I was just wondering about how folk like to use POV-Ray. I can see from the
various works posted that there are several camps, the realism camp, the
humaniform camp, the abstract and the fractal camps, but I wonder if these
are more a response to what is seen as acceptable than a native tendency in
the people who inhabit those camps.

Well, that was obtuse. Let me try again. Personally, I am really more
interested in what a formula can do (I just wish I had the math) than in
what composition techniques are used to make a scene. But when I post a
scene, I tend to make sure that it follows some of the more widely known
compositional elements so that people will like it.

A good example was my evenly spaced flowers. I was very happy with them as a
floating ball. I think that the scene improved when I made them into more
realistic flowers in a vase of sorts and put them in a scene, but I was
happy with them as a ball of flowers. Was the fact that I saw that as an
improvement cultural or native?

Other people would be happy with less detailed flowers as long as they were
placed in a really good scene. I imagine that they spend as much time
arranging the scene as I spend trying to make a nice formula.  But they
don't hand out blocky or shapeless flowers in a good scene, they trend
towards the middle just like I do. Again, is the urge to add technical
details peer pressure? or just good taste?

Others seem to spend most of their time doing things which add to the
realism, lighting, textures and atmosphere. Some can do amazing things with
matrixes and isosurfaces, but often they feel the need to add storytelling
items to the scene. Not that that's a bad thing in and of itself, I just
wonder if this restrains the art.

I know that sometimes (often) people break out of these molds quite
successfully, but I see the molds as being there anyway. The last animation
round was notable in that I saw a tendency for animations with Human forms
in them to excel while a beautiful fish mpg was largely ignored. Now there
may be reasons behind that other than the one I am about to guess at, but I
wonder if it might be because most of the entries were by people (voters)
who have worked on human forms and so saw more value in entries which suited
that style? Does a good POV-Ray image now require a Poser mesh? Again, not
that that is inherently a bad thing, as long as we notice that it may be
evolving of itself.

In other words, and in closing, is the Art of POV-Ray being molded by
technology, competitions, the artists or something else?

Looking for a conversation, not a style war...

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 15 Aug 1999 16:28:56 -0400, "Bill DeWitt" <the### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:

>I was just wondering about how folk like to use POV-Ray. I can see from the
>various works posted that there are several camps, the realism camp, the
>humaniform camp, the abstract and the fractal camps, but I wonder if these
>are more a response to what is seen as acceptable than a native tendency in
>the people who inhabit those camps.
>
<snip>
>
>In other words, and in closing, is the Art of POV-Ray being molded by
>technology, competitions, the artists or something else?
>
Perhaps the best thing about POV-Ray is the diversity of uses to which it can be put.
This gives everyone a chance to contribute something which is unique.  Yes, perhaps
techniques dominate these news groups, but the artists have their say and are widely
respected. 

Many of us have feet in more than one camp; in my case I like trying to recreate
realistic
engineering artifacts, but I am also fascinated in being able to create an interesting
image from a piece of math.  I would like to be able to create something more artistic
and
perhaps, someday, who knows.

So the answer is that with this multi-cultural, multi-national group of people pushing
away at different aspects of POV, the topic is growing in many directions at the same
time.  The only guiding forces are the motivation of a large group of dissimilar
people -
their curiosity, competition with peers, urge to be recognised and accepted - and all
subject to the rapidly changing constraints of software and hardware.

What makes it really unique, however, is that we can all readily see what everyone
else is
doing, we can  contribute ideas, comment, argue, fall out, or even have a
philosophical,
time-wasting discussion --- curses! Must press on with my IRTC submission or my rivals
will get there first.

David
------------
dav### [at] cwcomnet
http://www.hamiltonite.mcmail.com
------------

Post a reply to this message

I guess we all, to one degree or another represent all the camps. I myself would
think of myself as being an artist first and foremost. But in order to create
the things I want to create, I've had to dabble into math, architecture, etc..

For me it's always been the journey, much more than the destination. I much
prefer to just wade right in and fiddle around. Sometimes, the end result is
several hours spent with nothing worthwhile to show for it. Other times, the
results are spectacular (to me) with plenty of food for thought left over for
another day.

I guess that's why I always find things like the IRTC such a challenge. To be
able to plan a complete scene from beginning to end is just not my usual style.

David

Post a reply to this message

Actually I was thinking along similar lines the other day. I wouldn't exactly
have called it camps, but I also noted that you could "group" pictures in some
ways. I was mainly thinking about the images posted in these newsgroups because
I've seen wildly different things in other places, not only in the IRTC.
In stead of camps I was more thinking about goals one has: experiments, realism,
learning, entertainment/storytelling, technics.
I know most people have more then one interest in POV and the subjects seem to
come in waves, probably because of people reacting on each other. It's a pity
some of the contributions are a bit ignored, simply because they seem to fall
too far outside the mainstream of interest. The occasional "cool!" and that's
it. Most of the times those are the pictures that seem to be most interesting (I
still have a very weird picture, Coton, by Fabien Mosen if I'm not mistaken).
As in most artforms it's about technicality and creativity and the combination
and balance of those.
POV, because of it's flexibility and low-level adaptability is a great tool for
that.

