On Mon, 1 May 2000 15:52:21 -0400, "ddombrow" <ddo### [at] vtedu> wrote:

>>   "If you ever shoot a roll of film and all the resulting photos are
>> pretty, sharp, and well exposed - you've failed."
>
>Perhaps for a magazine that attempts to capture a believable reality, this
>is true. But for H.E. Day and other artists, "believable" doesn't
>necessarily come into play. For them it is often far better to capture the
>unbelievable POV-Rayality of a given scene.

You don't get it yet...   not at all...      sorry.

I'll wait to see if anyone else has a comment before I explain it.

Later,
Glen Berry

( Remove the "7" from 7no### [at] ezwvcom to email me. )

Post a reply to this message

"H.E. Day" <The### [at] hedayfreeserverscom> wrote in
news:390CF25B.DBBAD459@heday.freeservers.com...
> I'd like to request the ng's comments.  Please comment!!

I thought I'd try some constructive criticism, as opposed to a bunch of
superlatives, so I stared at the pic for a long time, trying to come up with
something negative. The results: I find the green neon thing on the right a
bit distracting, especially since it's surroundings are so dark; the bot
antennas look a bit pixelated, along with some of the cables. Oh, and the
drunk is very hard to see on my screen too. Apart from these things it is an
amazing pic, certainly one of the best I've seen. Keep up the stunning work!

Post a reply to this message

NICE work!!  This has got to be a strong contender :-)

Bryan

"H.E. Day" <The### [at] hedayfreeserverscom> wrote in message
news:390CF25B.DBBAD459@heday.freeservers.com...
> Yes indeedy.  I be done.  I don't think I can wait two weeks for
> feedback,
> so I'd like to request the ng's comments.  Please comment!!
> Someone here said that they should be worried about me, Gilles, and
> Nathan.
> Personally, I'm only scared spitless of Gilles. Nathan and I are about
> even. I guess.
> You judge.
> Oh, and enjoy.
>
> --
> H.E. Day
> <><
>
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Post a reply to this message

Congrats.

Post a reply to this message

Glen Berry wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 1 May 2000 15:52:21 -0400, "ddombrow" <ddo### [at] vtedu> wrote:
> 
> >>   "If you ever shoot a roll of film and all the resulting photos are
> >> pretty, sharp, and well exposed - you've failed."
> >
> >Perhaps for a magazine that attempts to capture a believable reality, this
> >is true. But for H.E. Day and other artists, "believable" doesn't
> >necessarily come into play. For them it is often far better to capture the
> >unbelievable POV-Rayality of a given scene.
> 
> You don't get it yet...   not at all...      sorry.
> 
> I'll wait to see if anyone else has a comment before I explain it.

Hmmm...

Maybe you mean that if one is satisfied with all the pictures 
on the "roll", then one has lost the ability to improve 
...and that this itself is a kind of failure?

Or do you mean that if all of the pictures on the "roll" is
"right" then one are not experimenting (and pushing the limits)
...and without experimenting one cannot evolve ?

Or maybe I haven't got it yet either... :(

Tor Olav
--
mailto:tor### [at] hotmailcom
http://www.crosswinds.net/~tok/tokrays.html

Post a reply to this message

Glen Berry <7no### [at] ezwvcom> wrote in
>
> >>   "If you ever shoot a roll of film and all the resulting photos are
> >> pretty, sharp, and well exposed - you've failed."
>

>
> I'll wait to see if anyone else has a comment before I explain it.
>
> Later,
> Glen Berry'


See... i just don't agree with this at all. If I shoot a roll of film, i
take them out and look at them. I see that they are pretty. Ooo, sharp too.
Well exposed, even. And you tell me I have failed? That is a heap of warm
cow pies. You're telling me that my perspective is wrong, that I have failed
because somehow my brain interpreted the images to be pretty, sharp and well
exposed.

and it becomes more complex... this quote is even more full of the
aforementioned cow pies if when I see the resulting photographs, they
captured the light *exactly* as I saw it the first time, that is, pretty,
sharp, and well exposed. then to say I have failed is unjustified, because
the person judging has no reference as to what a success is.

I think the quote is entirely wrong, atleast in my current time and space.


ross.

Post a reply to this message

"H.E. Day" wrote:
> 
> Yes indeedy.  I be done.  I don't think I can wait two weeks for
> feedback,
> so I'd like to request the ng's comments.  Please comment!!
> Someone here said that they should be worried about me, Gilles, and
> Nathan.
> Personally, I'm only scared spitless of Gilles. Nathan and I are about
> even. I guess.
> You judge.
> Oh, and enjoy.
> 
I like a lot! Two thumbs up!
Only thing, that disturbs me, is the spilled wine (?), which does not
look natural, it seems to be too thick, glow by its side ain't natural.
I would expect, that it is absorbed by pavement.

Post a reply to this message

That's one of the most complex and most well executed scenes I've
ever seen. Really very impressive work.

The _only_ thing that caught my eye is the puddle on the ground
under the green display thingy. It seems a little too thick to be
natural. The reflection at the edge seems a little too bright.

Post a reply to this message

Ross Litscher wrote:

> Glen Berry <7no### [at] ezwvcom> wrote in
> >
> > >>   "If you ever shoot a roll of film and all the resulting photos are
> > >> pretty, sharp, and well exposed - you've failed."
> >
> I think the quote is entirely wrong, atleast in my current time and space.

I think (but I may be wrong) that what Glen is saying is that art and perfection
(as defined by the technical rules that apply in one particular field) are
different things. If you obtain something that is perfect according to what is
generally considered as perfection (here represented by "prettiness",
"sharpness" and "good exposure"), then you have failed, because what you've
done, as agreeable, as well-crafted as it can be, will lack the "little"
something, the odd stuff that will turn it into art (of course, most people
don't want to turn everything into art, which is wise). Roland Barthes, in his
essay on photography titled the "Chambre Claire", called this odd stuff the
"punctum", for example a small, unexpected detail that shouldn't be there if the
picture was actually perfect. The problem is that since this has already been
known for a long time, many artists add punctums or apply "un-perfection" in a
so deliberate way that it becomes a mere gimmick (or another extension of
perfection), thus blurring the edges even further.

G.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 01 May 2000 11:22:23 -0400 Glen Berry <7no### [at] ezwvcom> wrote:

>I wrote a lengthy response to this image, and noticed my post took up
>49 lines in my newsreader's header listing window. Then I notice that
>Gregoire's post required 54 lines for basically one sentence. I feel
>like I'm in the twilight zone.

  Was that the post with the binary attachment - a vcard, perhaps? I
know I deleted one response with an attachment of some kind that doesn't
display in my newsreader.

-- 
Alan - ako### [at] povrayorg - a k o n g <at> p o v r a y <dot> o r g
http://www.povray.org - Home of the Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer

Post a reply to this message