Creature I created in Spore and exported, then applied a glass texture.


-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download '3813899563_31727b4d4f_o.jpg' (38 KB)

Preview of image '3813899563_31727b4d4f_o.jpg'

Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> Creature I created in Spore and exported, then applied a glass texture.

Beautiful!  It's just nebulous enough that it's very interesting to look at.  I
can see where some dramatic lighting and bokeh could look very nice.

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford schrieb:
> Creature I created in Spore and exported, then applied a glass texture.

Shots like this one need only one word as a comment:

*WOW*!

Post a reply to this message

"Mike Raiford" <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> schreef in bericht 
news:4a82b5ec@news.povray.org...
> Creature I created in Spore and exported, then applied a glass texture.
>

Nice, but... too much focal blur for my taste... in fact, there remains very 
little to focus on  ;-)  Imo, focal blur should be used to separate the 
object from the background, not to blur the object itself.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:

> 
> Nice, but... too much focal blur for my taste... in fact, there remains very 
> little to focus on  ;-)  Imo, focal blur should be used to separate the 
> object from the background, not to blur the object itself.
> 
> Thomas
> 

Yes. I was going for giving a hint of scale, since usually an image of 
something will have a thinner DOF depending on scale.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford schrieb:
> Yes. I was going for giving a hint of scale, since usually an image of 
> something will have a thinner DOF depending on scale.

Don't listen to Tom - I think the DOF was perfect ;-)

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <ano### [at] anonymousorg> schreef in bericht 
news:4a846228$1@news.povray.org...
>
> Don't listen to Tom - I think the DOF was perfect ;-)

Don't listen to Christoph - I think it was not :-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot schrieb:
> "clipka" <ano### [at] anonymousorg> schreef in bericht 
> news:4a846228$1@news.povray.org...
>> Don't listen to Tom - I think the DOF was perfect ;-)
> 
> Don't listen to Christoph - I think it was not :-)

LOL!

You got that, Mike? Don't listen to either of us - make up your own mind 
  :-P

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <ano### [at] anonymousorg> schreef in bericht 
news:4a851ba4$1@news.povray.org...
> LOL!
>
> You got that, Mike? Don't listen to either of us - make up your own mind 
> :-P


<very wide grin>


Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Nice, but... too much focal blur for my taste... in fact, there remains very 
> little to focus on  ;-)  Imo, focal blur should be used to separate the 
> object from the background, not to blur the object itself.

  IMO the image would lose most of its appeal and artistic feeling
without the focal blur. In other words, the image would be rather
*boring* without the ingenious blurring. I think the blurring is spot-on.

  Rather curiously, the blurring makes it look like there *is* some kind
of background in there (it's just completely blurred out). Without the
blurring it would just look like an object on a completely empty white
background.

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> schreef in bericht 
news:4a853787@news.povray.org...
>  IMO the image would lose most of its appeal and artistic feeling
> without the focal blur. In other words, the image would be rather
> *boring* without the ingenious blurring. I think the blurring is spot-on.
>
>  Rather curiously, the blurring makes it look like there *is* some kind
> of background in there (it's just completely blurred out). Without the
> blurring it would just look like an object on a completely empty white
> background.

...which shows how differently people can see the same scene. Which is 
allright of course.

I have said it earlier in these ng's: I am not really enthousiastic about 
focal blur in general, whether in ray tracing or (more especially) in 
photography. I still think one should use it very carefully and with a very 
light touch indeed.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:

> I have said it earlier in these ng's: I am not really enthousiastic about 
> focal blur in general, whether in ray tracing or (more especially) in 
> photography. I still think one should use it very carefully and with a very 
> light touch indeed.

Sometimes, in photography, especially when taking macro shots, you don't 
have much choice, either no picture or a razor thin DOF.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2125/2089456023_0c64233baf_o.jpg

and other times, focal blur is used for artistic effect

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2302/2090316034_fb62145001_o.jpg
-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot schrieb:
> I have said it earlier in these ng's: I am not really enthousiastic about 
> focal blur in general, whether in ray tracing or (more especially) in 
> photography. I still think one should use it very carefully and with a very 
> light touch indeed.