Regards,

Remco
http://www.xs4all.nl/~remcodek/

Post a reply to this message

I see it as a method of creating things within the realm of a
computers calculated display. Whether it be the abstract or the
photoreal, to see something onscreen which has the ability to invoke a
thought of realism (notice I said abstract too) is what I like about
it most. Frankly, when the image becomes more 2D than 3D I start to
lose interest except for the sake it is a computed scene.

Bob

Remco de Korte <rem### [at] xs4allnl> wrote in message
news:37B7414E.FE76C7E1@xs4all.nl...
> Actually I was thinking along similar lines the other day. I
wouldn't exactly
> have called it camps, but I also noted that you could "group"
pictures in some
> ways. I was mainly thinking about the images posted in these
newsgroups because
> I've seen wildly different things in other places, not only in the
IRTC.
> In stead of camps I was more thinking about goals one has:
experiments, realism,
> learning, entertainment/storytelling, technics.
> I know most people have more then one interest in POV and the
subjects seem to
> come in waves, probably because of people reacting on each other.
It's a pity
> some of the contributions are a bit ignored, simply because they
seem to fall
> too far outside the mainstream of interest. The occasional "cool!"
and that's
> it. Most of the times those are the pictures that seem to be most
interesting (I
> still have a very weird picture, Coton, by Fabien Mosen if I'm not
mistaken).
> As in most artforms it's about technicality and creativity and the
combination
> and balance of those.
> POV, because of it's flexibility and low-level adaptability is a
great tool for
> that.
>
> Regards,
>
> Remco
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~remcodek/

Post a reply to this message

For the past - say 14 years - I have been using one program
or another for graphics. Some were ones I did in basic on
an Amiga 500, or a Sinclare QL, or what ever I could get my
hands on. Most of that work was math oriented. And just for
myself, as there was no-one around to share with.
Some time around  1990 I found rayshade for one of my machines
and that started my modeling. I also found fractint and didn't have to
write any more basic code for graphics. I still didn't have anyone
to share with. The only time that I had a chance to see other peoples
comments was when I introduced Benny Wilkie to POV Ray. He would
give a few pointers.
Then, these past few months I have looked at what all of you have
shared and I have posted a few of my own.

In all the years that I have been at this, has my focus changed? Well,
I like to think that I am just gathering enough info and talent to really
do a good job on a planitary simulation for a game called Traveller.
I have always wanted to make a "realistic" solar system, complete
with gravity influenced orbits. I even want planitary weather.
I want to be able to look at a planet and see what it looks like.
That is where POV comes in. And code for clouds, trees
mountains, and such. I have always wanted to say "You are here."
and show a good picture. I have worked spaceships, space stations,
and all that stuff. All for a good simulation. I chased the isosurface idea
for a while. Thank God someone got that one working. Now I can make
deformed spheres now that look planetary. The clouds I have seen here
look fantastic. The trace function in superpatch helps with all those
wonderful trees that keep showing up around here. All I need now is a
head large enough to put it all together. Oh  , a large super computer
to run it on would be nice too.

 So, does this group, these artistes, change what I do? Not that much.
But they do inspire me to do better than I have in the past. And if I
ever seem too picky about one thing or another, just remember, it
comes from someone that thinks he is playing god to his homemade
universe. Lets see...
Let there be light_source{ 0, White fade_distance 1.68e11 fade_power 2}

Bill DeWitt wrote:

> I was just wondering about how folk like to use POV-Ray. I can see from the
> various works posted that there are several camps, the realism camp, the
> humaniform camp, the abstract and the fractal camps, but I wonder if these
> are more a response to what is seen as acceptable than a native tendency in
> the people who inhabit those camps.
>
> Well, that was obtuse. Let me try again. Personally, I am really more
> interested in what a formula can do (I just wish I had the math) than in
> what composition techniques are used to make a scene. But when I post a
> scene, I tend to make sure that it follows some of the more widely known
> compositional elements so that people will like it.
> <snip>
> In other words, and in closing, is the Art of POV-Ray being molded by
> technology, competitions, the artists or something else?
>
> Looking for a conversation, not a style war...

Post a reply to this message

Thanks for bringing up this topic Bill.  

I'm most interested in still life scenes for myself, but do like
seeing the abstract stuff, as I could never produce an abstract
image due to not knowing where to start.

Though my main focus is on realism, I do get sidetracked and end
up not really doing much.  I only use primitives at the moment
and have for the past year, I don't use media yet and have only
started playing with Giles' make tree macro this week, currently
trying to get some good leaf textures together.

I enjoy sharing my work and seeing other peoples art, though
sometimes mine doesn't get any coments.  Such as a few months ago
I posted a scene of three coffee cups, not an interesting scene
in itself, but my main focus for that image was the area lights,
who would have guessed that?

