 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Good job, the contrast thing is a 30 second fix in post.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"fls13" <fls### [at] netzero net> wrote:
> Good job, the contrast thing is a 30 second fix in post.
Nope; Post-processing is a no-no for IRTC stills...
-s
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Joanne Simpson wrote:
> Something for the current IRTC round. Never mind the title, it will make
> sense later.
> Joanne
> http://www.onewhiteraven.com
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Brightness/contrast issues aside, the media does look quite grainy even
with the current dark and low contrast version you show. This version
does have a nice mood to it, but the figure is perhaps a bit too
abscured by the gloom.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
stm31415 wrote:
> "fls13" <fls### [at] netzeronet> wrote:
>
>>Good job, the contrast thing is a 30 second fix in post.
>
>
> Nope; Post-processing is a no-no for IRTC stills...
>
> -s
Actually, yes you can. I just double-checked the rules.
www.irtc.org/stills/rules.html#images
Rule 5.f.iii says (about the exceptions to the no-post-processing
rules): You may gamma-correct and contrast/brightness adjust the image.
The other two exceptions are:
5.f.i You may convert images to JPEG format.
5.f.ii You may add text information (name, title, email address,
copyright. etc...) to your image.
-=- Larry -=-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> Brightness/contrast issues aside, the media does look quite grainy even
> with the current dark and low contrast version you show.
It's _not_ media. See if you can work out what it is...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Joanne Simpson" <cor### [at] onewhiteravencom> wrote in message
news:web.448ca7188703c7727619dfe70@news.povray.org...
> Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
>
>> Brightness/contrast issues aside, the media does look quite grainy even
>> with the current dark and low contrast version you show.
>
> It's _not_ media. See if you can work out what it is...
a dirty window pane?
nice mood btw
DLM
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>
> Actually, yes you can. I just double-checked the rules.
>
> www.irtc.org/stills/rules.html#images
>
> Rule 5.f.iii says (about the exceptions to the no-post-processing
> rules): You may gamma-correct and contrast/brightness adjust the image.
>
> The other two exceptions are:
> 5.f.i You may convert images to JPEG format.
> 5.f.ii You may add text information (name, title, email address,
> copyright. etc...) to your image.
>
> -=- Larry -=-
Well, I'll be. Wish I had read that more closely when I was entering ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"dlm" <me### [at] addressinvalid> wrote in message
news:448cce56$1@news.povray.org...
>
> "Joanne Simpson" <cor### [at] onewhiteravencom> wrote in message
>> It's _not_ media. See if you can work out what it is...
>
> a dirty window pane?
I believe it's a window because I can see three windows reflected in
it with something behind the camera.
> nice mood btw
Agreed.
~Steve~
> DLM
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Joanne Simpson" <cor### [at] onewhiteravencom> wrote:
> Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
>
> > Brightness/contrast issues aside, the media does look quite grainy even
> > with the current dark and low contrast version you show.
>
> It's _not_ media. See if you can work out what it is...
Plants (bushes) and their shadows? I can just make out what look like bushes
against the far wall (a nice touch.)
Very moody and atmospheric. Dickensian! Like Olde London.
Regarding the post-processing issue: I'm quite surprised that gamma and
brightness/contrast correction are allowed, since they can radically alter
the look of a scene...and would thus seem to qualify as *major* image
manipulation (which could instead be accomplished to any degree desired
within Pov-ray itself, with a bit 'o work.) Not sure I understand the
relaxed rules about that. Call me a purist!
Ken W.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> > It's _not_ media. See if you can work out what it is...
The grainy fog is an isosurface.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
