AT Last someone has said what I have debating saying for a long time but
didn't because I didn't want to start a war!

Well said Giles - If a picture does not contribute something to human
experience don't bother...

Guess I better start deleting some of the pictures from my website!!!

Mick Hazelgrove

Gilles Tran wrote in message <369DF610.A75EC6E4@inapg.inra.fr>...
>My 2 eurocents:
> I don't care about realism as long as the pic makes me feel something.
>IMHO, trying to mimic reality is a dead end because reality will always a
>head start... Top 3D "hyperrealistic" renderings may be impressive in terms
>of computer technology (and useful in all sorts of business situations) but
>many are pathetic attempts artistically speaking, unless the artist gives
it
>the personal twist that makes it unique. Interpretation is the keyword.
>
>As a kid, my favorite SF painter was UK cover artist Chris Foss, who made
>all kinds of different terrestrial or space skies, most of them in unusual,
>totally unrealistic colors.
>If you don't have his 1980 book "XXIth Century Foss", just have a look this
>page for inspiration :
>http://www.stl-online.net/vanya/fossart/fossvirtual.html
>BTW, anyone knows whether Foss is still active today ? He seems quite
>forgotten today. I couldn't find any recent info (>1991) on him.
>
>About city night skies, I live in a big city myself and rarely see the
>stars, planets and such. However, I find that the general hazy glow of a
>city is far from being dull and could be something pretty complex and
>interesting to model.
>
>Gilles Tran
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Mick Hazelgrove wrote:

> AT Last someone has said what I have debating saying for a long time but
> didn't because I didn't want to start a war!
>
> Well said Giles - If a picture does not contribute something to human
> experience don't bother...
>
> Guess I better start deleting some of the pictures from my website!!!
>
> Mick Hazelgrove

I think there are two very satisfying schools of thought here.

  The first is the ultimate challenge of creating something so realistic looking
in appearance that you can not distinguish it from reality. This is a definate
challenge of ones skills and the software they choose to accomplish this.
This can be most satisfying.

  The second would of course be your view point where you take the
stance that to produce and image it should touch the viewer and be an
artistic expression of the it's creator. There is no doubt that history favors
the impressionist artist. One who favors the lighting, evokes meaning,
captures an intimate view, or what ever is apt to gain more response
tha an image of a light bulb.

  I wont argue either view and respect them both. I personaly have used
pov for both styles and must admit for me anyway that saying something
with your work, moving the people that view it emotionaly, is of great
importance to me. Then again I like the feed back of my peers when
I have done something with the program technicaly that challenges them
to figure out how I did it. There is room for both schools of thought even
in the same body of work.

Maybe there is a third school of thought but with my narrow view of
things it escapes me.

--
Ken Tyler

tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message

Given the state of the art world a third veiw might be  anything goes
or how about a minimalist point of veiw... a blank white screen

Both realist and expressionist points of view are enjoined by the way in
which they can both enlighten and enrich our experience... maybe that's what
we should aim for.

Mick

Ken wrote in message <369E295B.418345AD@pacbell.net>...
>Mick Hazelgrove wrote:
>
>> AT Last someone has said what I have debating saying for a long time but
>> didn't because I didn't want to start a war!
>>
>> Well said Giles - If a picture does not contribute something to human
>> experience don't bother...
>>
>> Guess I better start deleting some of the pictures from my website!!!
>>
>> Mick Hazelgrove
>
>I think there are two very satisfying schools of thought here.
>
>  The first is the ultimate challenge of creating something so realistic
looking
>in appearance that you can not distinguish it from reality. This is a
definate
>challenge of ones skills and the software they choose to accomplish this.
>This can be most satisfying.
>
>  The second would of course be your view point where you take the
>stance that to produce and image it should touch the viewer and be an
>artistic expression of the it's creator. There is no doubt that history
favors
>the impressionist artist. One who favors the lighting, evokes meaning,
>captures an intimate view, or what ever is apt to gain more response
>tha an image of a light bulb.
>
>  I wont argue either view and respect them both. I personaly have used
>pov for both styles and must admit for me anyway that saying something
>with your work, moving the people that view it emotionaly, is of great
>importance to me. Then again I like the feed back of my peers when
>I have done something with the program technicaly that challenges them
>to figure out how I did it. There is room for both schools of thought even
>in the same body of work.
>
>Maybe there is a third school of thought but with my narrow view of
>things it escapes me.
>
>--
>Ken Tyler
>
>tyl### [at] pacbellnet
>
>

Post a reply to this message

I'm no good in these discussions, but just to add my 2 bits...I figure
if I can stand to look at what I do than I did a good job.  That's my
primary criteria.  In judging others work I'm just as subjective, though
I prefer to praise than critique.

-Mike

Mick Hazelgrove wrote:
> 
> Given the state of the art world a third veiw might be  anything goes
> or how about a minimalist point of veiw... a blank white screen
> 
> Both realist and expressionist points of view are enjoined by the way in
> which they can both enlighten and enrich our experience... maybe that's what
> we should aim for.

