I thought that was a photograph looking at the thumbnail... it's very realistic.

You use Poser, right?

for her i would be her pool boy

Realistic render!

Very Good!!!

Super!+++

Beautiful image! Beauty, Charmed and more ! Good job ![link]

OOH !!beautiful rendering

Very impressive to say the least! That wet, matted peach-fuzz on her belly is a very nice touch indeed. Keep up the good work man!!!


-Just a point for conjecture and/or contemplation:

Humans have sophisticated sensory abilities in detecting highly detailed visual information, we also have keenly developed aesthetic sensibilities in regards to our perceptions of vainglory or physical attractiveness, particularly in members of the opposite sex. Moreover, on the surface, it totally appears as though we judge physical "beauty" by a person's relative proximity; on some sliding-scale, to the pinnacle of flawless perfection or near-perfection (i.e. the perfect human specimen = hot). However and on the contrary, it must be far more complex and multifaceted than just this. Right...? I bring it up because even though the above CG character is most certainly near-perfect in the idealized physical sense, I have some trouble finding her "attractive." That's not to say this isn't a wonderfully well executed piece of artistic craftsmanship, because it is, its just that she is almost too perfect for me. Its like this; there is beauty in her form and the formal elements used to make her are well done, yet she isn't attractive.

I guess I tend to think (or would like to believe) that beauty and attractiveness are not wholly decided by just the aforementioned sliding-scale criteria of idealized physical perfection/near-perfection. And I do understand that attractiveness is also a relative concept, which can vary in each person based on their individual sets of subjective judgements. To some extent though, most of us can agree on at least some general standards of "beauty," which objective studies have verified. I would like to think that we also perceive the many present subtle imperfections in the physical form as being unique elements in a pattern that makes up a person as a whole, and thus contributes to their "beauty," as much if not more than the whole perfection business...right, maybe?? I dunno??? lol, I mean, there most certainly are ideal genetic traits that we all recognize as defining characteristics of "attractiveness," but I contend that its probably also near-perfection; those seemingly randomized, asymmetrical, flawed, subtle, and minute natural imperfections in real people that make us attracted to them too. CG rarely if ever captures this shit.

This is the only conclusion I can come up with that seems to explain the reason I have trouble with perceiving CG models as having beauty but not being beautiful/being attractive but not (...the ethical quandary of attraction to non-real peoples aside). This sense of imperfection in the details almost always lacks in CG (even the best CG, as pictured above), so I wonder if its actually very difficult to plan and design a figure that is in a way mildly messed up, like real people are, and yet still have it be beautiful? Maybe it is?? I'm not a designer, so i don't know all the variables in making one of these models. Anywho, I think this seems to always keep CG in the realm of artificiality and thus unattractive or fake to me...I dunno, I hope that makes sense to someone. And the essay I just wrote probably wasn't necessary to explain it, haha so, apologies for its length, and apologies for the diversion away from CUBiKO's artwork. I just found it rather intriguing the more I thought about it and tried to put it into words. Maybe someone else will find this interesting and make comment, I'd be curious to read what other people think in regards to these concepts.


Once again, good job dude! Feel free to ignore my rant if you're uninterested in its content