a channel all by itself as set to an alpha, and finally again as set to a specularity map…gives a nice “greasy” look and feel to objects (metals objects look real nice with this method…do a search for my old Shaft-o-matic thread to see the head of the shaft). You might even be able to get around using an extra channel for the spec by simply allowing the the texture to effect the color of the material while also enabling “spec”…try them both to see if you can tell the diff but I am sure that this will work now that I think about it…definately worth a try since you only have 8 channels to work with. Which reminds me, does anyone know if you can get around the ol’ “8 channel limit” by simply assigning multiple materials to a mesh or will the materials conflict with the one another due to materials being assigned to redundant vertices? Please let me know on this because I would LOVE to be able to play with even MORE texture channels!!!

Well, take care everyone and as always…BLEND ON!!

Cheers,
Landis

15

OOOO!!! I have another question…

…what is the key for sorting all of the vertices in a given direction? For example I have some selected and they are all uneven vertically, isnt there a key that I can hit to line them all up on a given axis?

Cheers,
Landis

16

Phew…ok…basically I am blocking out the head right now but you can actually see it starting to take shape. Tommorow I will start sculpting the eyes more so technically this is still considered my eye study…hey, I need to establish a canvas before I can paint…

http://www.landisfields.com/eye_study_002.jpg

Don expect details such as wrinkles to come until the very end and belive me they are going to like nice. I have heard a rumor that Blender now has displacement mapping (any info on this would be greatly appreciated), however, worst case scenario I can just model the smal stuff…I am having alot of fun with this one.

Ok, now I must sleep.

Goodnight,

Landis

17

Hi Landis,
looks like your modeling a straight net with already lots of vertices and no edge loops. You should look at this, especialy the 2 images comparing topology on the mouth:
http://coldfusion.art.msstate.edu/camenisch/thehumanhead/modelingtheory.html

18

Thanks for the link bud! Yeah, I have not aconplished any edge looping. I plan on doing all of my wrinkles and some of the later modeling with it. I definately could have started out with it and probably would have ended up with a little better topology but I am comfortable with this method and actually pretty happy with what I have so far. I still have quite a bit to go and I have been rearanging the verts to flow as indicated by your link. I know it seems a little backwards but it is working out pretty good so I am going to keep hacking at it. I plan on doing another bust after this one so it will be interesting to see what I will learn from this one and apply to the next. Thanks agian for the link man…great info. Oh, by the way, do you know anything about Blender supporting displacement maps now?

Cheers,
Landis

19

already lots of vertices

That’s almost certainly the doing of subsurf.

20

Started my Bruce without real loops, because I had enough problems getting the basic shape right. Spend much time afterwads to reorganize things. Now I would be able to achieve similar results in a fraction of the time. Well, I guess the same will happne to you :slight_smile:

I hope you post some unsubsurfed wires (Z), as soon as you have some good topolpgy.

Far as I know it’s in CVS bf-blender and tuhopuu since some time now. Wasn’t there a post in Finished (or was it WIP) with some tests?

Bellorum: Year, I guess it’s subsurfed, but judging from the complexity of the surface I think the number of actual vertices is quite high, especilay if one is thinking about rearanging them to form edge loops …