Ok but if at the basis the raytracer is not capable to reproduce a big
part of the reality you will draw something wrong when you will make
your image (even if it is not photorealistic). It is very naive to
believe that, for example, a (good) modern art painter cannot draw
perfectly the reality! He doesn't do this because this don't interest
him but he can do it. Look the first works of Picasso, you will see :)

Fabian.

"Greg M. Johnson" wrote:
> 
> I agree.
> 
> It all goes back to the discussion of what is art? What is good raytraced art?
> 
> My answer is not: that which is mistakable for a photograph.
> My answer is: that which inspires, with a theme something more than an idiotic
> pun.
> 
> The type of art books I most like to flip through are those of POSTERS, from
> 1900's advertisements to patriotic and anti-war protest posters to dance club
> ads.  I am bored to death with paintings of landscapes.  I think the "landscape
> painting" faction of the art world is the same faction that likes absolute
> photorealism in 3D.
> 
> Someone was once impressed at the possibility that a photo of a kitchen sink
> was raytraced.  I say it's bloody boring however the image was arrived at.
> 
> Simen Kvaal wrote:
> 
> > I was just thinking of this topic when I read the above "PovRay and
> > reality"-thread. My angle is somewhat different.
> >
> > I see a general problem when people (in general) comment raytraced/CG
> > imagery (for example renderings with PovRay.) Often you can see such
> > comments as "the water looks too plastic" and "maybe add more randomness to
> > [whatever]." "The shadows are too sharp" and so on. My point is that whay
> > cannot real-life look like that? Go out in your evironment (no, ouside the
> > computer) and take look at something. It's quite easy to find an objects
> > that "don't look realistic" and if someone had rendered something looking
> > like a photo taken of it, you would say: "you should make the surface less
> > reflective" or "it's too perfect" or similar. That is, it is easy to forget
> > that nature *itself* can look ... well unnatural.
> >
> > This post is not a *personal* attack on all the people who comment posings
> > (including myself.) but merely an attempt to open out minds and not be
> > perfectionists. Have in mind that 'realistic'-looking scenes don't exist
> > either.
> >
> > Anyone wants to comment?
> >
> > Simen.

Post a reply to this message