Once more, blood pressure has won out over a reasonable discussion and I get
accused of trolling, again.  What is it about some people here that they
either mistakenly or bloody-mindedly misconstrue my intent?

I'm sure, Derrick, you were more than deserving of second place in a
competition which is a bit of fun, and I'm glad you learned a lot about POV
in the process, well done.  Here's the thing: at no point did I suggest
that you personally are not a good POV artist.  At no point did I suggest
that all the entries to the IRTC are of a poor standard.  At no point,
Derrick, did I suggest that I even know which picture was made by you
personally.  I still don't.  You simply jumped on my *general* comment, my
opinion, which I am of course entitled to hold and express on a free
newsgroup, and took it as a *personal* attack.  Note that you only
commented on this discussion after I had stated my point, in which I made
no mention of your image or any other specific image.  To consider an
opinion of a general trend to be a personal attack on your own work is to
be perhaps a little touchy, wouldn't you agree?

Now Sascha, your post stated "Some poeple use SDL and CSG to do all their
modeling, some use GUI modelers, some use other free modelers/renderers,
and some use professional software like Max or Maya. But IMHO we shouldn't
care -
what counts are the results."  So why, then, am I to be called a troll when
I state truthfully that the images produced and displayed on other
websites, which were made using such professional packages, are of a
generally higher standard than most of those entered in recent rounds of
the IRTC?

You also argue "Well, if it's so easy to win month after month, go ahead and
show us!  If your images are of such "truly high quality" that they're just
too good for the IRTC, try calling Pixar, they may be waiting for you..."
Illogical sarcasm.  If my images were of truly high quality, I would
already be working for Pixar and wouldn't be here discussing the IRTC here
with you - a situation which I'm sure would be favourable to both of us.
My images, for what they are worth, are almost all available on these
newsgroups.

This is my final post on the matter.  Feel free to argue amongst yourselves,
but I have neither the time nor willpower for a protracted debate about
some opinions that you've convinced yourselves are mine.

L
-

PS @Derrick.  To finally try to convince you that I intend no ill will, I
offer some constructive criticism, as you requested.
The image is too dark around the edges.  If I look closely I can just about
make out the sea in the background I think.  I know the single bulb above
the bather is the primary light, but try including a soft shadowless fill
light to one side, probably of a blue tint, in orger to pick out detail in
the dark portion to the bottom right of the image.  The darkness makes the
composition too emtpy and rather oppressive.
Secondly, on texturing.  The moon is an extremely recognisable object.  Use
an image map, there are lots available online.  Metal textures (I presume
the lamppost should be metal) I would use a lower diffuse value, quite high
brilliance and variable reflection with a slightly lowered exponent.
Modelling-wise the image is fine, though sparse.  That is more to do with
composition.  Look at the left hand side of the image.  It's all dark and
empty.  In a film, including that portion would make the viewer tense, as
if a sinister figure were about to walk out of that gloom.  Try moving the
camera closer into the subject of the shot.  You could change the aspect
ratio of the shot to an upright frame, which might play well with the
length of the lamppost too.

Post a reply to this message