ImplicitAssembler posted:Finally, also bear in mind that to work at name companies/productions , you need to have talent. Hard work/study is not enough.  wat, hard work and studying is exactly how you get talent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 06:48 |
|
|
ceebee posted:
No, that's how you develop skills.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 22:19
|
|
ImplicitAssembler posted:No, that's how you develop skills. skills = talent you become talented when you master skills ceebee fucked around with this message at 00:10 on Jan 7, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
ceebee posted:I want to know one artist who wasn't on the spectrum who magically discovered he was talented and no longer had to study and work hard. Please, enlighten me. I never said that...but I've seen plenty of people who worked and studied hard, had artistic/technical skills, but didn't have the talent to use those skills in a production environment. Just look at how hard it is to hire people, despite a multitude of people willing to work in the industry...many of them work/study hard, yet simply aren't good enough.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 00:10
|
|
ImplicitAssembler posted:I never said that...but I've seen plenty of people who worked and studied hard, had artistic/technical skills, but didn't have the talent to use those skills in a production environment. They're either not working or studying hard enough or they need to work on skills outside of artistic/technical things like social skills and teamwork and efficiency in a professional setting. Most of which should come to people with age and practice just like any other skill. Unless there's a mental or physical disability preventing them from doing so. I'm a firm believer that talent isn't given to you, you have to earn it. http://robotpencil.deviantart.com/journal/TALENT-IS-EARNED-465442434 Another good explanation/example. Along with pretty much every artist I know who is successful in the entertainment industry. ceebee fucked around with this message at 00:21 on Jan 7, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
ceebee posted:
Actually not. He practiced hard at music for years. Was good at it. But not good enough to make a living. Same thing. I wanted to be a musician too. I practiced hard, but realised after a few years that I simply did not have the talent required to make a career out of it. As with CG, playing music is a bunch of rules and then some skill. However, to put those things together well, requires talent. I had other friends who practiced harder and for longer and eventually came to the same conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 00:28
|
|
|
This argument can be easily solved by looking up the definition of talent: "Talent is a group of aptitudes useful for some activity. Aptitude is not developed knowledge, understanding, learned or acquired abilities (skills) or attitude. The innate nature of aptitude is in contrast to achievement, which represents knowledge or ability that is gained through learning." As in all things, it's not a rigorous definition. The actual ability to do something well probably involves how your brain makes connections. Neuroscience will eventually get back to us on how this works one day.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
@Implicit, I feel like you're confusing passion and success with talent, and completely missing the point he was trying to make. Yes, everybody learns and develops skills at a different pace, this is common sense. That doesn't mean it's impossible to do things you want to do. My cousin had more artistic "talent" (skills) than I did when I was younger but I busted my rear end to become better than him and eventually became a professional. At no point in my career have I ever thought I had talent, I just have learned/practiced a lot and got enough skills and experience to make me employable. Adjusting your passion does not mean you don't have talent to do something, it just means you tried it and doubted the (usually employable/financial) path you were heading down and found something new. ceebee fucked around with this message at 00:43 on Jan 7, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
I dont understand. I like computer pictures and I like getting money from making computer pictures?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
What are you guy's preferences for facial animation (in 3ds max or otherwise)? I've seen a lot of different methods online so there's probably no one-size fits all, but I've never gone wrong with using face morphs. I see folks sticking bones all over the face and stuff. Are these people crazy or is there a super good benefit from all that extra manipulation in the long run?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 02:40
|
|
|
Some game engines couldn't handle blend shapes/face morphs until recently. Also sometimes joint/bone solutions can be retargeted easier, rather than sculpting all new shapes for each character.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
That talent argument is mostly semantics. however I have worked with people with 10+ years experience who knew max/vray like the back of their hand and could get grunt work done better than most, but you ask them to compose an image or try and set a mood and they fell apart. they follow the rules they've been shown and dont think outside the box. They cant tell the difference between artistic choices being good and bad. You can learn software and get a job, but working at a high level, coming up with creative solutions and making choices that set a mood is a completely different skillset, it's the art side of a job that starts technical and requires a lot more intuition (/'talent') which cant be taught to those who dont take to it. However you dont know until you try and we work in an industry big enough that you dont need to be an art director/manager to get a decent paying job. not being able to work at weta isnt that big a deal. cubicle gangster fucked around with this message at 07:56 on Jan 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 07:43
|
|
|
At a UK university doing 3d i'd recommend it for the experience as much as the qualification. If you're a mature student and already have had a lot of life experience I'd be tempted to say save your money and learn yourself. Ok you have to be disciplined but there's so much information out there for free you can learn to a higher standard without paying. My final year I was only in for 30 mins a week and the rest was all self study. I really enjoyed my time but doing that as a 36 year old would frustrate me I think. You won't have a degree at the end if you study at home but you won't have the debt either and quite frankly your portfolio will probably be more applicable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 09:04
|
|
|
Talent is imaginary. Art is work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
Goddamn ChaosGroup. For as much as their software costs, you'd figure they'd have a better site. Every section I go to requires a login (instead of a single login working, you know, across the entire site). It's hard to find poo poo - support is trying to direct me to things that don't exist. The forums, for some reason, show last post first when you open a thread. It's just a mess. I'm just trying to install Phoenix for VRay in Maya 2015 and just can't get it to work. Goddamnit! edit: Support finally fixed it. Apparently my account had access to only the Phoenix FD for VRay 2.4 dailies and not the 3.0 section. BonoMan fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Jan 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
I have no talent and rely on the rendering engine in UE4 to make things look ok  That is the level of the graphics in my game. Thank god too, coz I lack skill
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
mutata posted:Talent is imaginary. Art is work. THIS.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
I know plenty of great artists who perpetually make lovely decisions and cant art direct something consistent to save their life. Good taste cant be taught, it's just that a lot of people pursuing a career in art already have it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
90% is hard work and constant learning and improvement. Natural born talent will only get you so far.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
Cant I just pay to get talent?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 05:01
|
|
|
Yes you can pay me and I'll give you talent. Classes start at $500/hour
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 06:43
|
|
|
ceebee posted:Yes you can pay me and I'll give you talent. Welcome to (for profit) education!
