On Thursday, my group and I met up at the Perlman Teaching classroom to take photos of our chosen statuette: tomb figure of a court lady with one bun. The three of us decided it would be best to use a 2-point lighting system that circled around the figure to evenly capture the surfaces without inconsistent shadows and dark areas. When we started taking photos, it felt like the camera wasn’t capturing the detail and preciseness of the figure the way we’d hoped it would. We re-read the instructions for how to best take the photos and realized we might just need to get closer. This made but a small difference, and I think a lot of the differences between modeling an object and viewing it in an exhibit stem from this.
Even when we got the camera much closer to the figure, it still felt like tons of the detail was being left out. There’s something about getting your eyes that close to an object in person, especially with no glass/partition between you and that object, that lets you really take in the fineness of the art. The figure was rough and coarse, and at the same time looked almost soft and delicate; seeing it with my eyes helped me try to imagine what it would feel like and what the creator’s hands must have looked like. There’s a lot of tangibility that exists when you’re able to see the object in person and circle it and make your own interpretations about it. I don’t think the same can truly be said for the modeling side.
When I look back at the 79 photos we took of the figure, I don’t have any of the same experience that I had in person. Not only is each just a fragment of the larger whole, but the object just feels flat and lifeless when you look at it on a screen. Our group has not yet performed the photogrammetry for this assignment, but once we have, I can’t imagine it will feel much different than looking at a bunch of images. I’ve always been a lover of the arts, but there’s something about looking at an object as a 3D representation of itself that detracts from my experience with it.
5 thoughts on “Modeling vs. Eyeballing”
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
I found it really interesting that you felt that detail was lost in the move to a digital representation, and that you were able to perceive the object better with your own eyes. I have really, really terrible eyesight, so to me one of the advantages of 3D representation has always been that I can zoom in super huge and adjust the light and all of that so that I can pick up on the details that my eyes just can’t see without help. It’s nice to get someone else’s perspective!
Hey Jackson, loved working with you on this, and I had a very similar experience. Especially looking at our finished product, there are entire chunks of the render that simply do not capture how interesting the texture and detail of the burial figure, especially the little lines in her robe near the hands. I would not be surprised if there was a much more advanced software that could properly capture those details, but for now I agree that the model does not have the same life as the physical piece of art seemed to show.
I’m glad that you mentioned the disappointing lack of detail when 3d modeling objects. My group and I had the same problem and I was left wondering if we had taken poor photos or simply not enough. I wonder if there’s an ideal imaging process that really limits the poor rendering, or if it is just a challenge with today’s technology.
I agree that some details are lost when it is being 3d modeled, but there are also countless other details that you would not have discovered by simply looking at it, for example I only realized my sculpture was tilted and had a missing piece until I photographed it.
I totally agree that art really takes on a new level of detail when you’re able to examine it up close, without any glass obscuring your view or ropes preventing you from looking at the finer details. It’s also true that a lot of the very fine details are lost during the photogrammetry process, but I think a lot of that is unavoidable. Who knows, though? Maybe the tech will advance to the point where it’s indistinguishable from the real thing.