 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'f_3.png' (117 KB)
Preview of image 'f_3.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Great model... but she have some problems to tan her skin on every parts ?
;-))
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fish ?!? I can't dare to figure out where the fish is ...
This is definitly a sexually explicit image evil you !!
If you want to avoid criticism here, you should try maybe to explode her
guts on a wall with bits of red here and there so that she wouldn't look
so naked. That would make a nice abstract too ... ;-)
Nice though,
JC
Luis wrote:
--
http://exether.free.fr/irtc (more IRTC stats !)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Explode her guts on the wall?!? I hope I'm not the only one who thinks
that's pretty twisted. I think I'd be MUCH more likely to critisize that
than just straight nudity. I would like to know what it was to do with fish
though
"JC (Exether)" <no### [at] spam fr> wrote in message
news:406c5f89$1@news.povray.org...
> Fish ?!? I can't dare to figure out where the fish is ...
> This is definitly a sexually explicit image evil you !!
>
> If you want to avoid criticism here, you should try maybe to explode her
> guts on a wall with bits of red here and there so that she wouldn't look
> so naked. That would make a nice abstract too ... ;-)
>
> Nice though,
>
> JC
>
> Luis wrote:
>
> --
> http://exether.free.fr/irtc (more IRTC stats !)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Luis" <NOS### [at] ifrancecom> wrote in message
news:406c3a17@news.povray.org...
>
Is this official POV? Did you tried to do some improvements for skin
materials, like AOI in MlPOV or skin shader in POVMan ? Both can add some
'velvet' look.
Seems that you tweaked Poser textures, transitions between colors looks
something, too much contrast....
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Luis" <NOS### [at] ifrancecom> wrote in message
news:406c3a17@news.povray.org...
Hey!! That's my wife!! ;)
~Steve (I wish) Pover~
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Very nice job with the blur!
(Remember; these get downloaded to our drives when we click on it if we
have preview panes up. If it is any image that could /possibly/ be
considered pornography, it is courteous to link it to a web-site so that
you don't get people in trouble have work in zero-tolerance environments.)
--
Respectfully,
Dan P
http://<broken link>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dan P wrote:
> Very nice job with the blur!
>
> (Remember; these get downloaded to our drives when we click on it if we
> have preview panes up. If it is any image that could /possibly/ be
> considered pornography, it is courteous to link it to a web-site so that
> you don't get people in trouble have work in zero-tolerance environments.)
I mean "trouble /who/ have /to/ work in zero..."
No soup for my grammar.
--
Respectfully,
Dan P
http://<broken link>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Barron Gillon wrote:
> Explode her guts on the wall?!? I hope I'm not the only one who thinks
> that's pretty twisted. I think I'd be MUCH more likely to critisize that
> than just straight nudity. I would like to know what it was to do with fish
> though
I hope too, I'm just beeing bad here, I like the image better like it
is. :-)
JC
> "JC (Exether)" <no### [at] spamfr> wrote in message
> news:406c5f89$1@news.povray.org...
>
>>Fish ?!? I can't dare to figure out where the fish is ...
>>This is definitly a sexually explicit image evil you !!
>>
>>If you want to avoid criticism here, you should try maybe to explode her
>>guts on a wall with bits of red here and there so that she wouldn't look
>>so naked. That would make a nice abstract too ... ;-)
>>
>>Nice though,
>>
>>JC
>>
>>Luis wrote:
>>
>>--
>>http://exether.free.fr/irtc (more IRTC stats !)
>
>
>
--
http://exether.free.fr/irtc (more IRTC stats !)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dan P wrote:
> Very nice job with the blur!
>
> (Remember; these get downloaded to our drives when we click on it if we
> have preview panes up. If it is any image that could /possibly/ be
Not necessarily, depends on your newsreader.
> considered pornography, it is courteous to link it to a web-site so that
> you don't get people in trouble have work in zero-tolerance environments.)
>
Not necessarily, browsers do cacheing, too. And - even worse - proxies
do cacheing outside of your control.
-Hans-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