I do agree with Mike that it is a very good (and important!) vehicle to 
give a sense of scale. Especially when trying to convey that something 
is particularly /small/, it does wonders.

Look at these shots for instance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilt-shift_miniature_faking


On the other hand this of course implies that with shots indended to 
convey large scale, focal blur should be used sparingly indeed.

Still, I really don't like shots /without/ any focal blur. Aside from 
giving a sense of scale, it also gives a sense of depth, and helps add 
emphasis to some elements of the image (by literally putting them in 
focus), so you lose a lot if you don't use at least some subtle focal blur.

Post a reply to this message

"Mike Raiford" <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> schreef in bericht 
news:4a8596a1$1@news.povray.org...
> Sometimes, in photography, especially when taking macro shots, you don't 
> have much choice, either no picture or a razor thin DOF.
>
> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2125/2089456023_0c64233baf_o.jpg
>
> and other times, focal blur is used for artistic effect
>
> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2302/2090316034_fb62145001_o.jpg
> -- 

Let us not forget that focal blur comes from the physical restrictions of 
lenses in the real world. It is not something "artistic" in the first place. 
Macro photography cannot be done without focal blur obviously, and is the 
headache for every photographer to get exactly "right" around the subject. 
For artistic effects, I tend to disagree. There was a movement at one time 
promoting "artistic blur" as the summum of photographic art (fifties? 
sixties?) but which was more a way of hiding the lack of talent of second 
rate photographers. The photograph you refer to here is a stricking and 
typical example, imo, of the totally incorrect use of focal blur in 
photography: no purpose, no real interesting focus at all. In fact, the blur 
destroys the only thing worthwhile in the image: the eyes!!!

Yes, I am a follower of the old documentary school that brought forth people 
like Cartier Bresson or Frank Capra. I don't pretend to reach up to their 
heels, but they (and others) are my masters.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 11:06:13 +0200, "Thomas de Groot"
<tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:

>The photograph you refer to here is a stricking and 
>typical example, imo, of the totally incorrect use of focal blur in 
>photography: no purpose, no real interesting focus at all. In fact, the blur 
>destroys the only thing worthwhile in the image: the eyes!!!

I agree, I'm not a great fan of focal blur myself, I seldom use it preferring
fog to cover up inadequacies in an image. :)
It can be used to artistic effect but not in that photo of the cat. (I hope that
it was not Mike that took it)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"Stephen" <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> schreef in bericht 
news:t67d85tvg84ubkdiq9gi9c4jvtt74s6ngg@4ax.com...
>...... (I hope that
> it was not Mike that took it)


Oh hum... well, if so, my comment was meant as constructive. One should be 
prepared to learn through the hard way sometimes :-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot a écrit :
> "Mike Raiford" <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> schreef in bericht 
> news:4a8596a1$1@news.povray.org...
>> Sometimes, in photography, especially when taking macro shots, you don't 
>> have much choice, either no picture or a razor thin DOF.
>>
>> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2125/2089456023_0c64233baf_o.jpg
>>
>> and other times, focal blur is used for artistic effect
>>
>> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2302/2090316034_fb62145001_o.jpg
>> -- 
> 
> Let us not forget that focal blur comes from the physical restrictions of 
> lenses in the real world. It is not something "artistic" in the first place. 
> Macro photography cannot be done without focal blur obviously, and is the 
> headache for every photographer to get exactly "right" around the subject. 
> For artistic effects, I tend to disagree. There was a movement at one time 
> promoting "artistic blur" as the summum of photographic art (fifties? 
> sixties?) but which was more a way of hiding the lack of talent of second 
> rate photographers. The photograph you refer to here is a stricking and 
> typical example, imo, of the totally incorrect use of focal blur in 
> photography: no purpose, no real interesting focus at all. In fact, the blur 
> destroys the only thing worthwhile in the image: the eyes!!!
> 
> Yes, I am a follower of the old documentary school that brought forth people 
> like Cartier Bresson or Frank Capra. I don't pretend to reach up to their 
> heels, but they (and others) are my masters.
> 
> Thomas
> 
> 
Often, the so called "artistic blur" was done as a post process/black 
room step. The projector used to do the print was set off focus.
Another aproach was to use a frosted filter. This simulated a fog like 
effect with grosly exagerated luminous bloom.

