St. wrote:

>      No offence, but why would something have to be 100% accurate when using 
> a modelling program to gain technical merit?

No, Just one way of achieving a score

>       It may be the case where that author has discovered a new method in 
> modelling and doesn't want to give it up yet (text-wise), or, it may be the 
> case where that author has just done a fine job (and I think so in this 
> case).

Okay. This could be a possibility, though I still disagree with it 
fitting in technical merit.

>    As for my image, (which I know you weren't talking about, but is in the 
> same veign as a couple of other images), do you think that sax would play?
>    It looks like it could, but I assure you that it couldn't.  ;)
> 

Hmm, one would think, but I'm not familiar with how a sax works. Good 
detail :)

>    I think even our very own GT mentioned a while back that it's useless to 
> model what's 'behind' the main image.
> 

With HDR, yes, without -- it really depends. It doesn't always work out 
well, but I generally get away with not modeling anything behind the 
camera, usually you can't tell.


-- 
~Mike

Things! Billions of them!

Post a reply to this message