On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:24:07 -0300, "Jim Holsenback" <jho### [at] hotmailcom>
wrote:

>
>"Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> wrote in message 
>news:web.466e8ea143579e8dc4e49fa40@news.povray.org...
>> I've seen skies like that and I like your image. I must say that I like
>> Bruno's as well. Both of the methods give very desirable results, although
>
>two simular but slightly different approaches .... kind of funny 
>(coincidence) that we both were working on skies at the same time. 

When you think of the number of skys people render it's not really surprising
:-)

> This is a pretty good group of folks and it's 
>nice to be able to bounce ideas and techniques around. I really respect the 
>talents and approaches of some of the folks here .... math, logic .... etc.

Your right tho' the folk here are ok.
 
>I'm kind of a trial and error guy, so I'm constantly blown away at some of 
>the stuff I seen over the past couple of years.

Me too, if it looks ok, then it will do for me :-)

>> I fear that they would both distract from the rest of the scene. That is,
>> you wouldn't want to use them where they weren't the focal point of the 
>> image.
>
>hmmmm .... I guess I see your point. I think I've always seen the sky as 
>dressing around the scene. I'm working on shore grass, a fishing dory and 
>some other ground cover for this scene.

It was meant as a compliment, it's eye catching.

>> Is that the moon? If so, is the phase right or is it just a marker for
>> interest?
>>
> yep .... it's the moon although a rough draft version. I have a shooting 
>star that I used Nathan Kopp's Lens Flare include to put a sparkle on the 
>head of the star trail .... that's a work in progress too.

I look forward to seeing it.

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message