A agree with you about the cat's photo. Not artistic at all but an 
obviously bad focus.


Alain

Post a reply to this message

Alain wrote:
> A agree with you about the cat's photo. Not artistic at all but an
> obviously bad focus.

  How do you know the original intentions of the photographer? Maybe he
wanted the focus to be exactly as shown in the photo, for artistic
purposes. *You* might not find much artistic appeal in his decision, but
that's just a subjective question of opinion.

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> schreef in bericht 
news:4a87edee$1@news.povray.org...
> Alain wrote:
>> A agree with you about the cat's photo. Not artistic at all but an
>> obviously bad focus.
>
>  How do you know the original intentions of the photographer? Maybe he
> wanted the focus to be exactly as shown in the photo, for artistic
> purposes. *You* might not find much artistic appeal in his decision, but
> that's just a subjective question of opinion.

Ah! This is a difficult and simple discussion at the same time. Of course, 
everyone is allowed to do as he/she likes best for any purpose he/she 
choses. However, art is not about doing whatever you want and call it "art". 
There should be - at least - a certain "something" which appeals to a random 
and miscellaneous group of (at least a bit) knowledgeable observers before a 
piece is considered part of the artistic domain. If not, really everything 
could be called art, killing art in the process and putting kitch in its 
place. Would you consider the ubiquitous "tearful child" or "busty gypsy" as 
art? Probably not. Still, many people love them enough to put them on their 
walls, and thus indeed a subjective question of opinion at large, but not if 
one has taken the trouble or the time to learn/understand what art is really 
about.

Consider the cat. When looking at a photograph, or a painting, one wants to 
understand the intentions of the artists (not always clear, I agree). Why 
did he do this? Or why did he not do that? Here, the whole image is out of 
focus except part of a paw. What is the intention? What is the message? What 
does it tell me? There is nothing interesting happening in that particular 
part of the image that needs focussing. However, if instead the eyes had 
been focussed sharply and the rest of the cat slightly out of focus, the 
image would have gained in intensity. It would not have been a wow image, 
but certainly a more interesting one. But why not simply photograph the cat 
sharply and leave it at that? The personality of the animal is more than 
enough to make the shot attractive without extra add-ons.

All this said without intentions to hurt whoever took the photograph. This 
is the kind of analysis one would get in any photography or art class in the 
world

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 14:30:31 +0200, "Thomas de Groot"
<tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:

>All this said without intentions to hurt whoever took the photograph. This 
>is the kind of analysis one would get in any photography or art class in the 
>world

I couldn't put it better myself and I didn't :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Consider the cat. When looking at a photograph, or a painting, one wants to 
> understand the intentions of the artists (not always clear, I agree). Why 
> did he do this? Or why did he not do that?

  Just because *you* don't understand the photo doesn't mean that it's
not a valid piece of art.

  I'd say that if a photograph evokes emotion or thought, that's art.
And this photograph has clearly succeeded in exactly that.

  (One could argue that if a photograph only evokes thought about the
artistic value of the photograph itself, rather than what the photograph
is trying to convey, that's not art. Once again, that's a subjective
question of opinion. One could even call that "meta-art".)

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:
> There should be - at least - a certain "something" which appeals to a random 
> and miscellaneous group of (at least a bit) knowledgeable observers before a 
> piece is considered part of the artistic domain. If not, really everything 
> could be called art, killing art in the process and putting kitch in its 
> place. Would you consider the ubiquitous "tearful child" or "busty gypsy" as 
> art? Probably not. Still, many people love them enough to put them on their 
> walls, and thus indeed a subjective question of opinion at large, but not if 
> one has taken the trouble or the time to learn/understand what art is really 
> about.

This is the core notion which drives Fine Arts professors to sneer down 
their noses and say haughtily, "Ugh, Illustration.  That's not ART".

(Guess what my major at university was :P  )

"Oh no!" they cry.  "XYZ is removing mystique from The Thing Which 
Elevates Our Clique To Superiority, killing Art:  it's not a legitimate 
artform!"  (All photography was once in that category, you might be 
aware.  CGI generally still is.)

