I was just commenting on the level of ‘ownership’ that can be had in the finished project, it is absolutely in a different league than just blindly following Andrew Price.
I think that emulating an existing piece is a much more honest way to go about learning. I see too many people thinking that they learned how to model so and so and not understanding that they only know how to follow directions. When you are looking at a finished piece as the direction, you have to figure out how to get there.
It’s like having mapquest directions vs. having a paper map. You are using something external to motivate your actions, but the level of independence within the direction makes a huge difference.
I don’t think writing it’s a good example in this case… It’s easier to make an exact replica of another book. Just open Word, CTR+C CTRL+V - Boom! you have a trilogy of the Lord of the Rings!
I am learning a lot during the process. I am really enjoying it.
I followed Andrew’s tutorial, in fact I am an Architectural Academy student. I’ve learned a lot with him because I always tried to understand why he was doing what he did on every situation. I don’t think everybody capitalizes that knowledge he has.
I’ve also joined Blender Cloud, there is some MAJOR stuff also. You must have your own project ( this said by someone who copies photos or renders)
I don’t think writing it’s a good example in this case… It’s easier to make an exact replica of another book. Just open Word, CTR+C CTRL+V - Boom! you have a trilogy of the Lord of the Rings!
and yet, i am willing to bet that if you opened word, and started copying the lord of the rings, by the and of the books you would be speaking like gandalf.
but a better practice is to try and emulate a style. try to write a few pages in the style of steinbeck, or bradbury, or le guin. try to make a picture that looks as if gleb alexandrov did it (or someone from the wider cg sphere). you can also try to sculpt a michaelangelo or a bernini in 3d sculpt, or recreate a rembrandt in 3d. (rembrandt is especially suitable, i think, because of his use of light and shadow)
take, for example, those ones from my todo personal training projects:
I love your progress and your idea. You can say: “Why?”. Because, I’m a fan of Bert. And I planned make copied-image, but not for commercial purposes from Bert’s portfolio. They are so amazing. P.s.: As I guess it is rendered not with Octane, only with Corona Render for Max.
Thanks!! BB it’s a real inspiration and a role model
In this case in particular, he rendered with Octane. he said it’s just a test… can you imagine? it’s just a test and it’s miles away of any of my best work…
I will upload som progress soon… the wood on that it’s really hard to reproduce…
Yes, I’m mistoken. Now I found this info:http://www.ronenbekerman.com/octane-corners-by-bertrand-benoitAnd about your progress, can’t waiting your next progress.P.s.: The chair was he made has darken brownish oil-like wood texture ane the form a litle bit correct to real than your. But, anyway, I like your work too.
Back in the day, and we’re talking centuries ago here, novices would seek out masters to become their workshop apprentices and during their education they would specifically emulate the work of the master to gain an understanding in the techniques of the craft. This was how they gained skills. But the novices at some point would see their time spent emulating the masters going from copying them into the formation of their own original work which would look very distinct from the original works from which they learned from.
But for this to work it always has been a requirement for the student to already have natural talent that the master helps to hone.
It’s okay to learn from tutorials. The purpose of them, however, is to learn transferable skills whereby when you complete a tutorial you emulate the knowledge and apply it to a similar project of your own. Otherwise if not, you’re just wasting your time.
imo jonimercado’s method is very different from a tutorial, because a toturial shows you the way to reach the endgoal, and when copying like that, you know the endgoal, but you must find the way yourself. it might very well be different than what the “master” used, even if the result is similar.
of course, i don’t think the ambition of an artist needs to be to become an emulator of others, but it is a great way to learn.
Now that you mention photography I was going to mention exactly that. If your goal is to make archviz for example, then there’s nothing better than trying to recreate an actual photography; you don’t have to think how that person did this or that… YOU have to come up with a way to emulate o recreate everything, using what you already know or coming up with different techniques; or just seeing how other people do things and use that knowledge for your project.
Take a picture of your desk, or your room, or the street you live in, and try to replicate that. There’s the real learning, as Bertrand says in this interview
…I think one thing that is hugely important is to make sure you don’t restrict yourself to other people’s CG as your sole source of inspiration. Look at photographs, look around you and try to think of how you would translate what you see into CG. This is probably the best way to push your limits and improve your work.
what a great interview! but he says what he says, because HE is Bertrand… If someone would interview me ( in the future ) I would say: never take CG as your source of inspiration, the only exception is bertrand… that dude’s work it’s jaw-dropping!"
No, but really, I do what you say as well. here’s an example:
But I find some emotion in CG that it’s hard to find in real architecture… at least where I am looking for…
I agree with both of you completely, if I want to do an accurate render, I’d follow a real picture, but if I want to get emotional inspiration, I always end up browsing trough CG artwork… I don’t know why!
Besides, you forgot what he says before the “Real Photo Advice”
beginners keep a close eye on competitors’ work and try to learn as much as they can from them – both technically and artistically
