Illuminati Confirmari - first attempt at a bust sculpt

[CrumbReaper]

My next step in going from sculpting in relief to attempting a full figure - a bust!

1:6 scale - my poseable skeleton reference figure in the background - started out
with a wire armature wrapped in thinner gauge and used mount card packed out
with Aves Apoxie for the base shape of the head.

Currently going in with the Kneadatite Greenstuff, I wanted more of a softer eyelid
than I have sculpted previously, more like a whale, still got the upper lid to do on
it's left side but included a frontal shot. I've also ordered some daylight LEDs for
the main room light to get rid of the orange tinge - sorry about that - the flash
seems to knock out a lot of details where the light bounces off the surface but
hopefully this gives you an idea where I'm heading. As always any crits and comments
warmly welcomed, on a mission to improve!









a few more shots of different angles in the gallery

https://postimg.org/gallery/3ip2kzljy/

[CrumbReaper]

 I have stripped back the head to the card and started again, settling on a
single eye so the head more closely resembles the Illuminati pyramid design and I wasn't happy with the multi-sittings sculpting
on the previous head as you could see where the different batches of putty had been blended - this was all sculpted in one go and
textured at the same time - just the upper lid on the eye to do.

I have now also rough bulked out the torso adding in some rough ribs and vertebrae ready for the next stage

[Connectamabob]

I've also ordered some daylight LEDs for
the main room light to get rid of the orange tinge - sorry about that - the flash
seems to knock out a lot of details where the light bounces off the surface but
hopefully this gives you an idea where I'm heading. As always any crits and comments
warmly welcomed, on a mission to improve!

The orange tint isn't the lights' fault: it's because your camera's white balance isn't set right. Either you've got it locked on the wrong preset, or the auto white balance function isn't working right. Orange-y pics like those are what I'd expect if the camera was accidentally stuck on the "daylight" preset instead of auto.

Still good to have daylight bulbs for your workspace, as they help with painting, but for photography having to change physical lights themselves in order to fix color temp hasn't been a thing since digital replaced film (outside of extreme cases, like sodium vapor bulbs or single-color LEDS). Just take a minute or two to look up how to change the white balance on your camera. If it's a modern touch-screen model (or smart phone), it'll be really simple. The older consumer digital cameras with multi-function button menus were the ones where it was a PITA.

You generally want to avoid using the built-in flash. These are always kind of a kludgy way to make up for a lack of light, and they do more harm than good. If you absolutely have to use it, stick a bit of paper over it to act as a diffuser, so you don't get the blown-out highlights and hair-offset hard shadows.

Flashes in general are actually a really good thing to have. It's just the built-in ones that suck, due to the fixed, super-acute head-on angle relative to the lens. It's why when you see pro photographers use flashes, it's always the tall detachable units with a movable head, or remote units on stands.

[CrumbReaper]

The orange tint isn't the lights' fault: it's because your camera's white balance isn't set right. Either you've got it locked on the wrong preset, or the auto white balance function isn't working right. Orange-y pics like those are what I'd expect if the camera was accidentally stuck on the "daylight" preset instead of auto.

Still good to have daylight bulbs for your workspace, as they help with painting, but for photography having to change physical lights themselves in order to fix color temp hasn't been a thing since digital replaced film (outside of extreme cases, like sodium vapor bulbs or single-color LEDS). Just take a minute or two to look up how to change the white balance on your camera. If it's a modern touch-screen model (or smart phone), it'll be really simple. The older consumer digital cameras with multi-function button menus were the ones where it was a PITA.

You generally want to avoid using the built-in flash. These are always kind of a kludgy way to make up for a lack of light, and they do more harm than good. If you absolutely have to use it, stick a bit of paper over it to act as a diffuser, so you don't get the blown-out highlights and hair-offset hard shadows.

Flashes in general are actually a really good thing to have. It's just the built-in ones that suck, due to the fixed, super-acute head-on angle relative to the lens. It's why when you see pro photographers use flashes, it's always the tall detachable units with a movable head, or remote units on stands.

