clipka wrote:
> Added some more "steam greebles":
> 
> - Corrugated catwalks, handrails & treads
> - Sand pipework
> - Feedwater pipe
> - Pressured air tanks
> - Rivets, rivets and more rivets
> 
> Not perfectly authentic yet (e.g. the air tanks should actually go on 
> the left-hand side), but authenticity has to wait until after the 
> TINA-CHeP deadline (stay tuned on www.tc-rtc.co.uk).
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 

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.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message