 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>
>I agree totally.
>Reality has many faces and making images is not about reality but about
>perception.
>
>Remco
Thank you! Everyone seems to disagree with me on this!
Simen.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It is not because everyone say that a white paper is black that this paper
is black ;)
Fabian.
Simen Kvaal wrote:
> >
> >I agree totally.
> >Reality has many faces and making images is not about reality but about
> >perception.
> >
> >Remco
>
> Thank you! Everyone seems to disagree with me on this!
>
> Simen.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fabian Brau wrote:
>
> It is not because everyone say that a white paper is black that this paper
> is black ;)
>
> Fabian.
>
Are you sure?
Remco
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I agree. When people try to make photorealistic images in raytracing, what
they're really trying to do is make it look like a professional photograph. A
professional photograph would have just the right angle or lighting ir whatever
to bring out the best part of an object. I noticed a rather interesting
phenomenon today; I was at just the right angle with the sun and clouds that
they got extremely bright around the outside edge and very quickly transitioned
to gray in the middle. If someone rendered that in POV, it'd only be a variant
of three colors, the sky and the two cloud colors, and people would say "get
rid of that color-banding". It would also look fake because we expect the
clouds to be dark on the bottom and light on the top and not give off waht
appears to be their own light (even though it's reflected). I think the great
thing about raytracing is you can "perfect" your images to make them more
aesthetically pleasing, and you can add objects that don't exist in real life.
My favorite raytraced images are the surrealistic ones.
Another example: the way the refrigerator light caught the orange drink it
looked like it was glowing radioactively.
David
visit my homepage! http://thunder.prohosting.com/~davidf
---------------------------------------------------------
Simen Kvaal wrote:
> I was just thinking of this topic when I read the above "PovRay and
> reality"-thread. My angle is somewhat different.
>
> I see a general problem when people (in general) comment raytraced/CG
> imagery (for example renderings with PovRay.) Often you can see such
> comments as "the water looks too plastic" and "maybe add more randomness to
> [whatever]." "The shadows are too sharp" and so on. My point is that whay
> cannot real-life look like that? Go out in your evironment (no, ouside the
> computer) and take look at something. It's quite easy to find an objects
> that "don't look realistic" and if someone had rendered something looking
> like a photo taken of it, you would say: "you should make the surface less
> reflective" or "it's too perfect" or similar. That is, it is easy to forget
> that nature *itself* can look ... well unnatural.
>
> This post is not a *personal* attack on all the people who comment posings
> (including myself.) but merely an attempt to open out minds and not be
> perfectionists. Have in mind that 'realistic'-looking scenes don't exist
> either.
>
> Anyone wants to comment?
>
> Simen.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I agree.
It all goes back to the discussion of what is art? What is good raytraced art?
My answer is not: that which is mistakable for a photograph.
My answer is: that which inspires, with a theme something more than an idiotic
pun.
The type of art books I most like to flip through are those of POSTERS, from
1900's advertisements to patriotic and anti-war protest posters to dance club
ads. I am bored to death with paintings of landscapes. I think the "landscape
painting" faction of the art world is the same faction that likes absolute
photorealism in 3D.
Someone was once impressed at the possibility that a photo of a kitchen sink
was raytraced. I say it's bloody boring however the image was arrived at.
Simen Kvaal wrote:
> I was just thinking of this topic when I read the above "PovRay and
> reality"-thread. My angle is somewhat different.
>
> I see a general problem when people (in general) comment raytraced/CG
> imagery (for example renderings with PovRay.) Often you can see such
> comments as "the water looks too plastic" and "maybe add more randomness to
> [whatever]." "The shadows are too sharp" and so on. My point is that whay
> cannot real-life look like that? Go out in your evironment (no, ouside the
> computer) and take look at something. It's quite easy to find an objects
> that "don't look realistic" and if someone had rendered something looking
> like a photo taken of it, you would say: "you should make the surface less
> reflective" or "it's too perfect" or similar. That is, it is easy to forget
> that nature *itself* can look ... well unnatural.
>
> This post is not a *personal* attack on all the people who comment posings
> (including myself.) but merely an attempt to open out minds and not be
> perfectionists. Have in mind that 'realistic'-looking scenes don't exist
> either.
