Thanks to William Tracy and Tek for the comments.

As it happens, I did briefly consider some sort of double vision effect for

disables any previously specified cameras when a new one is added.  I

this. (If anyone happens to know the answer, the info would be


of how well a given group of settings was working.  I ended up having time
to run only three versions and having to use the one that came closest to
what I wanted even though I saw much room for improvement.  The lighting on

image to the greatest extent possible.  I wanted everything to be even
cleaner and brighter and sharper than in real life.  I knew that I was
sacrificing some photo-realism for the purpose of emphasizing mood, but
given the way folks have responded, I suppose I ought to give some
consideration to the notion that I may have leaned too far in that
direction.

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 would like to preface
these remarks by stating categorically that I appreciate all constructive
criticism in the helpful spirit in which it is intended and am genuinely
thankful towards those who have given their time and effort in regard.
This being said, I would encourage anyone who does engage in criticism of
ray trace art (or in the making of it) to refrain from assuming that the

goal.  The folks who have worked so hard to develop the capability of the
software to produce ever increasing levels of realism are to be
congratulated for their achievement and thanked for having given artists
new choices and new tools.  Certain artists have creatively used this
capacity for advanced optical realism to produce stunning and sophisticated
works of art.  IMHO, however, it is a mistake to assume categorically that a
more realistic work is inherently superior to one that is less realistic.
My personal preference with respect to my own work is to create images that


aesthetically pleasing. (Magritte and de Chirico are among my favorite
painters.)  The power of art lies largely in its potential to create new
worlds to experience rather than simply replicating the existing one.
Given the subjective nature art, that which makes an image more pleasing to
one person is bound to make it less pleasing to another.  There is no single
objectively correct point of view.  Working toward the nth degree of realism
is a choice, not an obligation.

I note that I have gotten a bit long winded here and promise to avoid making
a habit of it.

Again, my profound thanks to all who participate in making ray trace art
work a community enterprise.

Best Regards,
 -Mike C.

Post a reply to this message

"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

Hi Folks, seeing as I was completely rude and didn't comment on the last 
TC entries, I thought that I'd better comment this time around, or I'll be 
sent to the PoV naughty step.   ;)  (Actually, I do have a .txt file half 
finished sitting on my desktop, so I tried).

  Ok, here they are for this round:

   "But Which Came First?" By David Lewis

   When I received this image and opened it, I smiled, and thought; "How 
good is that, kind of in the same style as H.E. Day's 'Midnight on the Farm' 
image", which I also really liked. I think you've done a great job on the uv 
mapping and especially on the fence. I think the lighting and overall colour 
of this image is good, it's pleasing to the eye, and I think it could also 
have done with a bit more straw. Nice image and a good take on the subject.


  "Just A Splash" By Bill Pragnell

     As ever, another nice image from Bill. For some reason that I can't 
work out, this 'place' makes me think that it's *very* high in the sky - 
like a window on an extremely tall tower of a fairytale castle. I really 
like her... eyes, and the poses are good. I think I would have attempted to 
do something about her elbow creases in the 'after' image as they don't 
quite look right to me, (but I think this is inherent of Daz/Poser models).


  "The Passing Away" By Malcolm Findlay

    This image does indeed convey 'Before and After'. I like your technique 
in producing the picture, he does look like a soldier of the Povers 
Regiment. I think your text is probably ok, and maybe I would have moved the 
shadows around a little to stop that illusion of the text being deeper on 
the left-hand side. I don't know, but worth a try.


  "A Type of Typewriter" By Shay

    When I looked at this image, I immediately knew where you were coming 
from Shay, and it wasn't a surprise to see that you've come up with yet 
another good example of your techniques and work. I see the old typewriter 
as the 'before' and "what you can do with text now" as the 'after'. I don't 
know how you do this stuff Shay, but don't stop.


  "Yet Another Reflective Sphere on a Checkered Plane" By Tek

     Ah yes, we've all been there with your 'before' image Tek! :) Not much 
I can say about this as there really isn't much to add, apart from I think I 
would have been tempted to put a camera man in the reflection as someone 
else mentioned. Well executed and very realistic image.


   "Aging" By William Tracy

     Again, not much to say about this image apart from I like its 
simplicity, it kind of reminds of a billboard advertisement for a show 
that's on at the theatre, (and a good advertisement it would make too). The 
modelling is really good and I like the finish on the walking stick.


  "1st Cup of the Morning" By Mike Chelmecki

   Great interpretation of the subject Mike, and yes, I did laugh. It had 
been like that for me that very morning.  :)

  If this image was produced 'hastily', then you did a good job. I think 
you've got the focal blur just right, it really brings the focus of the 
viewer to the most important thing in the morning; coffee. I think I would 
have added a table leg to the left-hand side of the table, but at first, I 
didn't really notice it.


