gonzo wrote:
> 
> I haven't studied art, or had any formal training, but it's something that
> has always interested me.  But I got frustrated when I was younger because
> I could visualize things in my head that I couldn't make work on paper,
> 
> And lo & behold, I discovered that all those scenes in my head from my early
> years were now possible after all! 

As someone who has 'always known how' to draw, I find that fascinating.
I fact its working in three dimensions that I find to be a challenge.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Charter wrote:
>
>As someone who has 'always known how' to draw, I find that fascinating.
>I fact its working in three dimensions that I find to be a challenge.
>

Interesting!  Actually, I could always draw well, what was frustrating to me
was getting shading and coloring to look the way I wanted.  (The same
issues as CG... lighting & texturing!)  I always wanted realistic detail
that was simply beyond my drawing skills to produce.

But getting that is so much easier in 3d.  Not to say that lighting is
easy... but in 2d you have to visualize the highlights and shadows, then
figure out how apply them onto the subject accurately.  In 3d, you don't
highlight the objects, you simply move the light around, the highlights &
shadows will follow!

And not to say the objects aren't important too, but in 2d its all one and
the same; you draw the objects, and then color them and the highlights and
the shadows are all together as part of the coloring process.  In 3d, I can
work on the models and textures separately, combine them in a scene, and
then worry about lighting.

And in 3d if I don't like something, I can change it. That in itself adds a
lot to my creativity, because a scene is dynamic.  I may see something
halfway through a project that changes my whole perspective and I change
the scene to fit my new perspective.  In 2d that's called a lot of wasted
paper/canvas/enter_medium_of_choice.

RG

Post a reply to this message

> As someone who has 'always known how' to draw, I find that fascinating.
> In fact its working in three dimensions that I find to be a challenge.
>

I'm more like gonzo in that respect.  I found that I could paint trees,
mountains, etc. fairly well, but when it came to things like houses, shacks,
etc., I had a real hard time visualizing how a 3D object should look on the
3D canvas.  When trying to draw, it was even more difficult.  I simply could
not seem to visualize things properly in 2D.  Nevertheless, I felt this
tremendous urge to create.  I got a job in computer programming, with the
occasional chance to satisfy my desire to create.  BTW, programming can be
more creative than the average person realizes.

So in addition to everything else, POV-Ray has unlocked my creativity in a
way that nothing else had been able to.  I've tried paint programs, but I
always had that 2D handicap.  Creating things in 3D is actually easier for
me, even though I'm sure it's much more difficult and complex for others.

I used to play the guitar.  I was never real good, but I can play and sing
well enough that no one boos.  hehe.  Anyway, it makes me wonder what the
future holds for musicians.  I'm sure many people have music potential, but
find playing an instrument difficult.

Gotta go.  Buffy's coming on!  ;-)

--
Slash

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:3e9c458d@news.povray.org...

>  Why oh why do I struggle to break the same old mold?

Easy question. Because two months is a long damn time to work on someting
just to please someone else.

The real question is why you submit your entries to the IRTC.

My last entry was non competetive, but the picture on which I'm working
right now is much much much more so. The picture focuses on pattern, and I
can imagine the complaints about repetition already. An entrant can create a
simple cg window and repeat it across a building one hundred times, yet I
know that my creating an element with tens of thousands of vertices and
repeating it ten times will be sharply criticised.<g> So I'm obviously not
submitting something for accolades. If I wanted accolades, I would do
something for which I have more of an innate talent. Visual art is very
difficult for me.

The reason that I will submit the picture (if I do) is that I want others to
do the same. I spend a lot of my time looking for things that are good. Good
movies, good books, good art, etc., and I find so few. Every picture which I
have not yet seen has the potential to be another of my very favorite
things. Besides, there is always the potential (however small) that someone
will see my picture who feels the same way that I do about it.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

gonzo wrote:

> 
> Interesting!  Actually, I could always draw well, what was frustrating to me
> was getting shading and coloring to look the way I wanted.  (The same
> issues as CG... lighting & texturing!)  I always wanted realistic detail
> that was simply beyond my drawing skills to produce.

