Dunno where to put this, but here's a quote from someone on CGPeers:>"Udemy,digital tutors,tuts+,cgcookie all garbage. Non industry deviant artist just make tutorials with no knowledge and shit skills passing bad workflows around,like artist stds."Is he right /3/? Is there really no sites out there with good tutorials? Not even YouTube?
Well if you take a side by side comparison with say Gnomon videos, he isn't wrong on quality and soundness of advice. But so far as learning a tool it's pretty much all good, professional advice is hard to come by even with hard cash so yeah, it's hard to come by.
>>598710>Not even YouTube?Why would youtube be better than the rest?Other than>it's free
>>598710>cgcookieFew people use blender profesionally, if you want good tutorials you have the gnomon workshop
>>598711Gnomon tuts are garbage, too. The only good tuts are by sidefx and Tor frick
>>598723Actually thousands of people use blender professionally, not just in the industries people here care about game/films. But I know a lot of people who use it for illustration and motion graphics daily and are paid for it full time.
>>598710the people who make tutorials don't have to be amazing because it's not their job to make you amazing, it's their job to explain a program's interface, familiarize you with basic concepts and workflows, or show you an acceptably decent project from start to finish so you're not completely lost. that's all you can expect from a tutorial and the rest comes from experience. the actually amazing artist, if somehow given more money to make tutorials than what he's getting from actually working, would not necessarily produce better tutorials because 1. being good at 3d art and being good at teaching are unrelated skillsets and 2. most of what makes the amazing artist amazing is intuitive knowledge accrued over years of experience and would be extremely hard if not impossible to verbalize. you'd follow his instructions to the letter and his result would still be ten times better than yours.i'm sure there are a lot of tutorials out there that are actually shit but this complaining about the teachers not being accomplished enough is symptomatic of a fantasy: that if only the teachers were better you'd surely be a master in no time. this magic shortcut does not actually exist.
CGCookie is as good as you will get with Blender. If you're making an indie game/project/whatever, nothing wrong with learning from them.That said, I would only learn modeling from them. The guy who did their recent normal mapping tutorial was clearly out of his depth.Animation tutorials are good too if that's your thing. That aussie guy is a professional.
Thoughts on Learnsquared? Particularly their Houdini Courses by Adam Swaab.
>>598710He's right that what is taught there is nowhere near the level of quality that is needed to perform in the top of the field. But as an introduction showing you the ropes it's functional. If you are talented enough to have a shot of making it to the top all you really need to get you going in the right direction is a springboard.You don't really learn anything from tutorials past a certain point. Instead you'll be looking at works you admire from other artistsand hone your skill by replicating, reverse engineer and eventually refine upon their techniques to push your own envelope. The early stages of the battle towards becoming an accomplished CGI artist lies in understanding what it is you are looking at, and there is where all these tutorials comes in.It'll allow you to gain the vocabulary and basic understanding to follow the discourse between accomplished artists on forums and such where the real advancement of this craft occurs.So while I understand the notion of whoever made that remark I do not share the pessimism or edgelordism of stating it like that.
>>598710It's probably just an elitist attitude, I've learned a lot from tutorial videos. Perhaps if you're already an accomplished artist some of these tutorials might seem thin and basic, but you have to start somewhere either way.
>>598727Well, to be fair to them, Normal Mapping isn't exactly easy to get right.I also have a few of the Aussie guy's animation tutorials downloaded, I'm just waiting for the Lip-sync tutorial to come out on CGPeers because I'm a poorfag.>>598729That edgelord attitude was the vibe I was getting off that statement, hence the topic. I'm not 100% sure he's even aware what the purpose of a tutorial even is if he's going to act like they should be avoided at all costs.besides, I feel tuts also can help refresh a memory if you forget what you need to do.
>>598710>Non industry deviant artistthat statement by itself shows the stupidity of the poster.
>>598710Stephen Knapping's Applied Houdini series. Fucking 10/10. Also The Mantissa's Weird Shit series. He does lots of bizarre mograph shit in blender and natron.
>>598753If you're referring to me, I wasn't the one who originally posted it. I just found it and made the thread using it.But you're right, he's pretty fucking stupid.
>>598710Hey, now that we're all discussing bad tutorials, could you people share some examples of bad workflows?I'm not new, but i could always correct mistakes
>>598793here's an example:>just do all your maps in Crazybump
>>598793>could you people share some examples of bad workflows?You're getting meme'd on son, this whole thread is a meme.First of all, a workflow is just a way of doing, you'll find "the best" workflow by doing work and seeing how other people do things. The idea that there is some golden way of doing, some perfect ANYTHING, is a noob trap for idiot beginners looking for shortcuts.If you don't have any workflow, which is to say you have no creative process whatsoever (because you're an absolute beginner) then watch other people and see how they doing things and then copy them. Then, as you gain experience, see how other people do things and if you like them do them. This idea of "good tutorial" vs "bad tutorial" is pretty shitty too for the exact same reasons: yeah there's technical excellence (sound quality, doing things in a reasonable way, presenting ideas well, the fundamentals of teaching, etc) but beyond the objective technical criteria (which are by far the easiest to meet) you get into the realm of bullshit technique fetishism shit.Any tutorial, any artist, any human endeavor that you watch (and have knowledge of yourself) you'll see someone do something sub-optimally and if you watch enough tutorials and learn enough you'll watch a tutorial and think to yourself "you could have extruded and filled that in a simpler way" or "you could have averaged the distance between those two points using the [software feature the author didn't know about]", and so on. There is no best tutorial, no best teacher, no best software, no best practices. You can even watch a master like Tor Frick and see him do weird shit but he's gotten so used to it that he can do it extremely fast, so he makes it work for him.
they're not wrong. generally you should RTFM as your first source for learning app features. tutorials are for when something isn't really explained well enough in the manual
>>598832Humm.. while it is true that each artist has his way of doing things and there is no "best" "golden way", it's a bit misleading, in the sense that there are definitively BAD ways of doing things.Professional 3D like games, movies, and rendering has important technical requirements that should never be ignored just because "muh workflow". Bad workflows exist, just as good ones do; so good tutorials should be eye openers on important knowledge without being too restrictive on softwares and whatnot. The principles matter.I don't know if you have a career in 3D, but if you don't just let me guarantee you something: there definitely are best practices. I see way too many freelancers and partners bullshit their way out of projects, which end up being technical and visual shitfests. So yeah, I'd say that developping a proper workflow based on solid knowledge and the latest technologies is key if you want to make it.