 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://img43.photobucket.com/albums/v132/IMBJR/pov_ray/cupids_feed.jpg
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
IMBJR wrote:
> http://img43.photobucket.com/albums/v132/IMBJR/pov_ray/cupids_feed.jpg
EXCELLENT. This not only keeps images from showing up in preview panes,
it also keeps me from getting in trouble at work by having naughty
pictures on my PC. Thank you!
--
Respectfully,
Dan P
http://<broken link>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 14:58:22 -0600, Dan P <dan### [at] yahoo com>
wrote:
>IMBJR wrote:
>
>> http://img43.photobucket.com/albums/v132/IMBJR/pov_ray/cupids_feed.jpg
>
>EXCELLENT. This not only keeps images from showing up in preview panes,
>it also keeps me from getting in trouble at work by having naughty
>pictures on my PC. Thank you!
I know what you mean. One of my fellow Subgenius artists has a blog
that I view at work with some trepidation as he likes to explore what
can only be termed mutant porn.
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 22:15:17 +0100, IMBJR wrote:
>
> I know what you mean. One of my fellow Subgenius artists has a blog
> that I view at work with some trepidation as he likes to explore what
> can only be termed mutant porn.
Since, god forbid, you actually, like, work, or anything.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
IMBJR wrote:
> http://img43.photobucket.com/albums/v132/IMBJR/pov_ray/cupids_feed.jpg
>
> --------------------------------
> My First Subgenius Picture Book:
> http://www.imbjr.com
I like it! I am really enjoying your art. The expression on the woman's
face is really priceless. The only thing; a human body can't turn that
far. Unless the painful look is the intended effect (which it just might
be!), the posing will look more realistic if you turn on both "Use
Limits" and "Inverse Kinematics". "Auto Balance" might help in this
image too. "Use Limits" will ensure that the muscles do not move beyond
a natural range. "Inverse Kinematics" simulates the chained movement of
many muscles and often leads to better poses. "Auto Balance" simulates
weight distribution.
I'd love to see a bigger version of this image. :-)
By any chance, are you using subsurface scattering in this image? The
skin has an interesting sheen to it that suggests depth. Really, really
cool.
--
Respectfully,
Dan P
http://<broken link>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
news:c23h60pmid9gg6mgb5368lqetvnq36fak7@4ax.com...
A *vast* improvement.
The poser woman is in this case sufficiently disguised so that my mental
poser baggage doesn't clutter your image. You have escaped the
paper-doll look of your recent postings. The soft, slightly fuzzy look
of the woman, and to a lesser extent the cupid, contribute to the
"unobviousness" of the image's meaning.
This imagery in this picture, unlike (the lesser IMO) 'MIB' and
'contrasting union' are unfamiliar enough to invite study.
There is a lot of talk here about interpretation, exploration, and the
search for meaning in images. I agree with the need of course, but there
are so many images here that an artist must establish trust before
asking the viewers here to make that effort. *This* is an image which
inspires trust. The obvious care you have given to this image invites an
audience to reciprocate with careful viewing. Twenty more pictures like
this and you will have begun to establish the trust that a paper-doll
image requires to be taken seriously or that a seemingly simple theme
needs to invite a search for its subleties.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 22:39:55 -0500, Tyler Eaves <tyl### [at] NOSPAMml1net>
wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 22:15:17 +0100, IMBJR wrote:
>
>>
>> I know what you mean. One of my fellow Subgenius artists has a blog
>> that I view at work with some trepidation as he likes to explore what
>> can only be termed mutant porn.
>
>Since, god forbid, you actually, like, work, or anything.
Eh? I can't see why God forbidding me to work as anything to do with
this?
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 22:50:47 -0600, Dan P <dan### [at] yahoocom>
wrote:
>IMBJR wrote:
>
>> http://img43.photobucket.com/albums/v132/IMBJR/pov_ray/cupids_feed.jpg
>>
>> --------------------------------
>> My First Subgenius Picture Book:
>> http://www.imbjr.com
>
>I like it! I am really enjoying your art. The expression on the woman's
>face is really priceless. The only thing; a human body can't turn that
>far. Unless the painful look is the intended effect (which it just might
>be!), the posing will look more realistic if you turn on both "Use
>Limits" and "Inverse Kinematics". "Auto Balance" might help in this
>image too. "Use Limits" will ensure that the muscles do not move beyond
>a natural range. "Inverse Kinematics" simulates the chained movement of
>many muscles and often leads to better poses. "Auto Balance" simulates
>weight distribution.
I'd have to check, but I'm fairly sure inverse k's are on. I know the
pose certainly is wild though, but then I'm not after realism - after
all who ever heard of a woman breast feeding a flying infant?
>
>I'd love to see a bigger version of this image. :-)
>
>By any chance, are you using subsurface scattering in this image? The
>skin has an interesting sheen to it that suggests depth. Really, really
>cool.
No, but I do have a Poser rendering of this character with the same
sheen apparent. It must have something to do with the texture that
came with the model.
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 09:52:18 -0600, "Shay" <sah### [at] simcopartscom> wrote:
>
>"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
>news:c23h60pmid9gg6mgb5368lqetvnq36fak7@4ax.com...
>
>A *vast* improvement.
>
>The poser woman is in this case sufficiently disguised so that my mental
>poser baggage doesn't clutter your image.
Poser baggage? I assume you are referring to the more default
settings.
>You have escaped the
>paper-doll look of your recent postings. The soft, slightly fuzzy look
>of the woman, and to a lesser extent the cupid, contribute to the
>"unobviousness" of the image's meaning.
The paper doll look is to some extent deliberate. A lot of my models
are designed with similarity in mind. I've had MIBs and running
figures riddled throughout my work. I like the clone look.
>
>This imagery in this picture, unlike (the lesser IMO) 'MIB' and
>'contrasting union' are unfamiliar enough to invite study.
>
>There is a lot of talk here about interpretation, exploration, and the
>search for meaning in images. I agree with the need of course, but there
>are so many images here that an artist must establish trust before
>asking the viewers here to make that effort. *This* is an image which
>inspires trust. The obvious care you have given to this image invites an
>audience to reciprocate with careful viewing. Twenty more pictures like
>this and you will have begun to establish the trust that a paper-doll
>image requires to be taken seriously or that a seemingly simple theme
>needs to invite a search for its subleties.
Please understand that I do not care if my work is taken seriously or
not. I am not here to earn trust. The work merely stands as it does -
as an expression of my mind.
It is quite in order that you think what you do about what you see,
but please don't expect me to follow your notions of how to enter into
some highly subjective dialog.
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
news:2nij609tp55csa8lhse4tmjtdtn9rm754d@4ax.com...| On Tue, 30 Mar 2004
09:52:18 -0600, "Shay" <sah### [at] simcopartscom> wrote:
|
| The paper doll look is to some extent deliberate. A lot of my models
| are designed with similarity in mind. I've had MIBs and running
| figures riddled throughout my work. I like the clone look.
|
|
| Please understand that I do not care if my work is taken seriously or
| not. I am not here to earn trust. The work merely stands as it does -
| as an expression of my mind.
Bull5h!+
You attempted to explain your art to me in this very same post. It's
hard to play rebel when you have (nick)named yourself after the icon of
a *social* group, IMBJR. Don't insult my intelligence, and go sell
"obdurate radical artist" somewhere else.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