Post a reply to this message

Actually one interesting thing with povray is that both attitudes tend to merge,
since doing really good pictures requires quite a high level of technical
skills. Povray is not exactly a "painting by numbers" tool and I guess that's
what most of us love in it.
The point I'd like to make is that these skills can be also put to work, and
quite efficiently, on things that are not exactly what is expected from a 3D
software, i.e. to do the usual realist things. To take an example from another
3D software, the most interesting pics I ever saw made with Poser were using its
faults, like its annoying ability to distort characters in every way possible,
rather than the standard Poser "official" features.
OK, let's say that there's a big large realm out there and a quite unchartered
one... I'm in no way saying that the search for realism is wrong (it's actually
a real big enjoyable fun), only that there are other paths, perhaps undervalued
due to the traditional nature of 3D imagery.

Gilles



Mick Hazelgrove wrote:

> Given the state of the art world a third veiw might be  anything goes
> or how about a minimalist point of veiw... a blank white screen
>
> Both realist and expressionist points of view are enjoined by the way in
> which they can both enlighten and enrich our experience... maybe that's what
> we should aim for.
>
> Mick
>
> Ken wrote in message <369E295B.418345AD@pacbell.net>...
> >Mick Hazelgrove wrote:
> >
> >> AT Last someone has said what I have debating saying for a long time but
> >> didn't because I didn't want to start a war!
> >>
> >> Well said Giles - If a picture does not contribute something to human
> >> experience don't bother...
> >>
> >> Guess I better start deleting some of the pictures from my website!!!
> >>
> >> Mick Hazelgrove
> >
> >I think there are two very satisfying schools of thought here.
> >
> >  The first is the ultimate challenge of creating something so realistic
> looking
> >in appearance that you can not distinguish it from reality. This is a
> definate
> >challenge of ones skills and the software they choose to accomplish this.
> >This can be most satisfying.
> >
> >  The second would of course be your view point where you take the
> >stance that to produce and image it should touch the viewer and be an
> >artistic expression of the it's creator. There is no doubt that history
> favors
> >the impressionist artist. One who favors the lighting, evokes meaning,
> >captures an intimate view, or what ever is apt to gain more response
> >tha an image of a light bulb.
> >
> >  I wont argue either view and respect them both. I personaly have used
> >pov for both styles and must admit for me anyway that saying something
> >with your work, moving the people that view it emotionaly, is of great
> >importance to me. Then again I like the feed back of my peers when
> >I have done something with the program technicaly that challenges them
> >to figure out how I did it. There is room for both schools of thought even
> >in the same body of work.
> >
> >Maybe there is a third school of thought but with my narrow view of
> >things it escapes me.
> >
> >--
> >Ken Tyler
> >
> >tyl### [at] pacbellnet
> >
> >

Post a reply to this message

Ken wrote:

> While this may look good in a poster I'm not sure it's for the IMP.

I think this issue is really to be discussed on the IMP mailing lists.
Cheers,
Al.

--
ANTI SPAM / ANTI ARROSAGE COMMERCIAL :

To answer me, please take out the Z from my address.

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran wrote:
> 
> My 2 eurocents:
>  I don't care about realism as long as the pic makes me feel something.
> IMHO, trying to mimic reality is a dead end because reality will always a
> head start... Top 3D "hyperrealistic" renderings may be impressive in terms
> of computer technology (and useful in all sorts of business situations) but
> many are pathetic attempts artistically speaking, unless the artist gives it
> the personal twist that makes it unique. Interpretation is the keyword.
> 
[snip]

Realism isn't exactly my thing either, never was. However, in painting for
instance the strive for realism has resulted in very interesting images. For one
because painters who had the ability to come close to reality soon found that it
was necessary to add something to it. On the other hand there were painters who
used this approach just to show how bland (?) reality really was. Or, how
exciting. This goes for painting, but alos for film. My point is, that while
trying to make your image as realistic as possible, you always, knowing or not
knowing, add something, call it a vision or a point of view. Your computer may
be a machine, you, unfortunately (?) are not.
("I'm both mentally and physically superior to the human being." - Data -
working on a painting)
The choice of subject, scenery, objects, point of view, approach etc. makes an
image interesting or not. For example the over-obvious
glass-ball-on-checkered-floor posted on this server yesterday was great, because
it added something really new (some technical thing I don't know the beginning
of...) in an attempt at (physical?) realism.
Still, I stick to my cartoonish imagery and make a nightsky with stars, brown
clouds, or silhouette bikes if I like. No lenseflares though, I think.

That makes 4 eurocents.

Remco

Post a reply to this message

Alain CULOS wrote:

> Ken wrote:
>
> > While this may look good in a poster I'm not sure it's for the IMP.
>
> I think this issue is really to be discussed on the IMP mailing lists.
> Cheers,
> Al.
>
> --
> ANTI SPAM / ANTI ARROSAGE COMMERCIAL :

> To answer me, please take out the Z from my address.

 It's been a long tiome since I have seen any public discussions of the
IMP and figured it wouldn't hurt to mention it once in while in case
new users or people that have been out of touch for a while have
not heard of it. It's not like it's a secret society or anything.
Might be a good discussion for the IMP group too since that issue
will need to be addressed eventualy.

--
Ken Tyler

tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message

I don't think I'll get involved too much in this thread... but I like to go
for a mix of both, depending on whether I want realism or surrealism...

--
Lance.


---
For the latest MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone

Post a reply to this message

Lance Birch wrote:

> I don't think I'll get involved too much in this thread... but I like to go
> for a mix of both, depending on whether I want realism or surrealism...
>
> --
> Lance.

Well I'm glad you took the time to tell us you are not going to say anything.

--
Ken Tyler

tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message