Lance Birch wrote:
> 
> Well, I don't.
> 
> I don't have POV-Ray installed right now and I haven't for about a year
> (except a month in the middle some time where I re-renderer some images I'd
> made in it).  I exist in these newsgroups to try to help people a bit, but
> as you can probably see by now I'm by no means up with things like media (I
> left in the halo days :)
> 
> POV-Ray still is an excellent renderer though and that's what got me started
> on all this, so I feel I might as well stay around and see how it develops.

You are one of those, what do you call it, ah yes, your an interloper.

-- 
Ken Tyler
1100+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html

Post a reply to this message

It's purely for fine tuning Ken.  Remember this is art, it doesn't have to
keep to the real world rules.

You might for example use it to highlight a certain object but you don't
want that object to cast a nasty shadow or some other group of objects in
the background.  It does happen, trust me :)

I've used this feature a few times now and it saves having to reposition the
light and then set up another one to light just another object.

Post a reply to this message

That's it, only it's "you're", or the sentence doesn't make sense.

Post a reply to this message

Lance Birch skrev i meldingen <37f2bf55@news.povray.org>...
>It's purely for fine tuning Ken.  Remember this is art, it doesn't have to
>keep to the real world rules.
>


Why then does everybody talk about realism as an important factor?

Post a reply to this message

"Lance Birch" <lan### [at] usanet> writes:

> It's purely for fine tuning Ken.  Remember this is art, it doesn't have to
> keep to the real world rules.

I can second this. I once implemented an object modifier to have objects, 
that are invisible but cast shadows. (Unfortunately, my patch doesn't work
with current versions of POV-Ray for some unknown reason). Faking is
sometimes necessary to obtain the desired 'artistic' effect.

Thomas

-- 
http://www.fmi.uni-konstanz.de/~willhalm

Post a reply to this message

> Why then does everybody talk about realism as an important factor?

Because it's important to be able to do realism IF you want to.  It's also
important to have the tools to be able to do what you want to artistically
however.

Post a reply to this message

>> Why then does everybody talk about realism as an important factor?
>
>Because it's important to be able to do realism IF you want to.  It's also
>important to have the tools to be able to do what you want to artistically
>however.
>


I don't really believe in the title "artist" when it comes to packages as
3ds and the likes. I might sound arrogant, but with too much freedom, you
loose your horizon. As I have said, what would the pictores of Rembrandt
look like if he used 3ds, photoshop or similar? What would Bach sound like
if he had an electric guitar and a sequencer? It's the marginal resources
that bring forth the creative nature of the human. With small resources you
are forced to think in lesser terms.

Simen.

Post a reply to this message

> I don't really believe in the title "artist" when it comes to packages as
> 3ds and the likes. I might sound arrogant, but with too much freedom, you
> loose your horizon. As I have said, what would the pictores of Rembrandt
> look like if he used 3ds, photoshop or similar? What would Bach sound like
> if he had an electric guitar and a sequencer? It's the marginal resources
> that bring forth the creative nature of the human. With small resources
you
> are forced to think in lesser terms.
>
> Simen.

Ahh... but wait a second, we're talking different mediums here.  You can't
make an image like that of a painting in Photoshop, it's not superior in the
first place!  You chose the tool that you need to do what you want.  And
please don't confuse 3DS with 3DS MAX, they are completely different
products and MAX is far superior to 3DS DOS.

> look like if he used 3ds, photoshop or similar? What would Bach sound like
> if he had an electric guitar and a sequencer? It's the marginal resources

What you're doing is trying to define art, which you can't.  You see
something that is created digitally could be considered art, and something
created with traditional media could be art, but the two are not the same.
Artists use the tools that they are comfortable with.  Bach wouldn't have
liked the sounds produced with a synth I'd suspect anyway, just like
Leonardo de Vinci wouldn't like these things called "pixels" over his oil
paint.

As another example, I can't draw for peanuts!  But I can do things in
Photoshop and MAX that I consider to be art.  I know a friend that is
brilliant at trad. art, but terrible at digital art, and yet I'm terrible at
trad. art!  We're opposites in that respect but we'd both like to be able to
do what the other can!

To so that using a product like 3DS MAX isn't being artistic is like saying
that someone that uses a specific type of traditional media isn't being
artistic (like, for example, saying that people that use pencil aren't being
artistic when people that use oil paints are)

Post a reply to this message

>To so that using a product like 3DS MAX isn't being artistic is like saying
>that someone that uses a specific type of traditional media isn't being
>artistic (like, for example, saying that people that use pencil aren't
being
>artistic when people that use oil paints are)
>
>

Okay, okay. I get the point. I was arrogant. I agree with what you say.
(Really!)

But:

There are so many people definig themselves as "digital artist" who only
produce garbage. And of course there are many who use "traditional" tools
that create garbage, too. But it is harder to find good, digital art.

Post a reply to this message

> But:
>
> There are so many people definig themselves as "digital artist" who only
> produce garbage. And of course there are many who use "traditional" tools
> that create garbage, too. But it is harder to find good, digital art.

Oh of course.  That's because "there isn't any skill required to make
digital art!".  Or, at least that's what I hear enough :)  You see the
problem with people these days is that they think the "computer does it for
you".

Computers are just a tool, and unfortunately there is a misconception that
because you're using a computer it will allow you to make good artwork.
Which isn't true.  This is why there is so much bad digital art!  It's just
like techno music.  There is a LOT of really really really terrible sounding
techno music because people think that anyone can do it... which is wrong.
It's just like there are a HEAP of really badly designed websites that have
no art in them at all, they're comprised of mis-matched standard images that
look terrible.  Meanwhile, someone that actually knows what they're doing
and has a good feel for how things should work can create a very nicely
designed and easy to navigate site.  Take a look at Gilles Tran's website,
wonderful!!!  :)  A true work of digital art!  Now take a look at something
like... (goes on a quick search)
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Bay/1126/indexs.html

DISGUSTING SITE!  Yet it could be very pleasing to the eye had it been
designed by a TRUE digital artist.

See why there is so much bad digital art?  :)

Post a reply to this message