 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Just another sss skin test, this time using a different model. Once
again, not meant to be realistic.
Q's & C's?
-Sam
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'sss.jpg' (84 KB)
Preview of image 'sss.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Impressive!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim McMurdo wrote:
> Impressive!
>
Thanks!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
besides looking really cool, it looks a little grainy. is that intentional?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Samuel Benge <stb### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
> Just another sss skin test, this time using a different model. Once
> again, not meant to be realistic.
Both versions look very good. With a brief glance it easily passes for
real. Even closer scrutiny reveals effectively just how well you've done.
Can't say which I like better, they're different but equally good.
Looks like a jolly old chap, too!
--
jussi.kantola
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ross wrote:
> besides looking really cool, it looks a little grainy. is that intentional?
Thanks Ross. The grainyness is caused by bad focal blur settings (10
blur_samples). This is what I usually use for test images.
-Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
jute wrote:
> Samuel Benge <stb### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>
>>Just another sss skin test, this time using a different model. Once
>>again, not meant to be realistic.
>
> Both versions look very good.
Thank you.
> With a brief glance it easily passes for
> real. Even closer scrutiny reveals effectively just how well you've done.
The second one is more realistic, but I wasn't pushing for real... just
testing the waters.
> Can't say which I like better, they're different but equally good.
>
> Looks like a jolly old chap, too!
>
> --
> jussi.kantola
>
:)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
