A great take on the topic. Reminds me of some fall walks along the river
where I grew up.  The treestump is superbly modelled and textured and the
moss realistically patched over it. The lighting has a nice feel of
filtering down through overhanging trees, giving the image much more of an
environment than it actually contains.  Good job.

RG

Post a reply to this message

"gonzo" <rgo### [at] lansetcom> wrote in message news:3fcc35d5@news.povray.org...
> A great take on the topic. Reminds me of some fall walks along the river
> where I grew up.  The treestump is superbly modelled and textured and the
> moss realistically patched over it. The lighting has a nice feel of
> filtering down through overhanging trees, giving the image much more of an
> environment than it actually contains.  Good job.
>

I was impressed with all of the different types of fungus/mushrooms.   In
fact, there are even some morels over on the right side.  (Hunting for
morels is one of my favorite spring-time activities.)  Those look like some
sort of "inkies" in the middle, under the stump.  Very well done, and very
realistic.  The moss is outstanding as well.  It appears that the artist was
very careful to use very realistic models.

Being that I love nature scenes in general, this was certainly a favorite of
mine.

-- 
Jeremy

Post a reply to this message

Jeremy M. Praay wrote:

> "gonzo" <rgo### [at] lansetcom> wrote in message news:3fcc35d5@news.povray.org...
> 
>>A great take on the topic. Reminds me of some fall walks along the river
>>where I grew up.  The treestump is superbly modelled and textured and the
>>moss realistically patched over it. The lighting has a nice feel of
>>filtering down through overhanging trees, giving the image much more of an
>>environment than it actually contains.  Good job.
>>
> 
> 
> I was impressed with all of the different types of fungus/mushrooms.   In
> fact, there are even some morels over on the right side.  (Hunting for
> morels is one of my favorite spring-time activities.)  Those look like some
> sort of "inkies" in the middle, under the stump.  Very well done, and very
> realistic.  The moss is outstanding as well.  It appears that the artist was
> very careful to use very realistic models.
> 
> Being that I love nature scenes in general, this was certainly a favorite of
> mine.
> 
Yes I think that is the key to how the picture might reach a 
transcendent statement.  It touches on ideas about complexity and 
biodiversity in the context of the process of decomposition.  There is 
of course a long tradition of art as observation.  Especially 
observation of the natural world. By recording the agents, or evidence, 
of a process, do we record the process?  Is "decay" a complex process? 
Or is it underneath just a matter of a few chemical reactions, not very 
interesting at all?  Is it indistinquishable from life?

By settling on this approach, Nate gave himself the license to keep 
enrichening his picture and only improve it more.  But it was important 
to its success that each new element he put into the picture be done 
convincingly, be secured for us to observe.  This is not a study in 
illusion or the nature of perception.  The more tactile and the more 
various the plants and their textures, the better.

-Jim

Post a reply to this message

"gonzo" <rgo### [at] lansetcom> wrote in message
news:3fcc35d5@news.povray.org...

This picture looks amazing.

The rest of what I have to say isn't really fair, because my opinion is
I think more influenced by my being in this hobby to long than by the
quality of these pictures themselves.

I have poignancy fatigue. I just can't stand it anymore. Everytime I see
a picture of an empty alleyway, broken piece of jewelry, small room with
a bright beam of light, or any type at all of zoomed in nature pic,  I
begin to feel anxious.

This is why your picture, Ron, is one of the few in this round which
doesn't aggravate me. It doesn't try to force significance onto some
vapid centerpiece with cheesy lighting and focus tricks.

Sorry about the rant.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:

> 
> I have poignancy fatigue. I just can't stand it anymore. Everytime I see

> a picture of an empty alleyway, broken piece of jewelry, small room with
> a bright beam of light, 


or any type at all of zoomed in nature pic,

I think there may be more to this one, I don't think we really have 
fully processed the significance of the zoomed in nature pic.  I know 
that many who try to recreate them are not conscious of any sort of 
overarching investigation, but I am not decided yet on what the 
symbiosis between cg, especially raytracing, and various genres of 
photography might mean.  WHere the attraction actually lies.


I
> begin to feel anxious.
> 
> This is why your picture, Ron, is one of the few in this round which
> doesn't aggravate me. It doesn't try to force significance onto some
> vapid centerpiece with cheesy lighting and focus tricks.

I thought Ron's was a bold picture, but I'm not sure he did avoid cheesy 
lighting and focus tricks.  And he may very well have been shooting for 
"poignant" also.  But his style seems to recall quite effortlessly the 
look of American Scene painters, such as Bellows, and that look does 
have a certain detachment to it.  And that is what made the picture so 
successful for me.  That combination of enthusiasm for, and alienaton 
from, life as its lived and observed.
> 
> Sorry about the rant.

