 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I found out that these "things" where parts of a commercial center in
Birmingham, UK, "the Bullring":
http://www.bullring.co.uk/website/images/RetrieveAsset.aspx?AssetInstanceID=807
I link again to the inspiring photo:
http://www.deviantart.com/view/3316448/
and I attach my (final?) scene.
Comments & suggestions welcomed.
Fernando
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'the_bullring_mine_2.jpg' (58 KB)
Preview of image 'the_bullring_mine_2.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fernando G. del Cueto wrote:
> I found out that these "things" where parts of a commercial center in
> Birmingham, UK, "the Bullring":
> http://www.bullring.co.uk/website/images/RetrieveAsset.aspx?AssetInstanceID=807
>
>
> I link again to the inspiring photo:
>
> http://www.deviantart.com/view/3316448/
>
> and I attach my (final?) scene.
>
> Comments & suggestions welcomed.
>
> Fernando
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
I'm your fan ;-)
Net, modern, simple... Thoses things that mean nice renders. I love this
one :-))
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
LightBeam wrote:
> I'm your fan ;-)
> Net, modern, simple... Thoses things that mean nice renders. I love this
> one :-))
Ha ha ha... Thanks!! I'm glad you liked it!
If I have time (which I doubt), I'm going to try to make it look more
similar to the original.
Fernando
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fernando G. del Cueto wrote:
> I found out that these "things" where parts of a commercial center in
Sorry, I was almost asleep...
F
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I like it a lot. I think the main thing that the original photo had that
your image doesn't have is the contrast in size between foreground and
background; the original had much closer white things at the bottom of the
image.
They look like candy.
- Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Slime" <fak### [at] email address> wrote:
> I like it a lot. I think the main thing that the original photo had that
> your image doesn't have is the contrast in size between foreground and
> background;
in the rendered image the shapes seem to stay horizontal,
while in the photo they follow the surface.
i still think the rendered image looks more interesting. :-)
jaap.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Slime wrote:
> I like it a lot. I think the main thing that the original photo had that
> your image doesn't have is the contrast in size between foreground and
> background; the original had much closer white things at the bottom of the
> image.
True, I was aware of that, but couldn't find a way (neither the time to
tinker) to make the closer ones bigger and the farther smaller. Perhaps
it's a lens thing, I don't know...
F
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaap wrote:
> in the rendered image the shapes seem to stay horizontal,
> while in the photo they follow the surface.
Actually I think it's because of the lighting, because they are rotated
with respect to the slope of the surface. But I agree, it gives that
illusion.
> i still think the rendered image looks more interesting. :-)
Thanks!! :)
Fernando
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
