John wrote:
>> If you've got plenty of time try to add a focal blur :-)
> 
> Please don't do that it always looks like you are just trying to copy
> a photo not render a realistic scene.

I think it depends. Some focal blur *is* realistic after all, but only 
if you're actually taking a photo of something in the foreground or such 
where you'd need a lense. Try looking at various Photographer's sites 
and check their "focal blur". Depending on the scene, it might really add.

But on this one, I agree. Landscape images seldomly have focal blur. 
It's most common on extreme close-ups that something in the background 
gets blurred. Or on miniatures, because those are close-ups as well, but 
don't look like it from the setting. ;-)

Regards,
Tim

-- 
aka "Tim Nikias"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>

Post a reply to this message

"Kirk Andrews" <kir### [at] tektonartcom> wrote:
> Here's another view, closer to the river.  Rendered in 10 hrs.

Post a reply to this message

Thanks, everyone!

Based on your suggestions, I think I would like to add leaves on the forest
floor (and maybe some flying through the air).  If I wanted to do it right, I
would need to figure out a way to get those eroded banks.  There is a slight
"glow" done in post-processing.  I had thought about adding a watchtower--I
made a couple of tower models last year, and they might look pretty good here.
Unfortunately, these additions will probably have to wait until I've got a bit
more time.

Thanks again,

Kirk

Post a reply to this message

Kirk,

These look really nice.  I think what's missing for more realism is ground clutter. 
There should be
some fallen leaves and branches on the ground and in the water.  It'd be tough to do
well, but I
think it'd add a nice touch of realism.

Just my opinion.

Kyle

Post a reply to this message

"Jan Dvorak" <jan### [at] centrumcz> schreef in bericht 
news:473fd8b8@news.povray.org...
>>
> Perfect.
> If you've got plenty of time try to add a focal blur :-)


No! No! No focal blur in this image! There is nothing in the foreground that 
needs 'focus'!

Thomas


PS Great images, Kirk!!

Post a reply to this message

"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet> wrote:
> "Jan Dvorak" <jan### [at] centrumcz> schreef in bericht
> news:473fd8b8@news.povray.org...
> >>
> > Perfect.
> > If you've got plenty of time try to add a focal blur :-)
>
>
> No! No! No focal blur in this image! There is nothing in the foreground that
> needs 'focus'!
>
> Thomas

Focal blur can be neat in some images, as has been said, but not in this image
as it currently is.  For it to work in this picture, I would either need some
twigs or some kind of detail in the foreground to be blurry and the landscape
in focus, or I could perhaps place some very detailed autumn leaves (blowing in
the wind) right next to the camera, focusing on those and have the forest
blurry.  But either way, I would have changed the image drastically.

> PS Great images, Kirk!!

Thank you!

Post a reply to this message

Kirk Andrews wrote:
> Here's another attempt at landscapes.  I feel that there is still something
> missing from the image to make it feel the way I want it to, but I'm not sure
> what it is yet.  I want to add genuine media to get a nice, moist, morning
> mist.  I generally stay as far away from media as possible, so if someone with
> some experience might suggest a good starting place, I'd be much obliged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 

I have been thinking of and trying to create images like these 'bout 2
years, and you go and create what, three or four in a week?!?!

That's just not fair..

Otherwise, this and all those previous island-images all look great!

-- Arttu "Blizzara" Voutilainen

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 00:56:01 +0100, Tim Nikias
<JUS### [at] gmxnetWARE> wrote:

>John wrote:
>>> If you've got plenty of time try to add a focal blur :-)
>> 
>> Please don't do that it always looks like you are just trying to copy
>> a photo not render a realistic scene.
>
>I think it depends. Some focal blur *is* realistic after all, but only 
>if you're actually taking a photo of something in the foreground or such 
>where you'd need a lense. Try looking at various Photographer's sites 
>and check their "focal blur". Depending on the scene, it might really add.
>
>But on this one, I agree. Landscape images seldomly have focal blur. 
>It's most common on extreme close-ups that something in the background 
>gets blurred. Or on miniatures, because those are close-ups as well, but 
>don't look like it from the setting. ;-)
>
>Regards,
>Tim

I well understand focal blur.  If I say it myself I am quite a good
photographer.   With my macro photography I try as much as possible to
get rid of it.   As far as I am concerned the only time that focal
blur is realistic is when you are trying to simulate a photograph.

If you are trying to simulate what your brain "sees" then there is no
place for focal blur.

(In my opinion trhat is <grin>)

John

Post a reply to this message

> I have been thinking of and trying to create images like these 'bout 2
> years, and you go and create what, three or four in a week?!?!
>
> That's just not fair..
>
> Otherwise, this and all those previous island-images all look great!
>
> -- Arttu "Blizzara" Voutilainen

Well, you have to understand that the reason I have created several of these all
in a row is because after trying for years and failing, I have finally started
producing landscapes that I am proud of!  But thank you.

Honestly, these images are not so very complex.  They all use the same basic
structure and there's just a few key elements:

My terrain is an isosurface using a wrinkles pigment with poly_wave 4.
Poly_wave 4 is essential since it better simulates the effect of erosion
filling in the valleys and actually creating reasonably flat places at times.

There always must be some type of fog, whether you use simple fog or actual
media (I just use a simple ground fog).  The fog needs a bluish tint to be
realistic (or pinkish for sunrise or sunset).

The water is more complicated:

#declare Water =
plane {y,0
  hollow
  texture {
    average
    texture_map {
      #local i = 0;
      #while (i < 10)   //  This loop creates a blurred reflection
      [
        pigment {rgbt 1}
        finish{
          conserve_energy
          diffuse 0.0
          ambient 0
          reflection{0 .7 fresnel on metallic 0}
        }
        normal {bumps .125 turbulence .1 scale 1 rotate (rand(R1)/1)*y }
      ]
      #local i = i + 1;
      #end
    }
  }
  interior {
    ior 1.31                // index of refraction
    fade_power 1001         // values larger than 1000 give realistic
    fade_distance 0.75      // distance where light reaches half intensity
    fade_color <.2, .9, .6> // color for fading
      media{
        absorption rgb 1-WaterColor //declared earlier
        density{rgb 1}
      }
  }
}

I hope that helps.

Post a reply to this message

John nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/11/19 14:21:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 00:56:01 +0100, Tim Nikias
> <JUS### [at] gmxnetWARE> wrote:
> 
>> John wrote:
>>>> If you've got plenty of time try to add a focal blur :-)
>>> Please don't do that it always looks like you are just trying to copy
>>> a photo not render a realistic scene.
>> I think it depends. Some focal blur *is* realistic after all, but only 
>> if you're actually taking a photo of something in the foreground or such 
>> where you'd need a lense. Try looking at various Photographer's sites 
>> and check their "focal blur". Depending on the scene, it might really add.
>>
>> But on this one, I agree. Landscape images seldomly have focal blur. 
>> It's most common on extreme close-ups that something in the background 
>> gets blurred. Or on miniatures, because those are close-ups as well, but 
>> don't look like it from the setting. ;-)
>>
>> Regards,
>> Tim
> 
> I well understand focal blur.  If I say it myself I am quite a good
> photographer.   With my macro photography I try as much as possible to
> get rid of it.   As far as I am concerned the only time that focal
> blur is realistic is when you are trying to simulate a photograph.
> 
> If you are trying to simulate what your brain "sees" then there is no
> place for focal blur.
> 
> (In my opinion trhat is <grin>)
> 
> John
Unless you want to simulate a very small, but deep, scene extremely close to the 
observer's eyes.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
A lack of leadership is no substitute for inaction.

Post a reply to this message