There is of course a separation between the perception of form, the 
volumetric shape of an object, and the perception of surface qualities 
which often work to negate form.  This was made very apparent to me when 
I would try to paint my favorite subject, shoes.  The way light plays 
across the lustre of leather, especially black leather, often has little 
to do with the form.  When I first began I would actually spend half of 
the working time making a detailed contour drawing in pencil in order to 
understand the form and the way light shaded the surface according to 
it.  I would then transfer this drawing meticulously to the surface of 
my canvas and fix it down with a fixative before I began to paint over 
it.  With the overpainting I would describe how the surface actually 
looked, even if it worked against form.

> 
> But getting that is so much easier in 3d.  Not to say that lighting is
> easy... but in 2d you have to visualize the highlights and shadows, then
> figure out how apply them onto the subject accurately.  In 3d, you don't
> highlight the objects, you simply move the light around, the highlights &
> shadows will follow!

> 
> And not to say the objects aren't important too, but in 2d its all one and
> the same; you draw the objects, and then color them and the highlights and
> the shadows are all together as part of the coloring process.  In 3d, I can
> work on the models and textures separately, combine them in a scene, and
> then worry about lighting.
> 
> And in 3d if I don't like something, I can change it. That in itself adds a
> lot to my creativity, because a scene is dynamic.  I may see something
> halfway through a project that changes my whole perspective and I change
> the scene to fit my new perspective.  In 2d that's called a lot of wasted
> paper/canvas/enter_medium_of_choice.
> 
> 
Yes I believe that it is the 'mechanics' of modelling and the 
'mechanics' of programming that makes for such a satisfying marriage of 
the two.  Conceptually you can separate out the contributing parts then 
watch how they all work together.

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
> 
> The real question is why you submit your entries to the IRTC.
> 
I am conscious that my best answers to this question are evasive.

> My last entry was non competetive, but the picture on which I'm working
> right now is much much much more so. The picture focuses on pattern, and I
> can imagine the complaints about repetition already. An entrant can create a
> simple cg window and repeat it across a building one hundred times, yet I
> know that my creating an element with tens of thousands of vertices and
> repeating it ten times will be sharply criticised.<g> So I'm obviously not
> submitting something for accolades. If I wanted accolades, I would do
> something for which I have more of an innate talent. Visual art is very
> difficult for me.

I looked up your entry.  I remember it well.  That round was the first 
one it which I participated as a 'panel judge'.  I took the whole thing 
very seriously.  I remember I felt extremely self-conscious adding 
commemts.  I felt that it would be easier if I was also in the contest.
I remember that your entry challenged me in the extreme.  I wanted to 
ignore it.  I typically only comment on about 1/3 of the entries anyway. 
  But I couldn't back away from it.  Rereading my comments just now, my 
first reaction was that I must have been hallucinating.  I took awhile 
to remember what I was trying to say.  I realize that ultimately I was 
talking more about my own ideas than yours.  Ah the pitfalls.  I can 
assure you, though, that I gave it my best shot.  You really had me 
flat-footed.  I remember being impressed by the degree of the technical 
problems you had solved in the service of such an idiosyncratic image. 
I really didn't know how to approach it.  After reading your description 
I can understand why you found some of the criticisms annoying.  You got 
quite a few superlatives back too. But I understand that you are trying 
for a different level than that.

> 
> The reason that I will submit the picture (if I do) is that I want others to
> do the same. I spend a lot of my time looking for things that are good. Good
> movies, good books, good art, etc., and I find so few. Every picture which I
> have not yet seen has the potential to be another of my very favorite
> things. Besides, there is always the potential (however small) that someone
> will see my picture who feels the same way that I do about it.

Now I better understand why you reacted to my reviews of works from the 
current competition.

-Jim

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
>The reason that I will submit the picture (if I do) is that I want others to
>do the same. I spend a lot of my time looking for things that are good. Good
>movies, good books, good art, etc., and I find so few. Every picture which I
>have not yet seen has the potential to be another of my very favorite
>things. Besides, there is always the potential (however small) that someone
>will see my picture who feels the same way that I do about it.

I hope you do submit it. One of the reasons I wanted to discuss images
beyond the top 10 is because those images are often some of the best. The
IRTC is voted on by many people using a lot of different criteria, and the
results are an average, and not necessarily a good one at that. There are a
lot of images to judge, and most people don't have a lot of time. I find,
looking back and reading comments, that I often didn't properly appreciate
many entries.

