Am 12/9/2017 um 1:36 schrieb Kenneth:
> That is really stunning; to me it looks 'real'. I'm a long-time fan of good
> cinematography (especially from the 'old' Hollywood days), and this looks great,
> as does the girl.
> 
As is CG ;)

> Cinematography as an art-form is really about illusion-- making a scene look
> 'more real than real', to create a mood (and to be visually beautifl, of
> course.) Sadly, that's lacking in many modern TV shows and movies. My personal
> favorite practicioner (now deceased, I think) is Freddie Young, BSC-- Doctor
> Zhivago, Lawerence Of Arabia, and so many other beautiful films.
> 

I do not think the ratio between good and bad cinematography has changed 
from past to present. Its just that all the bad ones from the past are 
forgotten, only the good ones stay in mind. And Freddie Young is among 
my favorites too.
Just an example for contemporary brilliant cinematography even just 
within a TV show would be Fargo season one and two. Minnesota never 
looked that cold, frosty and empty (but still with a sparkle of hope) 
before.


> I agree with another comment here-- I think the girl needs a backlight or 'hair
> light', from the upper left, just to add a little sheen to separate her hair
> from the background.
> 
> The thing that seems to be missing from most CGI human-model textures is subtle
> skin blemishes, and tiny skin wrinkles. We all have them (even with the best
> movie-style makeup applied.) I'm thinking that the girl needs just a hint of
> 'crow's feet' wrinkling at the corners of her eyes, as an example.
> 
> I've never attempted making a realistic human face, so I have no idea of the
> amount of work that goes into it, or of all the subtle details that are
> required. You're light-years ahead of me!
> 

Thank you for the input - I always love to hear what for others springs 
to mind. As mentioned elsewhere, at some point, I see flaws *everywhere* 
in my images.

-Ive

Post a reply to this message