"Art" used to just be any skill performed by a crafter, before being 
corralled into a narrow pen of being something only a few, educated 
elite could 'understand'.  Skill used to mean more...but now, skill can 
be had at the push of a button.  Even if you don't use 
artificially-generated skill to accomplish a task, the end product is no 
longer considered something which someone skilled made, even though you 
can still have something that's very low quality made with pushbutton skill.

FFFFFfffffff.

</rant>

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:

> It can be used to artistic effect but not in that photo of the cat. (I hope that
> it was not Mike that took it)

It was me that took it... :P

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:

> part of the image that needs focussing. However, if instead the eyes had 
> been focussed sharply and the rest of the cat slightly out of focus, the 
> image would have gained in intensity. It would not have been a wow image, 
> but certainly a more interesting one. But why not simply photograph the cat 

Ah, but I was going for something different. I wanted the focus to be on 
something different. I have many pictures of my cats with their eyes in 
focus.... Rules are meant to be broken. He often sits with his front 
paws outstretched and together like that, so I thought I'd emphasize the 
paws. I see it didn't work, and the intent is lost on people ;)

> sharply and leave it at that? The personality of the animal is more than 
> enough to make the shot attractive without extra add-ons.

> All this said without intentions to hurt whoever took the photograph. This 
> is the kind of analysis one would get in any photography or art class in the 
> world

Right. Strangely, the photo forum I frequent had an entirely different 
view of it, but there you go ;)

My feelings are not hurt, I take lots of Okay photos, and lots of bad 
photos... Depending on who you ask, this one is either a masterpiece, or 
a train wreck :) I think it's somewhere in between. The bicycle in the 
back killed it, and I don't think my focus/DOF was where I really 
intended it to be.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:

> Still, I really don't like shots /without/ any focal blur. Aside from 
> giving a sense of scale, it also gives a sense of depth, and helps add 
> emphasis to some elements of the image (by literally putting them in 
> focus), so you lose a lot if you don't use at least some subtle focal blur.

Yep :) very true, the image seems to look flat w/o any sort of blurring. 
   Blur does give a hint of depth.

Someone in this thread mentioned they liked to use fog. I abhor fog in 
rendering. Only when it is very, very light like the haze of mountains 
in the distance does it make sense to me... That also conveys scale, 
imo. Too much fog makes the image murky, to me.

Post a reply to this message

"Mike Raiford" <mraXXXiford.at.@g1023mail.com> schreef in bericht 
news:4a88a206$1@news.povray.org...
>
> It was me that took it... :P

Good! Or I should say: you can do better than that :-)
But seriously, I would be interested to hear from you why you wanted to 
place the cat out of focus. This may seem off topic, but I don't consider it 
so. It also concerns your choice for your glass animal.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> schreef in bericht 
news:4a883e01$1@news.povray.org...
> Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> Consider the cat. When looking at a photograph, or a painting, one wants 
>> to
>> understand the intentions of the artists (not always clear, I agree). Why
>> did he do this? Or why did he not do that?
>
>  Just because *you* don't understand the photo doesn't mean that it's
> not a valid piece of art.

Of course not! I don't pretend to be a universal judge :-) However, the 
point is not that. In the case of the cat, my first reaction is: "Work out 
of focus" and not (as imo it should be): "Cat. Contact. Expression". The 
technical blur dominates so much that it takes away the emotional link the 
image should create.

>
>  I'd say that if a photograph evokes emotion or thought, that's art.
> And this photograph has clearly succeeded in exactly that.

To return your statement, just because *you* understand the photo doesn't 
mean that it is a valid piece of art :-)
I know, this is not a fair answer but  I could not resist. Again, if I am 
immediately overwhelmed by a technical detail in the image, I cannot 
appreciate it properly.

>
>  (One could argue that if a photograph only evokes thought about the
> artistic value of the photograph itself, rather than what the photograph
> is trying to convey, that's not art. Once again, that's a subjective
> question of opinion. One could even call that "meta-art".)

