Stephen wrote:


> faculties any credit :-)
> 
I think it is mostly the foreground trees that give it away. It is not 
that the trees aren't believable,
  it is that they are identifyable raytraced tree "species".
  That and a certain regularity to the general "randomness"  and
perhaps some flaws introduced by photography itself.  But suppose the 
history of art had proceeded directly from painting to raytracing and 
photography had never existed?

Post a reply to this message