Susan Nagy wrote:
After reading through this forum, I decided to play along with some water. I do photoshop stuff when not modeling. This isn't the best edit, but I think it looks sweet for a first timer:

Her things are showing that is a plus 18

Tommy M wrote:
I think the problem is within the stitching...  I have yet to find a knot to hold such a loose material!

lol yeah it is all fantasy

S de Varax wrote:
I posted about the milk project before- http://razooma.net/projects/milk/


Constantin mentioned

quite interesting

I was just about to mention him. So talented

~Mercy

Adam_A wrote:
I tried a couple a-la-Bijan with only limited success.

Great results imo

wynnesome wrote:
They're all very cool IMAGES, but I'll be impressed in terms of PHOTOGRAPHY when someone can do it single exposure through the lens. 

Maybe Adam Chilson will do it someday, but then again he's usually too busy coming up with his own insanities.

Why stop there?

Impressive photography is one thing, but REALLY impressive photography comes from the photographer juggling 6 chainsaws and a camera and taking the photo when the camera comes around.

Fashion Photographer wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIgumws-CJw

This is 3d water. It was written in maya then sent to houdini and then composited. The thing is, because its moving the detail didn't need to be so fine. I communicated with the person who supervised the 3d work for the commercial. Unfortunately I know nothing about writing fluid force stuff in maya, so may have to stick with what I've been doing with realflow and 3dsmax. Realflow tends to be a bit tempramental and trial-and-error based, though, so it's frustrating me.


I figure that if I can get a model like Hana, people won't be too critical of my 3d work, butfor the moment, this is my plan B.

Im almost certain that this commercial and the one I posted are the only two examples of this idea in advertising.

If you want my two cents on how to do the CG version for print, and since this was written in 2009 you've maybe already finished your project, I wouldn't try too hard to make fluid dynamics do all the work. I'd model the dress as a surface, maybe use Maya nCloth, or something, and then use nParticles or RealFlow or whatever for secondary effects.

gsylves1 wrote:
hi,
i practice on your idea.
and it bring me to this:

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/p … directlink

what do you think of?

regards

You are probably not asking me, but my preference is for something like the OP posted for reference with a surface with a decorative droplet fringe and splash enhancements here and there.

And I don't like the look of many separate particles barely tied togther, chunky and full of holes. I like it when the dress looks like swinging or hanging fabric, only made of water or milk.

wynnesome wrote:
They're all very cool IMAGES, but I'll be impressed in terms of PHOTOGRAPHY when someone can do it single exposure through the lens. 

Maybe Adam Chilson will do it someday, but then again he's usually too busy coming up with his own insanities.

Here you go!

http://www.google.com/search?q=tim+tadd … 0&bih=1024


http://timtadder.com/

Chuckarelei wrote:
I like to point out the Gisele's water dress from op is far more than just setting a layer in screen mode. Note the caustic effect of the water needs to be addressed.

Here is a good one by one of our member here:
https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/9502123

Where are the caustics in that one?

Artifice wrote:
Where are the caustics in that one?

Look at the see thru area of the water, how the refraction of the light behaves. The one impresses me the most is the model's right leg and the area next to her left leg of hot spot created be the reflection of the ground.

Chuckarelei wrote:
Look at the see thru area of the water, how the refraction of the light behaves. The one impresses me the most is the model's right leg and the area next to her left leg of hot spot created be the reflection of the ground.

Those aren't caustics. That's just refraction.

Caustics are focused light spots thrown from the refracting object onto another object. Classic caustics are the lines on the bottom of a pool.

Artifice wrote:
Caustics are focused light spots thrown from the refracting object onto another object. Classic caustics are the lines on the bottom of a pool.

We have different interpretations of the word 'caustic'. For what I understand from my physics class, it's the refraction/reflection properties of liquid when light goes thru it.

Chuckarelei wrote:
We have different interpretations of the word 'caustic'. For what I understand from my physics class, it's the refraction/reflection properties of liquid when light goes thru it.

It's this



The bright stuff over on the left is caustics.

Artifice wrote:


The bright stuff over on the left is caustics.

You may be right. But it all comes down to whether I should believe you, or my physics professor?

Just like how everyday people interpret the meaning of the word 'momentum' compare to the definition of momentum in physics.

Chuckarelei wrote:
You may be right. But it all comes down to whether I should believe you, or my physics professor?

Just like how everyday people interpret the meaning of the word 'momentum' compare to the definition of momentum in physics.

I'd like to see an example of someone defining it your way.

Chuckarelei wrote:


http://gurneyjourney.blogspot.com/2010/ … tions.html

That's an odd thing for you to post since it exactly illustrates what I was saying and not at all what you said.

Caustic reflections are the stuff that bounces off the water and hits the wall.

Caustic projections are the stuff that refracts into the water and hits the floor.

Artifice wrote:
Caustics are focused light spots thrown from the refracting object onto another object. Classic caustics are the lines on the bottom of a pool.

Chuckarelei wrote:
No, I think I was right.

"it's the refraction/reflection properties of liquid when light goes thru it."

You are talking about the caustic effects, like caustic projection and caustic reflection.

There are two definitions, but one is the bundle of rays traveling through space, and the other is their effect on impact.

Chuckarelei wrote:


http://gurneyjourney.blogspot.com/2010/ … tions.html

I illustrated your James Gurney diagram.

Artifice wrote:


You are probably not asking me, but my preference is for something like the OP posted for reference with a surface with a decorative droplet fringe and splash enhancements here and there.

And I don't like the look of many separate particles barely tied togther, chunky and full of holes. I like it when the dress looks like swinging or hanging fabric, only made of water or milk.

I Like your comment! I looked at your work! very nice!
Always a pleasure to get comments from mature skilled professionnal!
Thanks for your generosity ( look at your post number: impressive)
regards