"Shay" <sha### [at] nonenone> wrote in message news:4ab997ac$1@news.povray.org...
> Tek wrote:
>
> > However, on that subject, I sometimes have some difficulty
> distinguishing between technical and artistic areas. e.g. is bad lighting 
> a technical or artistic failure?
> >
>
> Lighting is IMO an artistic issue. At least one of the most famous IRTC 
> images was rendered using rad settings pulled right out of the newsgroups. 
> And anyone can paste his model into an hdri scene. Using these elements 
> effectively is a challenge, but not a technical one.
>

An interesting point, though I'm not talking about good lighting, I'm 
talking about bad lighting. A technical failure can make a mess of the 
lighting in a scene as much as an artistic one. I don't want to point out 
specific examples, but there are scenes where the lighting is very washed 
out and flat, which could be a case of not knowing what gamma space to 
render in (surely a technical issue) or that you should disable ambient 
light in a dark scene (kind of half way between technical and artistic).

I've seen people with a lot of artistic talent compensate very effectively 
for such technical oversights, but when I'm presented with an image where 
the lighting just looks bad, I don't know whether it's a failure to see that 
it looks bad (artistic) or a failure to know what to do about it 
(technical).

Anyway, thanks for the very interesting reply. In general I agree with you, 
though I tend to focus more on aesthetics for artistic score and count 
things like humour and story-telling as part of the concept score.

-- 
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com

Post a reply to this message