 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