   "Reganomics" By Brian Price

     I was left a little confused about which way you're trying to convey 
the subject. Is it that the nice houses on the left had to be flattened so 
that industry could move in, and therefore, that's depicted in your 'after' 
image? Or is it that "here's a nice clean neighbourhood, and that's the 
dirty industry we have to live with"? I don't know, but if the latter, then 
more grime and dirt would have been good in the 'after' image. The modelling 
is good, and I can understand why you got burned-out on it as a lot of work 
was put into this.


  "A Time of Change" By Thomas de Groot

    Ah, just excellent Thomas! I like both of these. In the 'before' image, 
I like the use of the posters through the archway, the girl running in the 
background, the guys leaning against the wall, the good use of Ivy 
Generator, etc. etc. etc. I like it all, it all works. In the 'after' image, 
I like that these are the same people but now a lot older too. The structure 
is definately what some town might do for that courtyard, and I'm sure I've 
seen similar in RL. Good work once again.


  ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

As everyone else said, fire away Bruno, comments are good!   :o)

   ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

"Mike the Elder" <zer### [at] wyanorg> wrote in message 
news:web.4637b20762a9bf117fdcaa5f0@news.povray.org...

> OK, Steve, time to 'fess up... TWO web sites, a job, a life AND this great
> image.  Just how many times DID you clone yourself?  Seriously, a really
> nice job.

     Heh, thank you, but make that FOUR websites, (you should see the BIG 
one!)  :)

      ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet> wrote in message 
news:4639c954$1@news.povray.org...

> "This to that" by Steve Paget
> I don't know how you do this, Steve! Still finding time to make such a 
> careful and detailed scene? There is that wonderful sense of being seated 
> in front of the instruments of the trade, and thinking about what one is 
> going to make this time, looking alternatively at the details, choosing, 
> discarding... It is just the hand that is going to start the creative 
> process that is missing, but its presence is felt very strongly.
> Textures are really good, like always, the wood, but especially the 
> metals, tarnished or not. The only thing that distracts me a bit is the 
> background that is a bit too 'noisy' for my taste. But that is nitpicking 
> again...

     Thank you Thomas! Yes, I was torn about using that background, I should 
have experimented more. I'm glad that I did this image though, because as 
it's more or less complete, it means I can just play with textures and 
finishes now, (and the background), which should hopefully improve it.

      ~Steve~


> Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Brian A. Price" <nomail@nomail> wrote in message 
news:web.463bf3ad62a9bf114af133620@news.povray.org...

> This is simply amazing work.  I don't even want to think
> of the time it would take me to create some of those objects
> in Wings.  Even without considering the time constraints
> you must have had, I think you did an amazing job on this
> image.  Nice concept as well!

   Thank you Brian! Yes, I'm really getting used to Wings now, and 
everything seems to be getting faster when using it so maybe that's the 
reason I can produce what seems to be like a complex image in a reasonable 
time. As ever, I think I've got to improve on my textures, but I think I'm 
getting there.

  ~Steve~



> ~Brian A.
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote in message 
news:463d4743@news.povray.org...

> Interesting interpretation of the topic, very well suited to being a still 
> life. The background image really clashes badly with the colours and 
> layout of the foreground, which really emphasizes the fact that this image 
> isn't real. If that background wasn't visbile in direct comparison to the 
> CG objects the scene would look a lot better.

    I think you're dead right. I was torn about using that background but 
settled for it in the end. Now the scene is set, I'll experiment more with 
it.



Anyway aside from looking too
> clean this scene's pretty realistic IMO. All the objects need to be bumpy 
> and less shiny, apart from the metal tools which need to be more shiny. 
> But the octahedron pieces of rock, the diamonds, and the pieces of gold 
> look very good.

     For the rough diamonds, I used scattering and emitting media which I 
failed to mention in my text file! But it seemed to work ok.


For some reason the chunks of gold are a more gold colour than
> the finished cross.

    Yes, something else I should have explained in my text file! The gold 
grain that you see there is actually what is known as 'fine' gold, ie, pure 
gold, or .999 carat, or a more broader term, 24ct gold. When you see 24ct 
gold, it's really more orangy than when it's been alloyed with other metals 
to make a lesser carat of gold, like 9ct or 18ct, hence the colour 
difference.


Anyway there's a lot of detail in the scene, I hope you
> keep working on it to remove the excessive "perfection" because I think it 
> has the potential to be really realistic.

     Thank you Tek! I will keep on working on this.

     ~Steve~


>
> -- 
> Tek
> http://evilsuperbrain.com
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"Mike the Elder" <zer### [at] wyanorg> wrote:
> Thanks to William Tracy and Tek for the comments.
>

> 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
[Snip]

This is my view as well. It might change if I can develop my texture skills
more :-)

Post a reply to this message

"Mike the Elder" <zer### [at] wyanorg> schreef in bericht 
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 agree with your analysis.

> I note that I have gotten a bit long winded here and promise to avoid 
> making
> a habit of it.
>
Never mind!  Please do!!  :-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message