DAGrant said:

Thank you Celticfire, I use it sometimes.  I got so tired of painting hair with that one, I haven't done one with painted hair since, but I need to.  Nan and Mavrosh are my hair idols. LOL

I like that one.  Lighting makes sense to me, goes with the background well.  One of irks is when an artist has a background like this and then the character is completely lit.. no shadows.  Here the shadows make the most of his sculpted form.  Did you do the skin yourself?  Very cool, love the blue 'freckles'.

Yes I did Delaney, thank you. It was very fun but then when I got to the part where the skin freckles overlap the texture seams I wanted to shove my mouse through my eye. It was such a pain! In the end I felt it was very worth it though!

nanobot, oh, that toast is priceless :)

celtic, ooh, neat greenblue guy :)

we have a new person? gee, i miss reading for
a few days and look what happens.

hi, new person!

 Interesting! Black and white and water, very nice, and back-lighting, too!

Mav, something odd is going on with the back of his pelvis; it looks a bit too prominent and bony for someone that fit.

Pelvis is the hip part of the body between the waist and the legs. Hip is just the sides, pelvis is the whole part all around. Does that make sense?

surochek said:

PS: das Becken

Dankeschön! Thank you! :)

Mavrosh said:

Dankeschön! Thank you! :)

You're welcome!

I'm not sure I can still put together a good German sentence, but I remember how to use a dictionary!

(Spending summers in Frankfurt/Main with Russian friends didn't really help my German, eh)

The swirls are nice if rather feminine, but I have to concur, it seems an odd design on a very male buttock. 3D tats are hard to get to blend well and look realistic, so don't feel bad if it takes a few tries. LT knows a bunch more about getting them to look right, since he's got figments with Yakuza tats that he does.

I look at that and think there should be a trio of clovers--the central large, and two smaller flanking. Oh wait, that's a *flower.* Um.

Look at architectural ornament for inspiration; it can be graceful and still be chunky enough to be masculine.

Artistic nude




Also (click for bigger):



Full frontal nudity is not mandatory. Allowed, but not mandatory.

Hmmm, question: where do we rank the works of Maplethorpe?

Interesting question. But great painters have delved into erotica without making it mainstream. It usually remained a private collection (or in private collections). A known, but not public endeavor.

Maybe it's just that we've forgotten that art doesn't all have to be public and in your face?

That would definitely not be the purpose of artistic nudes. Exploring the shape and movement of the human body without disguise or concealment -- but not an exploration of the uses of the human body. That would be saying that a Goya crucifixion is an artistic nude. I don't think so.

Artistic Nudity: The only thing erotic about the image is that there are naked people in it. Nobody is doing anything sexual, and the focus of the image is not on body parts, but characterization and pose. We can see the characters face, we can take a guess at their emotional state. The overall focus is on the character's beauty, and/or perfection of form, pose, and the overall artistic flow of the image. Example: David, by Michelangelo. Though it's usually viewed from the ground and as such it's difficult to see, in it's original installation, the statue was made to be viewed from a balcony above it, where his emotive state is more clearly seen. This is David before the confrontation with Goliath. His penis and testicles are retracted in fear, and his face is wrapped in apprehension. The true key to the image, however, is that we, the viewer, are dwarfed by the gigantic David who - though he doesn't know it - is a far greater moral and spiritual giant than Goliath was a physical one. Rule of thumb: If the impact of the image would not be reduced by strategically placed fig-leaves or swimsuits, it's artistic nudity.

Erotica: Pretty much the same as above, however, now the focus is on the character(s) as a sexual being. Occasionally includes objectification by removing the head or other extraneous details that would allow us to guess at the character's emotional state, to focus the viewer's attention on the character's body. Either way, however, the focus of the work is on the character's sexuality, without actually showing copulation. Example: Rodin's "Eternal Idol", where the focus of the work is the man's intense desire for his female partner, and her enjoyment of his worshipful attentions. Rule of thumb: If the impact of the image would definitely be reduced by strategically placed fig-leaves or swimsuits, it's erotica.

Porn: One or more people touching their genitals, touching their genitals to other people or things, posed so as to intentionally display their genitalia to the viewer as the central focus of the work, displaying obvious sexual arousal (such as an erection), or just flat-out having sex. Objectification by removing extraneous details of the face is common (often it's expected), and often the entire focus of the image or work is to display the characters' groins, or the act of copulation itself. The intent of the work is to arouse prurient interest, or display the artist's particular fetish. Example: Rodin's "Iris, Messenger of the Gods", was done on commission for an exhibit on Victor Hugo, but displays his personal fetish for women dancing in the nude. It shows a headless dancer grasping one leg in the air, her the labia spread wide by the pose. Rule of thumb: If the image couldn't happen with the characters wearing strategically placed fig-leaves or swimsuits because clothing would just be be in the way, it's porn.

Oh my.... I feel insecure about everything now... I know that for sure I will not post into this thread again as I am afraid on stepping on somebodies toes again.

Please don´t be mad at me for saying this or reacting that way.... at least I cannot do anything wrong with this. :)

I wasn't sure where to put this: it's a nude, and it's a WIP.  Not even sure if I'm going to finish this one but I wanted to see how the skin texture rendered out with a noir sort of lighting configuration.  I did tweak the body some, and I don't know why but the gen maps don't *quite* fit in with the actual skin texture.  I didn't do anything to the texture itself, the effects here are from the IDL sphere/background/lighting only.

Note to fellow forum-members:

I'm likely going to be cleaning this thread up soon, so that it has more images on balance.

Thread has been cleaned up.  Thanks, everyone, for your patience and understanding.

Lovely.

Meanwhile, down by the sea...

I find it beautiful too.

xaa, very nice scene :) feels almost like an oil painting.

Nanobot said:

"Wet Deception" just to keep my hand in. Nothing special about this one.

Excellent.

Fresh water mermaid? I didn't have a lot of aquatic things available. Should have done salt water, I suppose... but I didn't have any really good small ocean fishies. :(

On the other hand, she has a trout watching her bewbs, and another about to taste her fingers. And an angel fish examining her hair, no doubt asking her where the water went!

Inspiration time, for those of us who love the human figure. This video
had my jaw dropping. It's called "Body of a Dancer," and while there are
no naughty bits showing, it's probably not quite safe for work.

Oh man. I love the high contrast!!!! Gorgeous.

Elegant and delightful.