 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] earthlink net> schreef in bericht
news:web.497a253fc722a95af50167bc0@news.povray.org...
> Here's something to contemplate: Should the HOF showcase images that only
> show
> off POV-Ray's impressive 'strengths'? Or should it also include POV images
> that
> have pictorial beauty, regardless of what techniques were used? (Of
> course,
> having both at the same time is the ideal; but they are different
> philosophical
> concepts.) I kind of sense that the general attitude is for including,
> first and
> foremost, the 'strengths' side of things. I don't disagree; but that may
> be
> slighting some of the more intrinsically beautiful or complex images in
> p.b.i,
> those that have great subject matter, composition or what-not, but which
> may
> not have gobs of radiosity, depth-of-field, SSS, etc.
>
> Either type of image would be most welcome, IMO.
>
It would be *technique* at the service of *beauty*, or the *beauty* of
*technique*... Whatever the case, imo both should be considered.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 09:06:36 +0100, "Thomas de Groot"
<tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:
>
>It would be *technique* at the service of *beauty*, or the *beauty* of
>*technique*... Whatever the case, imo both should be considered.
Well put.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:
> *2* - *4* - *7* are my favourites from your list. I am sure there are
> more...
>
> Thomas
>
Yes, I have self-limited!
They could be 40...
In fact, for me, almost all the images would be HOF!
;-)
--
Carlo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Whoa, man! Thanks for taking your time to research into this. Nice
> montage, some I've seen before but others are nice additions. p.b.i
> really contain many gems... :)
Fancy that! ;-)
You're welcome...
--
Carlo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> I think #7 should be the one in color--er, Technicolor!
>
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/thread/%3C48114f66%40news.povray.org%3E/?ttop=297711&toff=350
>
> Also, don't forget "The Tiffany Cheerio"...gorgeous.
>
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/thread/%3Cweb.481a558661e81a8d97fbe7c20%40news.povray.org%3E/?ttop=2977
11
> &toff=350
>
> KW
Ive writes: "...Surely I prefer the b/w version..."
To meet the tastes of the author. ;-)
--
Carlo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Even so: I heard from other post that Wings3D comes with a ply importer, or
> have I heard it wrong?
Heard it wrong.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Carlo C." <nomail@nomail> schreef in bericht
news:web.497aec6dc722a95a36d3646a0@news.povray.org...
>
> Yes, I have self-limited!
> They could be 40...
> In fact, for me, almost all the images would be HOF!
>
LOL. That would mean inflation. :-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:
>
> LOL. That would mean inflation. :-)
Gold medals for everyone!
- Ricky
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> It's a "Hall of Fame" after all, right? So I think it shouldn't matter
> *what* they're famous for: Technical "strength", artistic beauty, or
> whatever.
>
> I'm definitely somewhat biased towards the technical side (because it's
> just the kind of stuff I love), but with that in mind, I'd actually
> advocate to put more emphasis on beauty and concept than I usually do
> myself :)
Well, I'd say the less the author had to rely on *other tools* the more
appropriate for POV-Ray HOF...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:
> "Kenneth" <kdw### [at] earthlinknet> schreef in bericht
> news:web.497a253fc722a95af50167bc0@news.povray.org...
> > Here's something to contemplate: Should the HOF showcase images that only
> > show
> > off POV-Ray's impressive 'strengths'? Or should it also include POV images
> > that
> > have pictorial beauty, regardless of what techniques were used? (Of
> > course,
> > having both at the same time is the ideal; but they are different
> > philosophical
> > concepts.) I kind of sense that the general attitude is for including,
> > first and
> > foremost, the 'strengths' side of things. I don't disagree; but that may
> > be
> > slighting some of the more intrinsically beautiful or complex images in
> > p.b.i,
> > those that have great subject matter, composition or what-not, but which
> > may
> > not have gobs of radiosity, depth-of-field, SSS, etc.
> >
> > Either type of image would be most welcome, IMO.
> >
>
> It would be *technique* at the service of *beauty*, or the *beauty* of
> *technique*...
Very well put, Thomas!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