I think it is important input.  And you have helped me reorient some of 
my own feeling about this.  To be honest, after 25 years in New York *I* 
was suffering from *irony* fatigue.  You have given me a taste for the 
conceptual again.

I feel some of the things you feel, but I take a step back.  The basic 
paradigm of raytracing, creating a depictional space then filling it 
with objects and lighting them, is prosaic, relative to where our 
culture stands regarding the making and receiving of images.  It fosters 
  certain ways of making meaning that are a throwback to earlier eras of 
picture making. Basically its an illustrational model.  How to make a 
picture that shows such and such in order to suggest such and such. For 
me it gives me a chance to experience that brand of image making.  There 
is of course something kitchy about the whole enterprise and I am 
constantly drawn to, and can relate to, the practice of trying to use 
the new technique to mimic traditional or 'high' art.  Personally I am 
ready to just go with it and see where it leads.  But I very much 
respect what you are trying to do to put some conceptual stringency into 
the process.  I don't have much idea how to do that myself, but I think 
your experiments are very interesting and your observations valid.

Post a reply to this message

"Shay" <sah### [at] simcopartscom> wrote in message
news:3fcf6467@news.povray.org...
>
> This picture looks amazing.
>
> The rest of what I have to say isn't really fair, because my opinion is
> I think more influenced by my being in this hobby to long than by the
> quality of these pictures themselves.
>
> I have poignancy fatigue. I just can't stand it anymore. Everytime I see
> a picture of an empty alleyway, broken piece of jewelry, small room with
> a bright beam of light, or any type at all of zoomed in nature pic,  I
> begin to feel anxious.
>

Hey, I just submitted a zoomed-in nature pic to p.b.i.  I must have put you
over the limit.  hehe  But to add validity to your observation, I had
essentially used focal blur just to avoid doing something "useful", like
adding an entire background.  But even so, you don't want to let the rest of
the image overpower the foreground, or it ends up looking very busy.  I
don't think that was your point, though.

> This is why your picture, Ron, is one of the few in this round which
> doesn't aggravate me. It doesn't try to force significance onto some
> vapid centerpiece with cheesy lighting and focus tricks.
>
> Sorry about the rant.
>

"Forced significance" states the situation quite well, I think.  That sort
of thing made my wife HATE the movie "Titanic" whereas I enjoyed it
immensely.  I think I see your point.  Feel free to rant more if you want.
You often have a fresh perspective.

-- 
Jeremy

Post a reply to this message

Shay <sah### [at] simcopartscom> wrote in message news:3fcf6467@news.povray.org...
> I have poignancy fatigue. I just can't stand it anymore. Everytime I see
> a picture of an empty alleyway, broken piece of jewelry, small room with
> a bright beam of light, or any type at all of zoomed in nature pic,  I
> begin to feel anxious.

As long as it only happens with images and not with real life objects you're
probably ok...

>
> This is why your picture, Ron, is one of the few in this round which
> doesn't aggravate me.

Thanks, I hope!

It doesn't try to force significance onto some
> vapid centerpiece with cheesy lighting and focus tricks.

Like media interactive spotlights & focal blur?   ;-)

> Sorry about the rant.

Quite alright, rants are why we're here isn't it?

RG

Post a reply to this message

"gonzo" <rgo### [at] lansetcom> wrote in message
news:3fd408eb@news.povray.org...
|
|Shay:
| Sorry about the rant.
|
|Gonzo:
| Quite alright, rants are why we're here isn't it?

Everyone else appears to be here to offer constructive criticism. For
some reason (perhaps because I am working very hard on a picture of my
own at the moment), I had nothing to offer but self-indulgence (as I'm
doing now, but this will be the end of it).

I did want to clarify my comments and to thank Jim for his compliments.

Jeremy was right in suggesting that "forced signifigance" was as close
as I got. I'll only add that I believe we all to one degree or another
find the banalaties of poignancy acceptale as a means but not an end.
Most importantly, I want to add that I do not consider 'Fungus' to be a
zoomed in nature pic (at least not in the way I was describing).
'Fungus' is depictional, specific, and beautiful. Subject is nearly
irrelevent in the type of picture which I intended to describe.

Jim, thank you for your compliments. It is a little puzzling for my
pictures to be characterized as conceptual or as experiments when 99% of
my effort goes into aesthetic specificity, but, hey, I'll take the
compliment. lol

This is the most beautiful round of winners (and losers) in many rounds.
Congratulations all.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message