Jim Charter wrote:

> Impressive. But...now I am not sure I can settle for the ambiguity of 
> material.  Previously with these I just imagined some sort of enameled 
> surface and that was fine.  Now I want more.  I would urge you to 
> consider it further.

Intended material was always ink, but I think it's a dead-end.

3D to 2D doesn't work the same way ink prints of oil paintings don't work.

I've got a friend who is trying to make it as a professional 
photographer. He distinguishes himself from other photographers with 
heavy "Photoshopping" of his images. To get a painted look he:
* starts with a huge "raw" file with lots of color information and no 
rendering artifacts.
* applies filters
* "cheats" with a tablet.
* and selects only one or two out of a hundred for "publication"

And *still* achieves results on par with digitized roto-scoping vs. 
old-style (with a real, live animator) roto-scoping. They're beautiful 
results, mind you -- better than one should expect to get for $120/h 
studio time --, but they aren't "Starry Night" caliber results.

I'm sure you could link to dozens of shiny, gorgeous, DOFed, reflection 
blurred, photoreal images of similar things, but none will look better 
than this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/Grain_Belt_Beer.jpg
to me.

Still, I could do better, but this is good enough to satisfy me for now 
(last post was nice image, too-sloppy render, Thomas. I wasn't dumping 
on my work.). The enjoyment for me is in making it. I don't find the 
result especially compelling.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message