I agree.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Tim Cook" <z99### [at] gmailcom> schreef in bericht 
news:4a884c9f$1@news.povray.org...
>
> This is the core notion which drives Fine Arts professors to sneer down 
> their noses and say haughtily, "Ugh, Illustration.  That's not ART".
>
> (Guess what my major at university was :P  )
>
> "Oh no!" they cry.  "XYZ is removing mystique from The Thing Which 
> Elevates Our Clique To Superiority, killing Art:  it's not a legitimate 
> artform!"  (All photography was once in that category, you might be aware. 
> CGI generally still is.)
>
> "Art" used to just be any skill performed by a crafter, before being 
> corralled into a narrow pen of being something only a few, educated elite 
> could 'understand'.  Skill used to mean more...but now, skill can be had 
> at the push of a button.  Even if you don't use artificially-generated 
> skill to accomplish a task, the end product is no longer considered 
> something which someone skilled made, even though you can still have 
> something that's very low quality made with pushbutton skill.
>
> FFFFFfffffff.
>
> </rant>

I loved your rant! :-)

Of course you are right about this in principle. However, if "art" means 
that every single item of whatever production by whoever throws a dot of 
paint or pushes a button or shoots an image should be considered just that, 
art, I disagree. Art is no free meal so to speak, neither was it when it was 
merely a "skill" performed by a crafter.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 19:18:28 -0500, Mike Raiford <mraXXXiford.at.@g1023mail.com>
wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>
>> It can be used to artistic effect but not in that photo of the cat. (I hope that
>> it was not Mike that took it)
>
>It was me that took it... :P
>
>
Oops! Well it doesn't work for me, sorry.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"Mike Raiford" <mraXXXiford.at.@g1023mail.com> schreef in bericht 
news:4a88a3a2$1@news.povray.org...
>
> Ah, but I was going for something different. I wanted the focus to be on 
> something different. I have many pictures of my cats with their eyes in 
> focus.... Rules are meant to be broken. He often sits with his front paws 
> outstretched and together like that, so I thought I'd emphasize the paws. 
> I see it didn't work, and the intent is lost on people ;)

Yes, I am afraid your intention was good, but it did not work out as 
intended, and I would say the same about your glass animal. To return to 
that one, I would be interested to see the same more focussed in a neutral 
but interesting environment slightly out of focus. In the present shot the 
"material" does not really "speak" while it looks suggestive but is blurred 
by the soft focus.

> My feelings are not hurt, I take lots of Okay photos, and lots of bad 
> photos... Depending on who you ask, this one is either a masterpiece, or a 
> train wreck :) I think it's somewhere in between. The bicycle in the back 
> killed it, and I don't think my focus/DOF was where I really intended it 
> to be.

I sincerely think that honestly and freely discussing issues is a great way 
to progress. We may not agree, even fundamentally, but at least we both 
learn something I am sure.

I would not call your cat a train wreck myself, but an interesting attempt 
at a different "angle" of interpretation or awareness. I think that the real 
culprit is the cat here! He is way too interested and looks too intelligent 
to be caught into that trap. Your attempt therfore might well have worked 
with another "subject" :-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 19:29:38 -0500, Mike Raiford <mraXXXiford.at.@g1023mail.com>
wrote:

>
>Someone in this thread mentioned they liked to use fog. I abhor fog in 
>rendering. Only when it is very, very light like the haze of mountains 
>in the distance does it make sense to me... That also conveys scale, 
>imo. Too much fog makes the image murky, to me.

Rereading my post it sounds as if I'm an advocate of fog but like focal blur it
should be used sparingly. I sometimes use it to soften a hard edged horizon.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"Mike Raiford" <mraXXXiford.at.@g1023mail.com> schreef in bericht 
news:4a88a4a5$1@news.povray.org...
> clipka wrote:
>
>> Still, I really don't like shots /without/ any focal blur. Aside from 
>> giving a sense of scale, it also gives a sense of depth, and helps add 
>> emphasis to some elements of the image (by literally putting them in 
>> focus), so you lose a lot if you don't use at least some subtle focal 
>> blur.
>
> Yep :) very true, the image seems to look flat w/o any sort of blurring. 
> Blur does give a hint of depth.
>
> Someone in this thread mentioned they liked to use fog. I abhor fog in 
> rendering. Only when it is very, very light like the haze of mountains in 
> the distance does it make sense to me... That also conveys scale, imo. Too 
> much fog makes the image murky, to me.

