Actually one interesting thing with povray is that both attitudes tend to merge,
since doing really good pictures requires quite a high level of technical
skills. Povray is not exactly a "painting by numbers" tool and I guess that's
what most of us love in it.
The point I'd like to make is that these skills can be also put to work, and
quite efficiently, on things that are not exactly what is expected from a 3D
software, i.e. to do the usual realist things. To take an example from another
3D software, the most interesting pics I ever saw made with Poser were using its
faults, like its annoying ability to distort characters in every way possible,
rather than the standard Poser "official" features.
OK, let's say that there's a big large realm out there and a quite unchartered
one... I'm in no way saying that the search for realism is wrong (it's actually
a real big enjoyable fun), only that there are other paths, perhaps undervalued
due to the traditional nature of 3D imagery.

Gilles



Mick Hazelgrove wrote:

> Given the state of the art world a third veiw might be  anything goes
> or how about a minimalist point of veiw... a blank white screen
>
> Both realist and expressionist points of view are enjoined by the way in
> which they can both enlighten and enrich our experience... maybe that's what
> we should aim for.
>
> Mick
>
> Ken wrote in message <369E295B.418345AD@pacbell.net>...
> >Mick Hazelgrove wrote:
> >
> >> AT Last someone has said what I have debating saying for a long time but
> >> didn't because I didn't want to start a war!
> >>
> >> Well said Giles - If a picture does not contribute something to human
> >> experience don't bother...
> >>
> >> Guess I better start deleting some of the pictures from my website!!!
> >>
> >> Mick Hazelgrove
> >
> >I think there are two very satisfying schools of thought here.
> >
> >  The first is the ultimate challenge of creating something so realistic
> looking
> >in appearance that you can not distinguish it from reality. This is a
> definate
> >challenge of ones skills and the software they choose to accomplish this.
> >This can be most satisfying.
> >
> >  The second would of course be your view point where you take the
> >stance that to produce and image it should touch the viewer and be an
> >artistic expression of the it's creator. There is no doubt that history
> favors
> >the impressionist artist. One who favors the lighting, evokes meaning,
> >captures an intimate view, or what ever is apt to gain more response
> >tha an image of a light bulb.
> >
> >  I wont argue either view and respect them both. I personaly have used
> >pov for both styles and must admit for me anyway that saying something
> >with your work, moving the people that view it emotionaly, is of great
> >importance to me. Then again I like the feed back of my peers when
> >I have done something with the program technicaly that challenges them
> >to figure out how I did it. There is room for both schools of thought even
> >in the same body of work.
> >
> >Maybe there is a third school of thought but with my narrow view of
> >things it escapes me.
> >
> >--
> >Ken Tyler
> >
> >tyl### [at] pacbellnet
> >
> >

Post a reply to this message