Long may yee all keep POVing. 

Bill DeWitt wrote:
> 
> I was just wondering about how folk like to use POV-Ray. I can see from the
> various works posted that there are several camps, the realism camp, the
> humaniform camp, the abstract and the fractal camps, but I wonder if these
> are more a response to what is seen as acceptable than a native tendency in
> the people who inhabit those camps.
> 
> Well, that was obtuse. Let me try again. Personally, I am really more
> interested in what a formula can do (I just wish I had the math) than in
> what composition techniques are used to make a scene. But when I post a
> scene, I tend to make sure that it follows some of the more widely known
> compositional elements so that people will like it.
> 
> A good example was my evenly spaced flowers. I was very happy with them as a
> floating ball. I think that the scene improved when I made them into more
> realistic flowers in a vase of sorts and put them in a scene, but I was
> happy with them as a ball of flowers. Was the fact that I saw that as an
> improvement cultural or native?
> 
> Other people would be happy with less detailed flowers as long as they were
> placed in a really good scene. I imagine that they spend as much time
> arranging the scene as I spend trying to make a nice formula.  But they
> don't hand out blocky or shapeless flowers in a good scene, they trend
> towards the middle just like I do. Again, is the urge to add technical
> details peer pressure? or just good taste?
> 
> Others seem to spend most of their time doing things which add to the
> realism, lighting, textures and atmosphere. Some can do amazing things with
> matrixes and isosurfaces, but often they feel the need to add storytelling
> items to the scene. Not that that's a bad thing in and of itself, I just
> wonder if this restrains the art.
> 
> I know that sometimes (often) people break out of these molds quite
> successfully, but I see the molds as being there anyway. The last animation
> round was notable in that I saw a tendency for animations with Human forms
> in them to excel while a beautiful fish mpg was largely ignored. Now there
> may be reasons behind that other than the one I am about to guess at, but I
> wonder if it might be because most of the entries were by people (voters)
> who have worked on human forms and so saw more value in entries which suited
> that style? Does a good POV-Ray image now require a Poser mesh? Again, not
> that that is inherently a bad thing, as long as we notice that it may be
> evolving of itself.
> 
> In other words, and in closing, is the Art of POV-Ray being molded by
> technology, competitions, the artists or something else?
> 
> Looking for a conversation, not a style war...

-- 
Cheers
Steve

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error reading file mailto:sjl### [at] ndirectcouk

Post a reply to this message

Remco de Korte <rem### [at] xs4allnl> wrote :
>
> In stead of camps I was more thinking about goals one has: experiments,
realism,
> learning, entertainment/storytelling, technics.
> I know most people have more then one interest in POV and the subjects
seem to
> come in waves, probably because of people reacting on each other. It's a
pity
> some of the contributions are a bit ignored, simply because they seem to
fall
> too far outside the mainstream of interest. The occasional "cool!" and
that's
> it. Most of the times those are the pictures that seem to be most
interesting

    Very much what I was thinking. And cogently expressed to boot!

    I was told, as an aspiring Science Fiction Writer, that one could have
as many aliens as one wants, but one must always include a human if one
wants to sell the story. Not because publishers are short of vision, but
because -readers- want to relate to the story.

    This (and this is not a knock of poser or any other human modeler),
explains why so many people strive for  a human likeness in 3D... the desire
to be able to relate to the image, to put a human emotion into the scene.
Even images without humans in it almost require some form of humanistic
process. Witness Alberto's "Mystery" (p.b.i)which -cries- for a man made
pedestal. Without the pedestal there is no size, it could be a diatom or the
result of an exploding Galaxy. With the pedestal it becomes a prized
possession of a human, something either made by a humanistic creature, or
something found and displayed by one.

    In other words, there is a story. With "Mystery" we don't know what the
story is, but we are sure that there is one and that it is one we can relate
to, in fact, we may supply one at first glance. I almost immediately thought
of a craftsman working in a freezer with scrapers and a warm wet sponge, of
a display room kept at -20, and of a very rich man who feels the money was
worth it. Your story may be different and the real story may dissatisfy us
both, but the thing is that there -is- a story... or -maybe- we wouldn't
like the image as much, no matter how groovy it is...

Bill "Still waiting for that long render" DeWitt

Post a reply to this message

Steve <sjl### [at] ndirectcouk> wrote :
>
> I enjoy sharing my work and seeing other peoples art, though
> sometimes mine doesn't get any coments.  Such as a few months ago
> I posted a scene of three coffee cups, not an interesting scene
> in itself, but my main focus for that image was the area lights,
> who would have guessed that?
>

    Yeah, that happens. I know sometimes I do not comment on images that I
really like unless I either have something to say that will help the Artist
or a joke that I want to get in before anyone else does. 8-)

    I see a lot of comments go by that one just has to wonder what the
person was thinking... much like some of mine I am sure.

    I remember someone asked "how am I going to paint the Clowns Face" and I
sent a style of paint when they were looking for a method of putting the
paint in the picture...

Post a reply to this message