Jim Charter <jrc### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:3ea57c2f$1@news.povray.org...
> > Some of the colors seem a bit strong, and the lighting is washed out a
bit,
> > leaving some of the objects floating. But there's also many very good
bits
> > of lighting and shading that look photorealistic.
>
> I agree.  For some reason the overall effect doesn't square with my own
> memories of such a scene.  I remember the mahogany and metal parts as
> darker, more dense, somehow.

Agreed.  While there are a lot of parts, a lot of them don't click with my
memories of working on old amps and equipment.

>   The tubes are excellent,

Some of them are quite good, but some I wasn't sure were even tubes, or if
they were supposed to be something else.

> > The lighting seems unusually bright. After so many "too dark" images,
it's
> > nice to see the brilliant colors, but some of the lighter objects seem
to
> > glow a bit more than natural.
> >
> >
> I agree.

Ditto. I think this had a lot to do with why I wasn't sure what some of them
were. There seemed to be reflections or specular highlights that overrode
the original texture. Some objects I thought would be glass looked more like
metal.

I thought this might make a good scene to try with just a few well placed
but not very bright lights, and let radiosity fill it in.  I think it would
give it that old workbench in the backroom look.

RG

Post a reply to this message