Stephen wrote:

> 

> the way genteel folk in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries would record their
> world in water colours? 

A fairly pure example of how I am using "mimetic" would be the painter 
Lucien Freud.

"Depictional" would mean everything that depends on recognizable 
imagery:  gothic mosaics, Renaissance scenes, Disney cartoons,... and 
Lucien Freud.

But what about Analytic Cubism? Well maybe, but in that case the 
discussion would push precisely the limit of what I commonly mean when I 
use either word.



> 
> 
"record their world"  That starts to get at it, doesn't it?  Precisely
what "world" is Rene depicting?

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> schreef in bericht
news:442c0d60$1@news.povray.org...
>
> A fairly pure example of how I am using "mimetic" would be the painter
> Lucien Freud.
>
> "Depictional" would mean everything that depends on recognizable
> imagery:  gothic mosaics, Renaissance scenes, Disney cartoons,... and
> Lucien Freud.
>
> But what about Analytic Cubism? Well maybe, but in that case the
> discussion would push precisely the limit of what I commonly mean when I
> use either word.
>

With Lucian Freud, I would add Frank Auerbach too. Less known perhaps, but a
mighty artist.
While one might think about Egon Schiele too...

>

> >
> >
> "record their world"  That starts to get at it, doesn't it?  Precisely
> what "world" is Rene depicting?

Post a reply to this message

Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>
> >

> > the way genteel folk in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries would record their
> > world in water colours?
>
> A fairly pure example of how I am using "mimetic" would be the painter
> Lucien Freud.

At this point, I make my excuses and leave. I find Lucien Freud too
unpleasing to my eye. Although there are similarities to Stanley Spencer,
an artist I like. Especially his war work.


evaluate the seemingly pretentious claptrap that assaults my ears. Not that
I mean you or anyone here. In fact I thank you for enlightening me. {Oh!





> >
> >
> "record their world"  That starts to get at it, doesn't it?  Precisely
> what "world" is Rene depicting?



Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> 
>>Stephen wrote:
>>

>>A fairly pure example of how I am using "mimetic" would be the painter
>>Lucien Freud.
> 
> 
> At this point, I make my excuses and leave. I find Lucien Freud too
> unpleasing to my eye. 


Okay, but you don't have to like his work to understand what I mean.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
> > Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> >
> >>Stephen wrote:
> >>
>
> >>A fairly pure example of how I am using "mimetic" would be the painter
> >>Lucien Freud.
> >
> >
> > At this point, I make my excuses and leave. I find Lucien Freud too
> > unpleasing to my eye.
>
>
> Okay, but you don't have to like his work to understand what I mean.

True, I thought I made that clear. I know a little bit more now.
I originally meant that PovRay is good at rendering objects but it is not
easy to represent suggestions of an object. I can think of a few exceptions
like an object with no image but with a shadow. It is things like painting a


Stephen

Post a reply to this message

> I originally meant that PovRay is good at rendering objects but it is not
> easy to represent suggestions of an object. I can think of a few exceptions
> like an object with no image but with a shadow. It is things like painting a

> 
Ah! yes. Economy of means.  That is true.  Firstly because the manual 
element is removed and then also because the paradigm is of replication 
through model building. If you leave detail out of the model it doesn't 
seem like a "suggestion" to the viewer, it just seems like a crude 
model.  The exceptions make for an interesting side discussion though*. 
    I think one place these concepts come into play is in texturing and 
expecially with texturing * resolution.  The pixel plays a role in 
whether the texture can suggested, or handled more explicitly.  Also I 
suppose, in how much detail is necessary in a model.


*Just to get it said, in mesh modelling there is a strong tendency to 
economy of means, further bolstered by the psuedo-pragmatic ideal of 
models animating well.  And notice that in mesh modelling the manual 
role is restored to a degree.

Post a reply to this message

Tweeks:
	
on the metal
	reflection raised significantly esp the lower or coincident
	value ( .1 .6  ->  .6 .9 )
	specular roughness tweeked up by ~ 50x ( now .12 )
	color changed to try and match the brass in the reference
	(rather than gold) ( rgb CHSL2RGB( <70,.12,.29> ) )

on the enamel
	desaturated the colors by 50% and tinted the white marks
	lowered specular 3x ( -> .2 ) but increased specular roughness 	 
400x 	( -> .4)
	increased reflection slightly ( .1 .3 -> .2 .4 )

changed the photo behind the camera and increased its ambient

desaturated the lights so they still vary, but across a smaller color 
range and are all much closer to white

included a shot of the reference

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'img.0132.jpg' (79 KB) Download 'ref2.jpg' (41 KB)

Preview of image 'img.0132.jpg'

Preview of image 'ref2.jpg'

Superb Jim! Great work there.

  
      ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

My goodness! This is the very thing now!
Very much a Grail object (just been reading Robert Holdstock lately :-) )

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Almost perfect! ...and I say "almost" only because the upper border of 
the coup makes it look like it is too flat. In the reference photo I can 
see a little the edge highlight, suggesting some thickness. Anyhow, that 
was a great improvement on the metal texture: just don't touch it! Well, 
you can tweak the color pigment, but the finish and normals seem perfect 
like they are now.

--
Jaime

Post a reply to this message