Thank you everyone who participated in the vector test.  Now it's time to break
the news.

The photo that you have been debating over for a few days is *real*.  A real
person that I actually talked to once.  Many have mentioned that the face could
be botox or foundation.... I won't challenge those ideas.  I'm only saying it's
not a vector.

Her name is Diem Thuyen, 20 years old, a model and photographer currently in
Arizona.  None of her works indicate any usage of vector or rendering
technology.... but I won't rule out photoshop edits.  The original of a sample
I posted was shot by a Canon camera and post-processed in Photoshop.

You can see her Yahoo profile at :  http://360.yahoo.com/diemthuyenngoctran

and Flickr pictures at : http://flickr.com/people/diemthuyen/

Post a reply to this message

YKYBRTLW...

-tgq

Post a reply to this message

Was there a point to this and your original 'Vector' post?

  Please enlighten me.

    ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> Was there a point to this and your original 'Vector' post?
>
>   Please enlighten me.
>
>     ~Steve~

well.. not sure I needed a point.. but I suppose it's like this.. a few days
before seeing the one I posted, I saw some vector art pictures, and they looked
pretty real.  And this one looked like a vector.. I wanted to test it to see if
others thought it might be a vector too, to make sure I wasn't the only one
having to look twice.

Post a reply to this message

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> Was there a point to this and your original 'Vector' post?
>
>   Please enlighten me.
>
>     ~Steve~

I think it's just a bit of a mental game.  We often try to get our computer
renders to look super-realistic, but tend to think that fine photos look
rendered...

-tgq

Post a reply to this message

> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>> Was there a point to this and your original 'Vector' post?
> 
> I think it's just a bit of a mental game.  We often try to get our computer
> renders to look super-realistic, but tend to think that fine photos look
> rendered...

Or like when you see a rendered simulation (eg. fluid) and you find some 
details that don't look real. Then you watch nature very closely and 
notice the simulation was actually right.

I find that more often with skies. Most "good" rendered skies are 
similar cyan-sky-white-clouds, wjem om fact a lot more strange 
variations (colors, cloud shapes, etc) happen in nature.

Post a reply to this message

"EagleSun" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Her name is Diem Thuyen, 20 years old, a model and photographer currently in
> Arizona.

damn smooth lady!  with a face like that there's no need for photoshop!

Post a reply to this message

Not to excuse my own incorrectness, it does bring up some interesting points.

I would say it's always been true (throughout the history of art) that a
precisely accurate portrayal isn't the most realistic. When we try to fool the
eye what we really must do is fool the mind --- and photorealism isn't always
the way to do that. "There is no excellent beauty that hath not some
strangeness in the proportion."

Also, context alters content. We saw the image in a context where we expect
rendered images. Just like Joshua Bell in a metro stop is readily ignored, a
photo out of context doesn't necessarily appear photographic.  Context is
always a factor to be considered in the creation and presentation of art.

I do congratulate her, however, on her alarmingly perfect skin.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> with a face like that there's no need for photoshop!

  Or botox. :P

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > with a face like that there's no need for photoshop!
>
>   Or botox. :P

aham... yes... :S

Post a reply to this message