> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> 
> Thank you very much for the advice, I have been experimenting and forcing the
> code to optimize results with high parameters of radiosity and blurring. I'm not
> entirely happy, but the smoke coming out of the processor tells me this is all
> you can do before I call 911.
> I leave two images of the final result. One of them with levels and curves
> adjusted with photoshop, which for my taste improves the result remarkably and
> comes closer to what I would like it to look like. The scene was designed as a
> scenario to test a rewrite of an old macro of mine to generate pseudo-toroidal
> objects with many, (too many) parameters. The tests soon got out of hand and the
> final finishing adjustments took control of the scene before I realized it. I
> have used another simple macro that I also wrote to generate something similar
> to spheres instead of the simple balls of origin. This one has no name, and soon
> I will publish the code of the whole scene for your delight.
> 
> I've been testing subsurface too. I got strange artifacts and ended up
> deactivating it because I thought it would not improve the scene as it was
> planned.
> 
> any other suggestion, criticism or comment is always welcome,
> a greeting
> B. Gymene
> 

Nice image. I greatly prefer this one over the shopped one.

Post a reply to this message

On 1-12-2017 17:04, clipka wrote:
> Am 01.12.2017 um 14:24 schrieb B. Gimeno:
>> "B. Gimeno" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>>> and the photoshopped one
>>
>> I have just noticed that the edited version almost completely eliminates the
>> reflection of the spheres. And this makes me think that when you want a
>> realistic version of a scene you're actually asking for a retouched version of
>> reality, just as advertising photography has taught us.
> 
> Not me. I'm going for the unedited version.
> 
> Maybe it's a matter of having a calibrated display. Maybe it's personal
> taste.
> 

A fully agree with Christoph.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

B. Gimeno wrote on 01/12/2017 10:34:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> 
> Thank you very much for the advice, I have been experimenting and forcing the
> code to optimize results with high parameters of radiosity and blurring. I'm not
> entirely happy, but the smoke coming out of the processor tells me this is all
> you can do before I call 911.
> I leave two images of the final result. One of them with levels and curves
> adjusted with photoshop, which for my taste improves the result remarkably and
> comes closer to what I would like it to look like. The scene was designed as a
> scenario to test a rewrite of an old macro of mine to generate pseudo-toroidal
> objects with many, (too many) parameters. The tests soon got out of hand and the
> final finishing adjustments took control of the scene before I realized it. I
> have used another simple macro that I also wrote to generate something similar
> to spheres instead of the simple balls of origin. This one has no name, and soon
> I will publish the code of the whole scene for your delight.
> 
> I've been testing subsurface too. I got strange artifacts and ended up
> deactivating it because I thought it would not improve the scene as it was
> planned.
> 
> any other suggestion, criticism or comment is always welcome,
> a greeting
> B. Gymene
> 
This one is really nice.
Paolo

Post a reply to this message