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 10:17
|
|
|
mutata posted:Talent is imaginary. Art is work. I think this is completely wrong. It is not difficult to work hard, it is very difficult (actually impossible for some people) to be creative and create something interesting. In the same regard, it is not difficult to take some CG Workshop courses and be taught the technical ability to create comfortable and generic high quality art work. It is a lot of work, but is not remotely difficult. It's a matter of time + focus. However, art is not 100% work, or 100% talent, or 50% this 50% that. It is completely dependent on the intention of the artwork. Some of the greatest artwork in history (to me) is done by technically awful people who might not even be fully aware of what they're creating, they just have a certain thing about the work that others can't replicate. Maybe the idea of what that person is doing is the art in it. Some of my other favorites are technically flawless works that look beautiful to me. I think the main point here, is that painter (CG guy, sculptor, etc) doesn't always = artist, the same way a wood worker doesn't always = artist. cubicle gangster posted:Good taste cant be taught THIS. On the topic of schools, I really regret going to a big art school for a few semesters, and am very glad I did for a few other reasons. The amount of debt it put me in is completely ridiculous, and I actually did not learn anything about CG specifically that I could not have learned on my own. I did learn what to expect from industry heads, and learned how to talk to people in charge (teachers) who actually had no clue what evolution or outside the box mean. I think school is fine if you have technical things or aspects of CG that you want to learn and you do better in a structured environment like that. The connections are great, plus the cute art girls. Other than that, everything could be done on your own by practice/research/the same way you learn to do any skill.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
SVU Fan posted:I think the main point here, is that painter (CG guy, sculptor, etc) doesn't always = artist, the same way a wood worker doesn't always = artist. Agreed, but why is it so impossible that elevating craft to art is just another skill? Reading what you wrote it seems like your definition of art would be "self expression I respond to," and a lot of technically skilled people are never asked to express themselves through their craft. It's not something we have courses for. It seems like more of a problem of introspection and initiative (which can be encouraged and nurtured), not some spark of genius that some people have and others just don't. Also your definition of art is admittedly subjective, so some absolute division of haves and have nots seems pretty flimsy. Essentially nobody thought Van Gogh was an artist until after he died. And now he consistently ranks with the all-time greats.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
I think you can be an artist even though the end result of your endeavour may not be considered artistically valuable. A lot of art goes into designing and building a new car, what with the modelling and shape language and other steps I'm not familiar with, but I don't think anybody would argue that the toyota that rolls off the factory line is a work of art (maybe the engineers.) I don't know if this has anything to do with the discussion but lots of things can include art but not be art imo. Just do what you like if it pays well enough to support your lifestyle. Or even if it doesn't. bring back old gbs fucked around with this message at 01:02 on Jan 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
Prolonged Priapism posted:a lot of technically skilled people are never asked to express themselves through their craft. I think there's an important distinction here in that an artist does so despite never being asked.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
I think what we tend to call 'talent' is often a natural pre-disposition for enjoying and thinking about a subject. For a lot of people, they want to be good at a particular thing, but they don't actually enjoy doing it all that much and tend to spend their spare time thinking about other things instead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
Here's some work we wrapped up recently, it's now public. I was the art director for all these.    And these 2 from a photoshoot we did with models.   There's like 40 images in total, few more in here - http://imgur.com/a/EE924 But still less than half total. most were boring and started good but got ruined by committee. The client started going back to images which had been signed off months earlier, trying to change them coming up with bizzare reasons. At one point they decided that the images with direct sunlight in must have been too confusing for people thinking that all the materials were 2-tone (it didnt look at all like this) and they made us remove all direct sunlight from the lobby and kitchen images, that's why i've not included those. we argued but they paid, so whatever. got more important battles to fight. cubicle gangster fucked around with this message at 18:09 on Jan 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
I'm doing an all CG book trailer for a client recently and they suggested a change of "adding 'a real tale of suspense by john doe'" (not the real quote or author obviously) because "it hasn't been made clear that this is a book." Now, this will be a video released by a BOOK PUBLISHER (and one of the major ones) and the quote will be by an actual product shot of the book. And there will be a url that has "books" in it as well as the logo of the publisher that has "books" in the title. Clients are weird.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