Thanks a million for that feedback, I've got a Canon Power shot and it's 4 or 5 years old - keeps dropping out any settings, the date everything when it's switched off......
definitely in the PITA catagory! I'll have a shopping hunt for a new camera with macro function and thanks again 

[CrumbReaper]

22 minutes later and my brain cell is already    reading reviews on photography sites it seems a lot
of the compact digital cameras suffer in doors with grainy shots, don't think I currently have the budget
for a digital SLR with Macro lens (or if I even need a macro for my stuff)

Any help/advice would be highly appreciated 

[Connectamabob]

Well, without seeing the reviews in question, mind, I'd cynically suspect what's happening there is those folks are using full auto settings, and the auto system is cranking the ISO up (the higher the ISO, the grainier the pics) anytime the light drops significantly below daylight levels.

That's super-common. Both auto settings cranking up the ISO at inopportune times, and consumers blaming the camera for anything they don't understand (which is often, well, everything, unfortunately).

Camera auto settings are deliberately designed to prioritize crisp focus in all areas of the frame above all else. Left to their own devices, they will crank the aperture up to get as much depth of field as possible, while at the same time trying to squeeze as short a shutter speed as possible to eliminate motion blur. ISO ends up being the dump stat as a consequence. Auto settings are deliberately designed to do this because camera companies have found that average joe customers who don't understand photography complain loudest when things are blurry. Doesn't matter why things are blurry or how much: people just sort of think a "good" camera can do anything, so they usually assume the camera is "bad" if the auto settings don't magically give them perfect results every time.

In reality, photography is a balancing act, where sub-optimal lighting will often force you to triage SOMETHING to get what you want. Auto setting aren't sapient: they can't make pic-by-pic judgments about the subject of the image or intent of the user. The designers have to pick the statistically "safest" assumptions on which to base the auto settings' targets, and try to shove all the compromises into areas which generate the least amount of complaints.

Designing auto settings that take "perfect" pics outdoors on a sunny day is easy, because there's more than enough light to just set all settings at their optimal values. But indoors, where the light strength is only a small fraction of that... something's gonna have to be sacrificed. That's just raw optical physics, and it's got nothing to do with the quality of the camera.

Add to all this that compact consumer cameras have small lens bores that limit the amount of light they can collect, PLUS every time you double chip resolution, you halve the chip sensitivity, and you end up with lots of mini-consumer cameras with ISO ranges that bottom out at relatively high values to begin with.

This is part of why DSLRs still exist (though far from the only reason). In order to take low ISO photos with a bigger/higher MPX chip, you need a bigger lens diameter. Until chip tech makes another big leap in light sensing ability (not resolution, but actual sensitivity) compact cameras will always be nerfed compared to DSLRs and even phone cameras when it comes to lower light conditions. And as long as consumers are quick to assume camera quality is the cause of every problem they don't understand, auto systems will always be designed to heavily prioritize some settings at the expense of others.


TBH, I don't think there's a purpose to middle-ground compact consumer cameras anymore. If you want to get srs bzns with your photography, get a DSLR, and if you just want to take good casual pics, get a smartphone with a decent camera chip and install a good manual camera app.

[CrumbReaper]

TBH, I don't think there's a purpose to middle-ground compact consumer cameras anymore. If you want to get srs bzns with your photography, get a DSLR, and if you just want to take good casual pics, get a smartphone with a decent camera chip and install a good manual camera app.

I hear where you are coming from, I've found the process with the compact good but not great and since it's been dropping settings when you do get a good set up it's a pain
in the neck. I have been using lower ISO, tripod and timer and getting better results until settings keep resetting............... so yeah, I think it's time to look into DSLR cameras.

I suspect it's another can of worms to open and a question of budget but seriously any recommendations on DSLR and lens combo would be highly appreciated, thanks for your
time, I'm way out of my depth on this subject so again it is genuinely massively appreciated.

[Connectamabob]

I'm afraid I'm not up to date on the current DSLR models myself, so I can't be of much help there, unfortunately. My own DSLR is already getting a bit old (still works fine, but if from the pre-touchscreen era, so using manual settings is a drag), but replacing it hasn't been enough of a priority for me to start researching the current models.

