The topology on the head looks good. But the shape is funny. Shape is really hard to get right.
Here is a helpful link that I have found. This is a drawing site but proportions are the same and oddly enough you can sometimes get more direct info from a site for drawing.
The odd parts are the bridge of the nose and cheek bones (lack of) If you look at a skull you might get a good feel for what is under the skin.
I have found that shaping the head with prospective on will help get rid of the funny look. If you shape in orthographic mode you are seeing a distorted view. Turn on perspective and in view > view properties you can set the Lens angle. You can tweak this if the 3D window has too much perspective and to get a good look at how the model will look when rendered.
Thanks for the info, Jimtuv. I looked up the site, and made an image of my head with a superimposed “box” like the author describes. As you can see, at least from an orthagonal view, the eyes look like they’re not quite in the right location. However, the slightly confusing part is that the mouth is open - so the whole head is a bit off, in front view. I"m going to look closely at this and see if I can improve it. I do have a good skull ref to work from, but perhaps it’s not quite right, since it is pretty flat on the top.
The perspective/orthag issue is something that’s been driving me nuts since post one. I’m an architect by day, so I work with orthagonal images almost exclusively. The shift to perspective view really throws me. All of the drawing books and tutorials I’ve seen pretty much ignore this issue until they talk about drawing with foreshortening, as in, extreme perspective. All of the proportional studies (like the one you linked) show an image in perspective, but which perspective? How far away, camera angle, etc? Anyway, the fact is, I have to sculpt until I think it looks right, then post here, and get other’s crits, which have proven to be pretty darn on target so far. Someday, I’ll get to rigging…:rolleyes:
Looks nice, I’m no expert at modeling Humans or any thing so I can’t say my critique is that valuable but some of the things I notice are
The nostrils are just a Tad large, The holes look like they are also facing to much outward
As the sides of the Nose should be brought down a little instead of being level
The Thing Needs more definition
and the lips are to Ovally give them some nice curves on top as well
I’d Also Fatten the lower Lip just a smidge
Thats all, again no expert at anatomy so I can’t say any of my Input will be useful or relative
Its coming along nicely though
I do not know if you are doing this, But Finding a picture of an Actual person to model the face after is alot easier then trying to make something from scratch even if your model does not come out looking like the person in the picture.
I would LOVE to help you with this problem. Your topology is great. The problem is your anatomy (just the head) For the most part the body and limbs are ok, but the head is way off and I could show you exactly how if I knew how to post images on here.
If someone would point me to the FAQ I need or just tell me, I would be very happy. I tried looking it up but couln’t find it.
Not to get off the subject. Your head IS improving with every new alteration. Your mistake is normal for someone who hasn’t sculpted or studied anatomy. I struggled for years with crappy heads (mine, not yours. Your IS actually better now than mine USED to be.)
The real problem is that facial anatomy and skull structure are very complex and if you’re off by just a little, it looks “wrong” but no one is sure why.
look at skulls and a lot of photos. You’re on the net. You have access to them
as soon as I can post images I will.
Don’t feel bad about the head being odd shaped. Look at my first try. It fit my reference picture exactly but came out looking strange not human. But after going back and making a bunch of very low poly heads to practice shape my next try was way more successful. My first try had some of the same trouble yours is having. So don’t get frustrated it will work out. The main difference was turning on perspective and modeling that way.
Thanks, folks - looking at my previous post, it does seem that I’m getting somewhat frustrated, but I really appreciate the great input. And the face is probably the most crucial thing to get right. I’ll look over the crits when I get home tonight. I also might post my reference photos. (BTW, nice progress there, Jimtuv - did you use BenDansie’s photo-mapping technique?)
To be honest if you turn the head to the side you would see that there are two faces and the side is all stretched out. I am having my own frustrations figuring out how to texture.
I have been trying to follow that tutorial but am having a major mental block about it.
Your body is first rate. You did a great job on it. You have got a good level of detail and I think once you get passed the head problem this will be an awesome model!
Good overall topology, but the mastoid area would need some more research:
a pair of muscles goes down from behind and over the ear to the top of the sternum between the clavicles, drawing a subtle V shape, mostly visible when turning the head.
Actually I think it is a point,and an important one, not as an argument against doing female nudes (seeing as how they’re a major part of my 2D and 3D repertoire) as implied, but rather in support of using a relatively new medium to create a classic subject. Humans (of both genders) have been portraying nude females for about 40,000 years – I think that sort of legitimizes the subject matter, no? Also, since this is a character that will have depth outside of the nudity aspect, what’s the big deal with starting naked in order to establish a proper framework on which to hang the garments & accessories? That’s how 2D figures are done, though perhaps not to the extent of finish shown here until the final drawing is complete. And with the possibility of using cloth sims, it’s imperative nowadays to build from “first surfaces,” which in the case of human figure, male or female, means a nude.
OK, time now to shout out in favor of the “Barbie doll.” Well, not really, but to make a point – a figure should have good fundamental proportions in order to work well as a character. “Barbie” may be a too-far-gone-distillation of too-hard-to-reach cultural stereotypes for the female form, but one thing she does have is good “internal” proportions that are consistent for her character. By “internal” I mean within the context of her form, though it be an exaggeration. If she did not have good proportions, she’d not have near the appeal she does. To use another example of an internally proportionate female character, consider Olive Oyl of the Popeye sagas. She’s a hyper-expression of the “homely, skinny dame” but has an undeniable appeal (especially to one-eyed sailors with a spinach jones ).
So, about your “warrior woman.” I think you need to study more gender-comparative anatomy, as there are specific male-female differences beyond primary sexual characteristics (breast and genitals) that should be recognized and incorporated.
