 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
YKYBRTLW...
-tgq
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Was there a point to this and your original 'Vector' post?
Please enlighten me.
~Steve~
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"St." <dot### [at] dot com> wrote:
> Was there a point to this and your original 'Vector' post?
>
> Please enlighten me.
>
> ~Steve~
well.. not sure I needed a point.. but I suppose it's like this.. a few days
before seeing the one I posted, I saw some vector art pictures, and they looked
pretty real. And this one looked like a vector.. I wanted to test it to see if
others thought it might be a vector too, to make sure I wasn't the only one
having to look twice.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> Was there a point to this and your original 'Vector' post?
>
> Please enlighten me.
>
> ~Steve~
I think it's just a bit of a mental game. We often try to get our computer
renders to look super-realistic, but tend to think that fine photos look
rendered...
-tgq
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>> Was there a point to this and your original 'Vector' post?
>
> I think it's just a bit of a mental game. We often try to get our computer
> renders to look super-realistic, but tend to think that fine photos look
> rendered...
Or like when you see a rendered simulation (eg. fluid) and you find some
details that don't look real. Then you watch nature very closely and
notice the simulation was actually right.
I find that more often with skies. Most "good" rendered skies are
similar cyan-sky-white-clouds, wjem om fact a lot more strange
variations (colors, cloud shapes, etc) happen in nature.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"EagleSun" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Her name is Diem Thuyen, 20 years old, a model and photographer currently in
> Arizona.
damn smooth lady! with a face like that there's no need for photoshop!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Not to excuse my own incorrectness, it does bring up some interesting points.
I would say it's always been true (throughout the history of art) that a
precisely accurate portrayal isn't the most realistic. When we try to fool the
eye what we really must do is fool the mind --- and photorealism isn't always
the way to do that. "There is no excellent beauty that hath not some
strangeness in the proportion."
Also, context alters content. We saw the image in a context where we expect
rendered images. Just like Joshua Bell in a metro stop is readily ignored, a
photo out of context doesn't necessarily appear photographic. Context is
always a factor to be considered in the creation and presentation of art.
I do congratulate her, however, on her alarmingly perfect skin.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> with a face like that there's no need for photoshop!
Or botox. :P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > with a face like that there's no need for photoshop!
>
> Or botox. :P
aham... yes... :S
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"stm31415" <stm### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Also, context alters content. We saw the image in a context where we expect
> rendered images.
As I said earlier, her line of photos don't indicate the use of vector or
rendering technology.... *however*... I did purposely destoy JPEG-embedded
information (because camera and photoshop information are dead give-aways) and
converted the image into PNG format, thus removing the photo out of context,
and hinting that maybe it was rendered, maybe not.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
