gonzo wrote:
> Jim Charter wrote:
> 
>> Ross wrote:
>>
>>> is it suposed to look like leather tightly wrapped on wood? or is it
>>> supposed to be wood? the shine doesn't look right for wood that might be
>>> really old. however it all looks pretty authentic.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Bare Wood.  The problem is the normal I believe.  It needs much more 
>> irregular detail and crisper edges.  I think a little variety in the 
>> finish would also help.  I thought I would just settle for a slightly 
>> burnished patina on this cut before I spent the rest of my lifetime on 
>> it ;)
>> Even when examining the masks in the museum, I is often hard to tell 
>> if it is covered in skin as you mention.  Usually the peeling away 
>> around the eyes is the only way to decide for sure.  Then there is the 
>> various layers of pigment, dirt etc.  The photo reference I am using 
>> for this one leaves no doubt that it is bare chiselled wood that has 
>> become burnished with wear.  But I could find nothing quite like it in 
>> the museum to observe for real.
> 
> 
> 
> I would expect this to be a very hard wood, but your specular highlights 
> are too soft, more like a laquer. Try a very high phong_size to make it 
> harder.  When I have worked with old wood that has that deeply burnished 
> worn-in shine, the specular highlights are very tight, often changing 
> with every line in the grain.
> 
> Very nice image though, great modeling.
> 
> RG
> 
Thanks.  Yes you got the problem.  The thing is, in order to raise the 
specular and reduce the roughness keyword, and still get the desired 
appearance, I think I need to increase the actual micro roughness of the 
surface in order spread out the highlight, else it looks a little too 
shiny and molten. The surface of the wood has a gentle scalloping and a 
lot of random knicks like it was worked with a draw knife .

Post a reply to this message