Just thought I'd comment on the comments on my shot...

> --- From Paolo Gibellini:
> Texturing and additional sand grains are excellent. I have a minor problem
> with the over enthusiastic use of focal depth; I can't tell if it is rust or
> dirt in the grooves on the boule.

Yes, when I later had a look at that shot, for some moments I wondered why I did
that, too - but then I did recall that I had tried to get the reflected boules
more into focus.

As far as the rust/dirt is concerned: Does it really matter which of the two it
is? ;)

(Supposed to be sand though; the boules are stainless steel (or at least I think
so) - except for the yellowish one, which is brass, and does indeed feature some
oxidization in the grooves, though of course we can't see that here.)


> --- From Jim Charter:
> Looks like a test. Or does it? The sand is damned convincing, and so too the
> soft sheen of the metal. The image develops weight, gravity, and finally a
> conceptual density. All by keeping it simple and getting the details right.

Thanks. Well, I guess KISSing the overall composition in order to have enough
time to dive into details (sometimes never even seen in the end), yes, that's
me. I believe one of the keys to making an image really convincing is to push
the detail a good deal further than what will actually be visible in the scene.

And yes, in a way it *is* a test: It had actually been a WIP I did just for fun
when the IRTC testing round came up. In search for a scene that would not take
any serious work (testing round, right?) yet not look *too* crappy, I decided
to take the current state of this WIP, find a suitable camera perspective, and
just go with that :)


> --- From bil### [at] hotmailcom:
> If it weren't for the slight graininess, I'd think this was a photo! And I
> love the sand. :-)

Thanks! Though I guess that without the slight graininess, you'd be even *more*
sure this isn't a photo - you don't know what lack of detail the graininess
helps to hide :P

After all, what you see was never originally designed to be shown at such high
resolution.


(Thanks to all who deemed this image worthy of being among the top 3; it comes
as a bit of surprise to me.)

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Just thought I'd comment on the comments on my shot...
> 
>> --- From Paolo Gibellini:
>> Texturing and additional sand grains are excellent. I have a minor problem
>> with the over enthusiastic use of focal depth; I can't tell if it is rust or
>> dirt in the grooves on the boule.
> 
> Yes, when I later had a look at that shot, for some moments I wondered why I did
> that, too - but then I did recall that I had tried to get the reflected boules
> more into focus.
> 
> As far as the rust/dirt is concerned: Does it really matter which of the two it
> is? ;)
> 
> (Supposed to be sand though; the boules are stainless steel (or at least I think
> so) - except for the yellowish one, which is brass, and does indeed feature some
> oxidization in the grooves, though of course we can't see that here.)
> 
> 

Just for the record, it was me that made that comment, not Paolo. So
there seems to be some mix up in the comments database :-)

John
-- 
"Eppur si muove" - Galileo Galilei

Post a reply to this message

>Doctor John  on date 20/07/2009 20:34 wrote:
> clipka wrote:
>> Just thought I'd comment on the comments on my shot...
>>
>>> --- From Paolo Gibellini:
>>> Texturing and additional sand grains are excellent. I have a minor problem
>>> with the over enthusiastic use of focal depth; I can't tell if it is rust or
>>> dirt in the grooves on the boule.
>> Yes, when I later had a look at that shot, for some moments I wondered why I did
>> that, too - but then I did recall that I had tried to get the reflected boules
>> more into focus.
>>
>> As far as the rust/dirt is concerned: Does it really matter which of the two it
>> is? ;)
>>
>> (Supposed to be sand though; the boules are stainless steel (or at least I think
>> so) - except for the yellowish one, which is brass, and does indeed feature some
>> oxidization in the grooves, though of course we can't see that here.)
>>
>>
> 
> Just for the record, it was me that made that comment, not Paolo. So
> there seems to be some mix up in the comments database :-)
> 
> John
True, my comment was similar, but it doesn't appear on the page.

Paolo

Post a reply to this message