Overall your fundamental size proportions are great, nothing seems out-of-place in that regard. But the masses seem odd to me. Her arms, both upper and lower, seem definitely masculine to me, not because they aren’t slim, but because they seem to be have a lot of muscle bulk under fairly lean skin. Females, even body builders, don’t develop the kind of muscle mass males do because they run on different chemicals – no testosterone, which is a key factor in males producing more massive musculature. Female muscles tend to be flatter and longer, even when more bulky due to certain kinds of athleticism or specific training (compare female body-builders with their male counterparts for a contrast of extremities).
By comparison to her upper limbs, her upper front torso looks much too lean, and could use a much better cut of the pectorals on which to built the mammaries, especially in a warrior (swinging axes and that kinda stuff is a good bust-firming workout).
The waistline also looks somewhat too masculine despite the wide pelvic flare, because on a woman the distribution of fat tends to widen the upper thighs, even for fairly lean figures. The recurve of the waist looks a bit low also, but that may be because the thorax (upper torso) is under-developed for such a robust woman – this is an “internal proportions” issue. Her arms and legs are solidly built but her abs, serratus, lats and external obliques look decidedly wimpy, and downright skinny in terms of implied fat ratio.
From the rear, there are similar issues. The deltoid-to-trapezius junction looks much too massive, though the overall shoulder-to-shoulder width is well done. As mentioned the lats are nearly non-existent – they should provide a major front-silhouette-forming mass for the upper torso. The lumbar region could also use better “female” definition – in all but the most obese females, this is an area that has a specific look that is much different from a male. Same for the gluteus muscles, which tend to be more pear-shaped, and are much rounder due to increase fat content compared to males (women store more fat in butt and thighs, men around their bellies.) And butt-cracks are never that wide in a standing figure, the masses press against one another firmly.
Rather than leave this all to imagination, I did a quick paint-over to show some body-form tweaks I think might help. The head’s a different matter, but I can see you’re on the track of a different look and will wait to see how things develop before critting that aspect.
BTW, in case you end up thinking otherwise, I think you have a great start here. It’s a tough subject (another reason for doing a human nude, btw), and you have a solid foundation already laid for a potentially very good piece of work .
check her head proportions, usually, on most people, the eyes are halfway up the head. If you do shrink the cranium down you will probably need to make the head narrower, and neck shorter and/or slimmer.
Right on, dude. I actually did most of those things just before logging in to post the render! Man, I hope this head shot is getting closer. I raised the eyes, added emphasis to the sternomastoid (running up the neck) and fiddled a bit with the cheek bones, eyes, nose, and ear placement. Her head will remain a bit on the wide side - it fits the look I’m after, though I might decrease the chin a bit. (I just looked at the first head-shot I posted…wow, big improvements. Thanks, folks! )
Now then. On to chimpesque’s post…holy anatomy, batman, that’s some good stuff you’ve got there. It’s going to take a little time to digest all of that. The paintover is extremely helpful, thankyou!! It’ll take me some time to make those changes, but they’re very helpful.
And to address the issue about doing nudes: preachin’ to the choir, there. Couldn’t agree more. What I meant with my original post had more to do with the idea that I wasn’t modeling a nude woman as an end product, but that I was starting from scratch on a very difficult project (given how well-trodden this road is) as a method of learning the hard way, and also, that I’m intending to make a character out of her. Anyway, you’ll get no argument from me about doing a nude (male or female).
Now, as for the ‘barbie doll’ issue, my goal with Ceara is to create a “real” woman. I’m looking at the famous Adrianna model right now, for example, and she’s a very real person, proportioned like a human. That’s the sort of character I’m looking to make, but with some added muscle so you could believe that she can actually lift a 50lb shield over her head. I have a great ref from the sk-art site - perfectly proportioned, but well-toned. But point taken: I will start with proper, typical proportions, and go from there; again, no argument from me on that point.
Wow you are making improvements every time I come here it looks better!
About the Nude issue: In art it is unavoidable as in studying medicine. To model a human correctly one must study the human form. From a skeletal, muscular and textural aspect. If you are going to model,draw,paint,sculpt people there is no other way around it. Most of the trouble with odd looking models can be traced to missing the proper human proportions that are gained from studying how people are put together.
Here’s another face update. Very stubtle changes, hope it looks better than all previous versions. I think a slight tweak on the outside edges of the eyes might be in order, now that I look at her. [sigh]
Be careful not to over tweak the head. One thing you need to take in account is that bald women look odd. If she had hair and eyebrows it would change the dynamics of the face. So some of this might just be a lack of hair.
OK, I’m going to lay off of head-tweaks now. I decided the fact that her mouth was open was throwing me off, so I shut it. I’m happy with her look at the moment, but that doesn’t rule out tweaks when hair/eyebrows get finalized. On to the body now. Thanks for all the great input!
Much better on the head. You’re finding out that the teeeeeniest of vertex movement makes all the difference in the world. I would give her just more cheekbone, for a lean, muscled warrior woman look. Check out Lawless for inspiration. +1 Jimtuv - Take heart that totally bald looks chemo and un-natural, so that no matter how you tweak it, until you get some hair, it will look off.
I lied - I tweaked the head some more. And the comments about the hair, well, shucks, I just HAD to fix that problem, since I just happened to have this reddish wig on layer 5 already…
So here she is with hair (and a tiny cheekbone raise, just for that Lawless look…). The hair is provisional for now, as is the hair material. Not quite there yet, but for now, I just want to make sure the head is close enough to stop the vert tweaks and move on. She looks very “department store mannekin” at the moment, but with some texturing and better hair, that’s fixable, I think. Again thanks for all of the fantastic crits and observations.
).