>
> Anyone wants to comment?
>
> Simen.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ok but if at the basis the raytracer is not capable to reproduce a big
part of the reality you will draw something wrong when you will make
your image (even if it is not photorealistic). It is very naive to
believe that, for example, a (good) modern art painter cannot draw
perfectly the reality! He doesn't do this because this don't interest
him but he can do it. Look the first works of Picasso, you will see :)
Fabian.
"Greg M. Johnson" wrote:
>
> I agree.
>
> It all goes back to the discussion of what is art? What is good raytraced art?
>
> My answer is not: that which is mistakable for a photograph.
> My answer is: that which inspires, with a theme something more than an idiotic
> pun.
>
> The type of art books I most like to flip through are those of POSTERS, from
> 1900's advertisements to patriotic and anti-war protest posters to dance club
> ads. I am bored to death with paintings of landscapes. I think the "landscape
> painting" faction of the art world is the same faction that likes absolute
> photorealism in 3D.
>
> Someone was once impressed at the possibility that a photo of a kitchen sink
> was raytraced. I say it's bloody boring however the image was arrived at.
>
> Simen Kvaal wrote:
>
> > I was just thinking of this topic when I read the above "PovRay and
> > reality"-thread. My angle is somewhat different.
> >
> > I see a general problem when people (in general) comment raytraced/CG
> > imagery (for example renderings with PovRay.) Often you can see such
> > comments as "the water looks too plastic" and "maybe add more randomness to
> > [whatever]." "The shadows are too sharp" and so on. My point is that whay
> > cannot real-life look like that? Go out in your evironment (no, ouside the
> > computer) and take look at something. It's quite easy to find an objects
> > that "don't look realistic" and if someone had rendered something looking
> > like a photo taken of it, you would say: "you should make the surface less
> > reflective" or "it's too perfect" or similar. That is, it is easy to forget
> > that nature *itself* can look ... well unnatural.
> >
> > This post is not a *personal* attack on all the people who comment posings
> > (including myself.) but merely an attempt to open out minds and not be
> > perfectionists. Have in mind that 'realistic'-looking scenes don't exist
> > either.
> >
> > Anyone wants to comment?
> >
> > Simen.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fabian Brau wrote:
>
> Ok but if at the basis the raytracer is not capable to reproduce a big
> part of the reality you will draw something wrong when you will make
> your image (even if it is not photorealistic). It is very naive to
> believe that, for example, a (good) modern art painter cannot draw
> perfectly the reality! He doesn't do this because this don't interest
> him but he can do it. Look the first works of Picasso, you will see :)
>
> Fabian.
>
And what if he can't? Does that make his abstract paintings less valuable?
Do you really care whether, say, Jackson Pollock, could draw a perfect portrait?
He was a master with his dripping he doesn't have to be a master with a
still-life. That's beside the point. Art is not craft.
Do what you want to do, be it abstract or realistic, but do it as good as you
can and because you want to, not because others say you should.
Have fun,
Remco
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I hope you will love my last sunset, 1 month modelling and 3 day to
render
Fabian.
Remco de Korte wrote:
>
> Fabian Brau wrote:
> >
> > Ok but if at the basis the raytracer is not capable to reproduce a big
> > part of the reality you will draw something wrong when you will make
> > your image (even if it is not photorealistic). It is very naive to
> > believe that, for example, a (good) modern art painter cannot draw
> > perfectly the reality! He doesn't do this because this don't interest
> > him but he can do it. Look the first works of Picasso, you will see :)
> >
> > Fabian.
> >
>
> And what if he can't? Does that make his abstract paintings less valuable?
> Do you really care whether, say, Jackson Pollock, could draw a perfect portrait?
> He was a master with his dripping he doesn't have to be a master with a
> still-life. That's beside the point. Art is not craft.
> Do what you want to do, be it abstract or realistic, but do it as good as you
> can and because you want to, not because others say you should.
>
> Have fun,
>
> Remco
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'a.jpg' (2 KB)
Preview of image 'a.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fabian Brau wrote:
>
> I hope you will love my last sunset, 1 month modelling and 3 day to
> render
>
> Fabian.
>
Are you serious? Posting such a huge binary in a non-binary group?
Showoff!
Remco
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