The most I can say is that Canon is the most popular of the major quality brands, but I lean Nikon personally, as their lens mount philosophy has been very good to me. At the time I got my current DSLR, Nikon and Canon were about equal in quality, though Canon was ahead in popularity IIRC due to them having a better software UI. The thing that won me over to Nikon is that they've been using the same bayonet mount for all their lenses since like the 1960's. So barring the lack of autofocus and/or auto aperture electronics on the older lenses, you can use any Nikon lens you can find, of any product line or vintage, on your modern Nikon camera, and Nikon lenses have very stable resale value. Canon and other brands, however, like to change their bayonet mount designs to keep lenses product line specific, resulting in a more limited selection, and a degree of built-in obsolescence.

As far as what lenses you need, I think most DSLRs come with a short-range zoom lens that covers pretty much all you'll need for most normal/basic stuff (something like roughly 30-90mm zoom range, off the top of my head, I'm sure it varies from brand and model; basically a very mild wide angle to a very mild telephoto). At least while you're learning. You shouldn't need anything really specialized for taking WIP bench pics, and you won't know if or what you actually need/want for your own particular purposes in a specialized lens anyway until you've found your feet with the basics.

Some folks will try to sell you on buying a macro lens up front, for figure photography. IMO this is not needed, and can actually be disadvantagous. Macro lenses have very shallow & finicky depth of field, and you don't actually need to get literally close up to take "close up" pics*. Standing at arms length and using a zoom to fill the frame with the subject (and crop later in Photoshop if need be) will work just as well, with the only difference being slightly flatter perspective and a stop or two more exposure needed to compensate for the longer lens.

*Well, they wouldn't technically be "close up " images if the camera wasn't literally close, due to the perspective, but that's not the point: big pics of small things is the point.

[CrumbReaper]

I've been browsing some retail sites rather than the review type sites and found the
UK John Lewis to be very helpful, I'm also leaning towards Canon as I've been happy
with the current until old age seems to have hit it (may have dropped it a while back
thinking about it!!)

I'm currently bookmarking a Canon EOS 1300D comes with an EF 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 III Lens & EF 50 mm f/1.8 Lens.
it's 18MP and the Wi-Fi is an added bonus rather than constantly hooking and unhooking it to the PC.

UK369 too so if I get a couple of good months with call outs at work I should be able to stretch to it too!

If you ever want anything I produce in kit form contact me first on here and I'll sort you some discount, as
mentioned much appreciated, time is precious so thanks for sparing some to help out 

[CrumbReaper]

more progress - body bulked out and skin layered over that, robe draped over shoulder - I roughed it with 120 wet n dry for a bit of
texture but didn't want to put a pattern/runes/markings on as I think it will be more open to painters to go wild on this :-)







lots more in the gallery - different angles, with and without flash etc

https://postimg.org/gallery/3ip2kzljy/

[CrumbReaper]

work starts on the headdress - as an ancient intelligence that has in turn inspired several races around the globe I wanted it to have elements that would reflect Aztec, Mayan, Hopi and Egyptian styles - next step will be to mirror this on the other side and then add the upper brow. At that point I will then try a sweeping cloth effect either side to come down and out onto the shoulders - well, that's the plan!

[CrumbReaper]

both sides of the headdress now nearly completed, allowing this stage to cure before I finish off the bottom curved areas, very pleased
with how this is shaping up now after a bit of a wonky armature start!

[CrumbReaper]

Update time! I've added in the cloth draping down over the chest both sides and finished off the end pieces of the headdress
and rough filled the back of the head which will now be left to cure before finishing it off - the UPVC offcut has been recycled
into a rough flat top 3 sided pyramid which will get sculpted over to make a base!

Still deciding at the moment on a cloth drape for the back or a more ribbed armor look............

[CrumbReaper]

All done, learned a lot from the process, mainly for bigger pieces trying out other sculpting mediums that
I can work with for longer than Greenstuff for blending etc but that was the whole point of the exercise 

Next I'll paint it up for my own display and already got the wire work and base putty on for next pieces now
it's finished. Pictures of them soon!

In the meantime - enjoy

back of the head for the cowling -








loads more images in the gallery https://postimg.org/gallery/3ip2kzljy/

[Alxbates]

I like it!

Looking forward to more updates!