[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k] [s4s] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Settings Home

File: WW2Commander_Texture.jpg (204.20 KB, 1000x851)
204.20 KB
204.20 KB JPG
How are textures like these made? in particular character textures. I can see that it's not a real image, but it looks pretty real. But too real to be drawn from memory at least. Do you have a real image in let's say layer 1 and then draw it in layer 2? Shitton of filters involved?
Sometimes it's from 360 degree pictures, then photoshoped, or just realisticly drawn entirely from photoshop with a combination of 3d modeling rendering like giving a sword some wear and tear and exporting that as a diffuse/normal....etc....
It's absolutely not too real to be drawn from memory, because it's not drawn from memory. It's just how the face turned out based on common rules about facial anatomy and skin texturing the person has learned. You learn how facial feature work so you can recreate them and add variance, and you learn how to paint hair texture, skin coloration and the finer details or skinn coloring and then go wild with those concepts to create essentially a new human being. It might sound daunting, but with a lot of practice, you can get to that point too. This isn't even a particularly amazing example either, this level of quality should be expect of any decent character modeler.
LIke every other kind of texture. You experiment and find out what looks like shit, then you stop doing that and try something else.
File: arg.png (639.10 KB, 898x919)
639.10 KB
639.10 KB PNG
I sense those are wise words.

So I'm trying to do it in photoshop, looks terrible at this point but I'll keep going. Hair line looks kinda nice... I think...
Textures like that are often made through a mixture of real life photographed textures, software created textures and a load of tools/presets to combine everything, and then use all kinds of brushes for coloring, adding and the finishing touch.
File: cruves.png (398.94 KB, 512x512)
398.94 KB
398.94 KB PNG
Don't know what to call them but curves... Any method for making "curves" like these on fabric textures within photoshop? I ended up adding fading black lines with 5% opacity but it looks more like shit stains than curves.
File: e.jpg (129.96 KB, 1024x1024)
129.96 KB
129.96 KB JPG
I suppose you can use a wrinkled fabric texture from google images, overlay that on top of your texture in Photoshop, and change the blending mode to screen.

Then just resize it, and play around with it until you get a decent result.

Something like pic related should do fine
Oh... you're painting on the actual 2D image, yeah, you're not going to get something realistic that way. To makes faces like this, you need to be painting on the model. Use Substance Painter or Quixel.

Look up texture maps

Ambient occlusion, normals, displacement

Please, don't listen to anyone else. The dude who suggested they used a cloth texture, jesus.

Stay away from people who polymodel on Blender here. They all got opinions, and they're fucking retarded.
File: 1449510200376.jpg (33.17 KB, 500x336)
33.17 KB
33.17 KB JPG
> But too real to be drawn from memory at least.
>To makes faces like this, you need to be painting on the model.
>using an entirely premade normal/displacement.occlusion and forgoing modular texture usage on an entirely non-uniform and situational art that is texturing

It has come to this /3/
Basic texture skills forever gone
Model painting dependency is now
Don't even know how to use stock textures and alphas for materials
Thinks the texture is unpaintable oh dear Satan please take these children and burn their anuses
I want newgen 3D babbies to leave
>Basic texture skills forever gone
>Model painting dependency is now

"New technology is bad! The old way worked before, why not keep using it!".
You sound like those old sculptors in the industry who hate computers for making sculpting faster because they refuse to learn it.

It doesn't matter what you're doing, being able to paint on the model is faster and more accurate, since you can see precisely where your stroke is going to end up on the mesh, instead of some vague judgement from looking at the UVs. Not to mention when your stroke is projected to texture, it is warped to take into account the inevitable distortion in your UV islands, something you can't take into account by manually painting on the 2D texture.

It's about achieving higher quality. On the model painting tools is part of what allowed a leap in CG quality. This isn't the PSX era where you can get away with painting on the texture map because your texture res is like 256x256 at best. We're not reliant, simply being smart.
>It's about achieving higher quality. On the model painting tools is part of what allowed a leap in CG quality.
Most agree that 2011 onward cg has been stagnant and even regressed
good, im using 4 programs and don't need anymore
On model painting starting becoming a reality in the early 2000s, Quixel and Substance aren't the first apps that did it... Even Mari and Mudbox aren't. Those tools just made it more accessible to amateurs.
>"New technology is bad! The old way worked before, why not keep using it!".
That's not what he said, you tard. He said the new tools are used by lazy shits who don't know how to texture and want to take a shortcut 90% of the time. It's gotten so bad that I can tell if a texture is a modular pre-made one or not, because no one fucking puts in the effort of giving it any additional detail.

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.