I don´t want to sound like an $#%hole but it just looks like a photo projected on a low res head to me. But on a positive note cool subject matter.
I definitely quote you! i can’t understand all of this excitement and “photorealistic” claims.
Don’t want to underestimate the work, but as adesypersefone says it is a quick exercise mainly focused at textures:
+1. I would also add that she doesn’t look like a woman that much…
I agree with this in 100%. For a few days i’m wondering if my eyesight has deteriorated even more…
Was it even done in Blender? But – wow, straight to the Top Row with it eh?
I agree.I don’t think it was done in Blender.
I don’t even think it may be a model until i see the wireframe.
Speaking in another language is an excuse for this guy to evade such questions.I am sorry but i do not see this as great.Not until it is proven to be a 3D model, even if it’s not from blender.A little more information would help rather than just posting some picture like this.
It looks like projection mapping on a model as some people mentionned.
There’s nothing wrong with projection mapping, it’s a very efficient technique to texture people.
And Blender can do that very nicely
I’m still trying to figure out why so many people are asking for wireframe renders, or to prove that it isn’t a photo 
I love the image; I think it’s very well done. Though at the same time, I can’t help but wonder if all I have to do to get an image featured in the top row is attempt to create a human head in Blender…
I think that “the way to get an image featured in the Gallery” is … to create a visually arresting photograph. It shows off what you did, not specifically how you did it. There are lots of ways that an image like this one could have been created, and I’m not to judge which one was used. It’s the idea that puts an image into the Gallery for me. Take an idea, execute it cleanly, working within the medium and the tool, and do it in a way that shows-off Blender. To me, this image is right where it belongs. This image is killer. “Well done.”
Well.
To put it to the extreme: if this image was created by mapping a photo taken by someone else on a plane, then it still would be an “idea, executed cleanly, by working within the medium and the tool”, and the Blender “artist” would deserve praise, for a simple reuse of 3rd-party genius?
Even if it’s a photo mapped on a low poly head, the question would remain, why this should be considered a particularly notable achievement, concerning either Blender and it’s capabilities, or those of the 3D artist - still, it’s primary achievement would be that of a photographer’s craftsmanship.
In short:
what you did
cannot be appreciated justly without taking into account
how you did it
here.
I, for my part, tend to applaud and admire original artwork. Compositings of 3rd-party material completely fail to impress me, usually (and even annoy me instead, if use of 3rd-party stuff is not made explicit, by citing sources/creators).
If this is original artwork however, then the artist should have uttered a statement of clarification by now (“I took the photo, and here is the model’s wire”).
Too harsh comments around here imho. This was a texture test afterall.
Too harsh comments around here imho. This was a texture test afterall.
I think the reason for these comments are more as a result of this image being featured.
After comparing it against the original I only think your’s is too masculine. Other than that it’s a great job man!
Looks like he used this photo as an input for a diffuse/bump texture
http://nomadas.abc.es/repository/galleries/24%20copia%20reducida.jpg
Anyway, IMHO words like “amazing” or “outstanding” are an exaggeration in this case…
Muy bueno!! ¿Esta rendeado con blender internal o con cycles?
That’s simple - to see the topology. Personally, I like seeing topology of such models to better understand good loop flow.
Fantastico trabajo Persefone, muy bien todo, texturas, piel, luz. muy bien captada la expresion. Detalles de la tierra sobre la frente estan muy bien.
Felicidades, Congratz