And that is exactly what I mean in the first place! "some subtle focal blur" 
(Clipka) "very light like the haze of mountains" (Mike). Whatever technique 
used, it should be almost imperceptible to the eye, or at least not impede 
upon the overall meaning of the image, and highlight the important parts of 
it.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:

> Oops! Well it doesn't work for me, sorry.

It's alright ;) Everything is subjective of course!
-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 07:59:08 -0500, Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>
>> Oops! Well it doesn't work for me, sorry.
>
>It's alright ;) Everything is subjective of course!

Absolutely! ;)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:

> I sincerely think that honestly and freely discussing issues is a great way 
> to progress. We may not agree, even fundamentally, but at least we both 
> learn something I am sure.

What really makes this discussion fascinating to me is the fact that no 
one knew until yesterday evening that I took this photo, so there was 
quite a bit less held back.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot schrieb:
> And that is exactly what I mean in the first place! "some subtle focal blur" 
> (Clipka) "very light like the haze of mountains" (Mike). Whatever technique 
> used, it should be almost imperceptible to the eye, or at least not impede 
> upon the overall meaning of the image, and highlight the important parts of 
> it.

... unless (and I dare to say "of course") the focal blur or fog is the 
protagonist of the image, so to speak.

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <ano### [at] anonymousorg> schreef in bericht 
news:4a896244@news.povray.org...
>
> ... unless (and I dare to say "of course") the focal blur or fog is the 
> protagonist of the image, so to speak.

of couse "of course"  :-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Mike Raiford" <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> schreef in bericht 
news:4a89585c$1@news.povray.org...
>
> What really makes this discussion fascinating to me is the fact that no 
> one knew until yesterday evening that I took this photo, so there was 
> quite a bit less held back.

Yes, interesting, isn't? No brakes, just flailing around of arms and legs 
:-)

Seriously, I believe one does not have to be squeamish to give one's 
critical opinion on a piece of work, but it asks for some time and effort to 
do it right and correctly.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:

> 
> Consider the cat. When looking at a photograph, or a painting, one wants to 
> understand the intentions of the artists (not always clear, I agree). Why 
> did he do this? Or why did he not do that? Here, the whole image is out of 
> focus except part of a paw. What is the intention? What is the message? What 
> does it tell me? 

A study in comparative sentience? The plane in focus defines the closest 
part of the cat to the viewer and the framing of the shot places that 
plane of focus almost coincident with the picture surface.  So the 
picture space begins just at the limit of the cat's bodily space along 
the viewing axis.

What humans sentiently perceive to be their personal, bodily space is a 
very important thing to them psychologically.  At a very basic level it 
involves a sense of self.  What about cats?

-Jim

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:

> (Guess what my major at university was :P  )
> 


Oh yeah?  What school?

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:

> 
> Of course you are right about this in principle. However, if "art" means 
> that every single item of whatever production by whoever throws a dot of 
> paint or pushes a button or shoots an image should be considered just that, 
> art, I disagree. Art is no free meal so to speak, neither was it when it was 
> merely a "skill" performed by a crafter.
> 

The closest I have come to a universal tenent with Art is:

"Meaning lies with the viewer."

Sometimes tough to accept.

Othertimes no help at all.

-Jim

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:
> Thomas de Groot wrote:
> 

> 
> Ah, but I was going for something different. I wanted the focus to be on 
> something different. I have many pictures of my cats with their eyes in 
> focus.... Rules are meant to be broken. He often sits with his front 
> paws outstretched and together like that, so I thought I'd emphasize the 
> paws. 

Isn't it at least one back paw?

Anyway, I actually figured you were just trying out the logical and 
compositional extremes, but okay, you were focusing not on the eyes. The 
awareness of the eyes de-emphasized is, arguably, a big part of the picture.


I see it didn't work, and the intent is lost on people ;)

Are you sure? Thomas reacted precisely (though adversely) to the tension 
of "focused paw, blurry eyes", and you did claim to want to "break 
rules".  You broke the rule, you got a reaction.  Whaddayouexpect?
You want everyone to cheer or something?  ;)


  The bicycle in the
> back killed it, 

I agree that more thought to the background could have improved things. 
  Given the subtleties involved with a famously kitchy subject, a sense 
of greater intentionality and less of a random, "grab shot" feel, would 
have helped distill viewer reactions.


and I don't think my focus/DOF was where I really
> intended it to be.

