"Mike the Elder" <zer### [at] wyanorg> wrote in message 
news:web.463f38ba62a9bf11d44974430@news.povray.org...
> Now is probably as good a time as any to share a few thoughts I have
> regarding what seems to be an assumption with respect photo-realism that
> often enters into discussion of ray trace images. ...

I certainly appreciate that there's no need to go photo-real with an image. 
I'm a big fan of stylised graphics. But in the case of your image I thought 
that you were trying to be realistic. There was no obvious stylistic signs 
beyond those I normally associate with people who haven't got the hang of 
photo realism, such as excessively flat lighting & simple texturing. If this 
was an intentional stylistic decision than that's fine, but I have no 
suggestions how you could improve it!

To my mind stylistic stuff works best when it clearly shows awesome 
technical skills, but clearly pointed in a direction other than reality. For 
example Pixar's The Incredibles, not at all realistic but also bearing no 
resemblance to naive CG. With Pixar you're left in no doubt that they could 
do photorealism if they wanted to!

Anyway I apologise if my presumption that you were attempting photorealism 
caused any offence.

-- 
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com

Post a reply to this message