 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"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] anonymous org> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
