"Shay" <n@n.n> schreef in bericht news:4aeb2faf@news.povray.org...
> Very nice, but as predicted loses something when "properly" textured. By 
> modeling in different colors, you revealed things that wouldn't be present 
> in a photograph or photo-realistic render.
>
> This is important, I think, because so few things render or photograph 
> well. What looks good in flattened 3D? Relatively convex objects like 
> faces, buildings, and landscapes. That's it. Sure, you can find some 
> impressive 3D examples of other things, but compare those to 2D work of 
> the same subject and I'll bet you find the 3D lacking. A few years ago, I 
> ran across the CGTalk "Grand Space Opera" challenge which blew my mind 
> when I compared the 2D to 3D entries.
>
> What's the problem with 3D? I believe there's a human tendency to separate 
> any image into positive and negative or light and dark space (look at the 
> difference in perspective one can gain from cropping a render). A 2D 
> artist can overcome this and create more spaces with his complete control 
> of localized contrast and "texture" of the flattened image. A 3D artist 
> could exercise more control than most do, but the time required for extra 
> light sources and experimentation is great.
>
> Something I will continue to think on.

Please do. You have started here an interesting string of thoughts which 
might be fundamental to the way we usually look at the work we are creating. 
Kirk mentioned photography as an analog to 3D art as we understand it. I 
agree to some extent, although I believe we have more power over the subject 
than the photographer.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message