Oh? But you 'hung it on the wall' anyway?  Don't float that crepe. If 
you hung it, you meant it.

-Jim

Post a reply to this message

The critter in it's original texturing ...


Now.... to customize the texture!

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download '3832235292_f4d84d01ae_o.jpg' (35 KB)

Preview of image '3832235292_f4d84d01ae_o.jpg'

Jim Charter wrote:
> Oh yeah?  What school?

Northern Illinois University.  Only took 2 years worth before moving to 
Florida, tho.

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:

>
> Still, I really don't like shots /without/ any focal blur. Aside from
> giving a sense of scale, it also gives a sense of depth, and helps add
> emphasis to some elements of the image (by literally putting them in
> focus), so you lose a lot if you don't use at least some subtle focal blur.

I tend to agree (even though I almost never use it in my POV scenes--due
primarily to the length of time it takes to render!  I get impatient...) Thomas
mentioned some of the great photographers/filmmakers who didn't seem to want or
need it--Cartier Bresson, Frank Capra--and their work is of course quite
beautiful.  Yet my own 'favorites' are the cinematographers (mostly of the
pre-1960's) who selectively used DOF for 'zero-ing in' on the important
elements of a scene, particularly close-ups of actors. Used well, DOF can take
a very 'cluttered' scene and bring out the most important element, focusing
attention on it (the surrounding details being even detrimental to the
emotional response that was intended.) Though I admit that part of that
*artistic decision* was purely a technical one--a rather shallow depth of field
due to 'slow' camera lenses of the time; and, for example, the 3-strip
Technicolor camera, which required enormous amounts of light--oftentimes
impractical. But given those limitations, some great art was achieved
nonetheless, with a true 'style.'

Regarding the first image here, I do have to agree with some of what Thomas has
said, though: I think the image would have been more effective if the cat had
been more or less totally in-focus, with perhaps a detailed background of some
sort that could then have been thrown *out* of focus.  As-is, the cat looks
like a *very* tiny figure that the photographer had trouble focusing
on--there's no obvious 'point of interest.'

Ken W.

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> I agree, I'm not a great fan of focal blur myself, I seldom use it preferring
> fog to cover up inadequacies in an image. :)

I have a tendency to go overboard with effects like focal blur, media, 
radiosity, et cetera.  Typically, I have to force myself to dial it back 
to where it's barely noticeable... which is often where it looks best ;)

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:
> It's alright ;) Everything is subjective of course!

Not to me, it isn't!

;)

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> schreef in bericht 
news:4a89f1c4@news.povray.org...
>
> The closest I have come to a universal tenent with Art is:
>
> "Meaning lies with the viewer."
>
> Sometimes tough to accept.
>
> Othertimes no help at all.
>

Yes indeed, and which underlines the fact that debates similar to these now 
have been raging for many, many decades.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> schreef in bericht 
news:4a89ed2c$1@news.povray.org...
>
> A study in comparative sentience? The plane in focus defines the closest 
> part of the cat to the viewer and the framing of the shot places that 
> plane of focus almost coincident with the picture surface.  So the picture 
> space begins just at the limit of the cat's bodily space along the viewing 
> axis.
>
> What humans sentiently perceive to be their personal, bodily space is a 
> very important thing to them psychologically.  At a very basic level it 
> involves a sense of self.  What about cats?

I mentioned to Mike and, re-examining the photograph again, I become even 
more convinced that the real troublemaker is the cat itself. Your comment 
here seems to confirm this. The cat's personality (as the expression of 
self-awareness which cats certainly possess) draws the viewer to its eyes in 
an absolutely compulsive way, which makes any other possibility of focus 
impossible, with the exception maybe of the point of its nose :-)

There are cases where the personality of the subject completely subjugates 
the artist's actions. I know this can  happen in photography, I think this 
can also happen in portrait painting.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Mike Raiford" <mraXXXiford.at.@g1023mail.com> schreef in bericht 
news:4a89fefd@news.povray.org...
> The critter in it's original texturing ...
>
>
> Now.... to customize the texture!

LOL!

I love this.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message