raging bullwinkle posted:I think what we tend to call 'talent' is often a natural pre-disposition for enjoying and thinking about a subject. For a lot of people, they want to be good at a particular thing, but they don't actually enjoy doing it all that much and tend to spend their spare time thinking about other things instead. I agree with this. I just don't buy it that some humans are creators and some aren't and that that's some weird nature-not-nurture thing. The only difference between me and any other person who "can barely draw a stick figure" is that they stopped creating at some point and I didn't. I also don't really agree with the concept that "you can't teach good taste" or variations thereof. People learn to recognize good design/art/composition all. the. time. If you couldn't "artificially" develop a good artistic eye then I would still be making 90s swooshy logos with gradients. Hell, look at any given artist's drawings from their teenage years and you'll get a face full of poor taste. The furthest I'll go down the talent-not-work road is that some people enjoy it more and some people understand it more quickly, so that gives this illusion that they don't have to work as hard, but that's just an illusion. The craft of creation is just a skill that takes DECADES to learn instead of 4 years in a university program. It's super freaking hard and therefore for many who don't want to devote that much time and effort towards it, it's much easier to wave their hand and say "TALENT!" instead of acknowledge that it's just hard work that you have to do for a long, long time. In any case, the closer the conversation gets to "what is art" the less interested I am in participating, so there you go. Also, holy poo poo, cubicle gangster, those images are beautiful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
cubicle gangster posted:awesome renders Where are the trees / foliage from? They're amazing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
Mostly evermotion, but none of the materials are as standard. all the leaves are color corrected, optimized, reflection increased, normal maps made etc. The secret to good trees is just down to leaf color. every model pack has some hosed up cartoony over bright or over dark leaf which need changing. and even after you've fixed them up balancing them in the scene once the lighting is set to keep the tones close is very important too. so leaf materials basically get 2 full revisions before a final render. The trees in the sunset villa shot have photoscanned trunks - we've been building up a library of scanned trunks and cutting apart evermotion leaves to put on top. it's slow going and of limited use tbh, the stars have to align for it to work. cubicle gangster fucked around with this message at 21:41 on Jan 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
cubicle gangster posted:Here's some work we wrapped up recently, it's now public. I was the art director for all these. This is the only image I'd even remotely change, and it's just the palm trees behind the glass on the top level of the building. I think removing them on the top level would've made the building look a lot cleaner but that's just personal taste, and I could certainly see a good argument to have kept them there. Nice renders and compositions all the way around.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
cubicle gangster posted:Here's some work we wrapped up recently, it's now public. I was the art director for all these. This one is my fav, is the wood material made in two tones to create depth or ambient and shadows do the whole trick?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
Hey remember me? I've been programming realtime WebGL stuff lately. Figured I'd share back on this thread. It's definitely a different way to think about 3d.  I'm generating everything programmatically, nothing in an editor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
Odddzy posted:This one is my fav, is the wood material made in two tones to create depth or ambient and shadows do the whole trick? It's not 2 tone but the back material has the reflections all but killed. I think that ones my favourite too, really nails how unique the spa is and draws you in. That metal frame in a sauna is going to be deadly though, I imagine it wont be built the same.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
Hinchu posted:Hey remember me? This is cool - I've been doing some creative coding stuff too lately, messing around with the Cinder library. My C++ skills are still pretty basic but I'm slowly getting my head around things and having a lot of fun with it. I'd definitely welcome more discussion of graphics programming in this thread. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
cubicle gangster posted:It's not 2 tone but the back material has the reflections all but killed. I think that ones my favourite too, really nails how unique the spa is and draws you in. That's something interesting to ask; do cg arch guys inconsistently tweak physically based shaders to get a more pleasing end result? And if so does that go against what you're trying to do (produce a cg image that looks similar to the real end result)?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
KiddieGrinder posted:That's something interesting to ask; do cg arch guys inconsistently tweak physically based shaders to get a more pleasing end result? And if so does that go against what you're trying to do (produce a cg image that looks similar to the real end result)? Because physically based shaders don't necessarily reproduce exactly what happens in the real world..and that even architectural renders gets tweaked to look nicer than real life
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 06:48 |
|
|
If it looks wrong but it's right, it's wrong. If it looks right but it's wrong, it's right. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 01:18
|
|