Shay wrote:
> I don't believe in technically deconstructing images.

Actually, isn't that sort of the point of the IRTC? To see what other 
people are doing, and learn how they did it?

-- 
William Tracy
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|a|f|i|s|h|i|o|n|a|d|o|@|g|m|a|i|l|.|c|o|m|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|w|t|r|a|c|y|@|c|a|l|p|o|l|y|.|e|d|u|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
You know you've been raytracing too long when you think it's a failing 
of the universe that the large software companies like Corel or Fractal 
Design do NOT export to POV primitives.
George Erhard

Post a reply to this message

Tek wrote:
> Well okay but I guess I have a philosophical question:
> If I can't see these things when I look at it is that extra
> effort adding to the picture?

You *can* see those things, but you'll have to take my word for it. I
don't mean subconsciously, either. A crappy-looking comparison render
render *with* randomly selected letters would plainly show the
difference letter selection makes. Color blending makes as large a
difference. A good percentage of commenters (even those who took nothing
thematically from the image) found the image aesthetically attractive.

IMO, deconstructing my image with comparison renders or code/preudocode
samples would take away from it. However effective the image may or may
not be, I am intent of presenting it at face value.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message