Shay wrote:
> On 08/05/2010 01:01 AM, Jim Charter wrote:
>> one shadow light and one fill light, diffuse finish, just a test of
>> material application and coloring.
> 
> You didn't say "accretion."

And I struggled over the word to use! And was unsatisfied with 
'application'. Yes 'accretion' more perfectly suggests both the process 
being depicted and the process used to depict it.  I was so much older then.


> Did you ever have one of those bottles into which dozens of taper 
> candles had been inserted and burned? Perhaps that's the closest US 
> equivalent to a fetish head.

Had to be a Mateus bottle, of course.

> 
> Your digital version looks nice, but is the top of the head off? Are the 
> various fluids which would stain a fetish head dripped so accurately 
> over the center? My guess would be that the top of the head would be 
> more evenly covered.


My guess too, though you have to admit that such an outcome is not 
impossible.  Some anal-retentive witch-doctor.

Thomas' response reminded me of why it is good to just post something 
every once in a while.  His quite valid reaction really was a 'paradigm 
shift' for me.  Opened up thoughts of all sorts of different 
possibilities for the process.

Using the dribble objects for 'staining' the model was the breakthrough 
for me here.  Previously I'd just seen it as a method for, um, 
accretion.  But for all the cost in parsing and memory to try and mimic 
the flow of trickles over other trickles, the level of control over the 
outcome is crude and random.  Kinda funny, really.

Post a reply to this message