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