In article <3d2f498c@news.povray.org>,
 "Kevin Ellis" <kev### [at] tiscalicouk> wrote:

> Yet again, another nice image. The faked radiosity works well on the outer
> surface but inside the holes it is more obvious that it is faked. I feel
> that radiosity gives a much better definition of detail in shadowed areas,
> although this would probably require quite high settings.

A light source at the camera position would help fill in those 
areas...no spot visible from the camera would be unlit. In this case, I 
think a black nothingness is desired, though...makes you wonder what the 
rest of the thing looks like, what else could be hiding in that shadow.

The border between the two does seem rather abrupt though...radiosity 
might help. ;-)

There seems to be a greenish tint and loss of definition to the surfaces 
pointing downward, the surface looks flat, without shading. I'd say a 
too high ambient was used if the black shadows didn't show the ambient 
was 0...maybe repositioning one of the lights would help.

Hmm...maybe some still water at the bottom (like in the shelter of a 
small harbor) and some weathered timbers wedged into the rocks (maybe 
using the IsoWood include), from some unfortunate ship that took shelter 
too close. Or a golf ball or piece of litter, whatever the scale of this 
thing is...

-- 
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
POV-Ray TAG e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
TAG web site: http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message