As an artist, it's great to find that others "get" your work, and the IRTC
often fails at that. Probably all art contests are like that, though. I'd
hoped that further discussion of the works might bring some of that out.

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:3e9cc27c@news.povray.org...

| Shay:
|  The real question is why you submit your entries to the IRTC.
|
| Jim Charter:
|  I am conscious that my best answers to this question are evasive.

*Very* cool sentence. When I first read it, I read "I am conscious that
my best answers to this question are elusive." It wasn't until I began
to read your second paragraph that the true meaning set in. Of course,
by calling attention to it, I've destroyed the subtlety for anyone else,
but I couldn't resist.

| Jim Charter:
|  I looked up your entry.

Now I feel a little disadvantaged<g>, your having seen the entirety of
my IRTC participation. I looked up your 'Loneliness' entry. What other
rounds have you entered?

| Jim Charter:
|  I typically only comment on about 1/3 of the entries anyway.

In the one round I entered, I made the commitment to comment on every
entry. It was very difficult for the same reason that I have not
commented on most of the threads in this group. I'm simply not
qualified. I know absolutely nothing about lighting an outdoor scene,
having never done one. The only other contributions I could make would
be a useless description of my concept of how a waterwheel picture
should look and an equally useless comparison of the picture to my
concept.

| Jim Charter:
|  Rereading my comments just now, my first reaction was that I
|  must have been hallucinating.

Your comments were actually really appreciated. You were one of the few
who understood that I had chosen elements consciously. The *only* think
I really want anyone to understand about a picture is that it was
created purposefully.

| Jim Charter:
|  <snip comments>

Thank you for sharing your reaction. I'm tempted to send in my next
entry without a topic description. Partly because I'm not sure I can
communicate what I'm trying to do in a few paragraphs, if at all. I'm
curious what type of reactions I would get as well. I'll likely submit
one however, even though I believe that a picture should be complete
without a description, because each entry is viewed for only a few
seconds, and a topic description can help to accelerate comprehension.

| Jim Charter:
|  After reading your description I can understand why you found
|  some of the criticisms annoying.

Hell, I appreciate any comment someone is willing to take the time to
post. There is one comment in particular that I wish were included in my
comment file for perpetuity. I received this in an email: (remembering
that 'Landscapes' was the topic) "I just wanted to see more height
fields and less people trying to be creative."<g>

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

"Renderdog" <slo### [at] hiwaaynet> wrote in message
news:web.3e9d62a6de75e32a7ba9929f0@news.povray.org...||

| Renderdog:
|  I hope you do submit it.

I will if I am able to complete it in time. There is a lot of intricate
modeling yet to do.

| Renderdog:
|  As an artist, it's great to find that others "get" your work, and the
|  IRTC often fails at that. Probably all art contests are like that,
|  though. I'd hoped that further discussion of the works might bring
some
|  of that out.

I give the judging process a lot more credit than you, but agree that
there will occasionally be some really special entry whose qualities are
recognized only after closer inspection than the flood of IRTC images
allows.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

> I give the judging process a lot more credit than you, but agree that
> there will occasionally be some really special entry whose qualities are
> recognized only after closer inspection than the flood of IRTC images
> allows.
>

I get that same feeling.  Additionally, I really don't feel very qualified
to comment or even judge a scene very well.  But by that same token, I would
imagine that many of us have that same feeling, so I do the best I can.
I'll freely admit that many abstract works will likely fly over my head.  I
remember seeing a famous painting called "Red Square" (I don't know the
artist), and to me, it was simply that: a red square.  Does that mean that
it was without artistic merit?  No.  But it was lost on me.

For most of my creations, I try to attain realism.  But, I generally don't
want it to be so real that someone would believe that it's a photograph.
For me the best comment would be something like, "It looks so real...  But
that simply can't be!"  Surrealistic?  Hyper-realistic?  I'm not real good
with those terms.

Anyway, because of my own biases, I'm sure I would tend to judge other
images according to the level that I would like to attain.  e.g.  An
excellent model with poor textures, will get a lower score than a less
complex model with excellent textures.  Even so, I try to balance any known
bias that I might have, trying to realize what the artist set out to
accomplish.  But that is at best a difficult thing to do.

--
Slash

Post a reply to this message