gonzo wrote:
> Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> 
> This is starting to look quite realistic.  As Steve said, it looks like a
> flash photo with backscatter from suspended particles in the water column.
> 
> One thing; water tends to shorten flash ranges to about 2-8 ft, decreasing
> with the amount of particulate matter, so for this picture to be realistic
> the shark would have to be fairly small and about 4-5 ft from the camera.
> 
> I'd make the water a shade greener, then make the 'flash' brighter but with
> a short fade-distance so there's greater contrast between the near and far
> areas.
> 
> Also, with particles that large, I'd expect a LOT more smaller particles. I
> think a wider range of particle size would be more realistic.
> 
> Here's a shot with roughly the same water color as yours, note the sediment
> backscatter and how the colors wash out rapidly further from the flash.
> This was a wide angle shot, so the shadows in the background are rocks no
> more than 10-12 ft away, yet they're almost completely black.
> 

Thanks Ron.  It is very helpful to have that information confirmed 
especially about the water color.  I did in fact have a media layer of 
fine yellow "pea" included but took it out because I was worried that it 
was looking too turgid.  I'll put it back and go for a render in closer 
with wider camera angle and lighting as you suggest.  The thing is the 
modeling/texturing on the shark isn't detailed enough yet to sustain a 
real close view.  And my command of media effects isn't quite up to a 
long view with sunlight coming down from a surface plane.  But getting 
there. ;)

Post a reply to this message