"MichaelJF" <mi-### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
> Sean Day <s.d### [at] uelacuk> wrote:
> > LanuHum wrote:
> > > "s.day" <s.d### [at] uelacuk> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> (the latter is causing me problems though).
> > >>
> > >
> > > Why? Star created, and seaweed you can't?
> > > I liked the picture.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Thanks, I am trying to write a macro to create the seaweed, everything
> > in the scene is made with the Povray SDL so no external modellers. The
> > starfish and limpets/barnacles are blobs, everything else is made from
> > isosurfaces (except the water which is a box).
> >
> > So far all my attempts at seaweed have not looked so good.
> >
> > Sean
>
> First: the image is wonderful, really wonderful. But I wonder a bit about the
> seaweed. The scene must be at a beach. Is there seaweed so close to the beach?
> My last visits to a beach is years ago and there is not much seaweed between the
> mainland and the islands at East Frisia, where my sister lives. From experiences
> long ago I ever had the impression that seaweed grows only in deeper areas
> covered by water independend of the tides. But I may be wrong with that. My next
> experience with beaches will be during my holydays this summer, but after the
> contest, at a place called Mevagissey. I propose that you take a look at an
> other very beautiful beach scene published within the irtc June 2005 titled
> "wreck" by an author you should know.
>
> Best regards,
> Michael

Where we live (central coast California), we have clumps and clumps of washed up
seaweed on oir beaches.

Post a reply to this message

MichaelJF wrote:
>
> First: the image is wonderful, really wonderful. But I wonder a bit about the
> seaweed. The scene must be at a beach. Is there seaweed so close to the beach?
> My last visits to a beach is years ago and there is not much seaweed between the
> mainland and the islands at East Frisia, where my sister lives. From experiences
> long ago I ever had the impression that seaweed grows only in deeper areas
> covered by water independend of the tides. But I may be wrong with that. My next
> experience with beaches will be during my holydays this summer, but after the
> contest, at a place called Mevagissey. I propose that you take a look at an
> other very beautiful beach scene published within the irtc June 2005 titled
> "wreck" by an author you should know.
>
> Best regards,
> Michael
>
>

Thanks Michael,

As so many have pointed out ;-) plenty of seaweed on the beaches around 
the UK, I have seen many rock pools with sand/rocks and seaweed 
especially on my many visits to Cornwall.
BTW, is that the Mevagissey you are visiting?

Not only did I look at the IRTC entry you mention I based my rock 
texture on that image as well. I may credit the authour ;-)

Sean

Post a reply to this message

On 2-2-2014 13:08, Thomas de Groot wrote:
The stone to the left looks suspiciously like an eroded fossil
> seastar... ;-)

Hmm.. I think one thing and write another :-( I meant /sea urchin/...

THomas

Post a reply to this message

Am 02.02.2014 10:06, schrieb s.day:

> Made a few changes to the layout of this scene as I was not happy with the
> composition of the previous one.

HOLY ROLEX!


> Still planning on adding a few more shells on the ground and some seaweed (the
> latter is causing me problems though).
>
> Also may change the big stone on the left at the front and not too sure about
> the barnacles (they look a bit like a flock of seaguls have left a deposit on
> the rocks.)

Yes, the big stone on the left looks wrong somehow; too polished I guess.

As for the barnacles, they look perfect on the dark stone, but there's 
indeed something wrong with them on the other rocks. Maybe they're too 
clustered. Or maybe they're in the wrong places; I'd imagine that they'd 
have an easier life clinging to the sides, where the waves don't come 
crashing down on them every few hours. Or maybe they should be more 
prosperous close to the water, where they're less frequently exposed to air.

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 2-2-2014 13:08, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> The stone to the left looks suspiciously like an eroded fossil
>> seastar... ;-)
>
> Hmm.. I think one thing and write another :-( I meant /sea urchin/...
>
> THomas
>

Ahh, that makes more sense.. I looked at some sea star fossils and was a 
bit confused ;-)

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Am 02.02.2014 10:06, schrieb s.day:
>
>> Made a few changes to the layout of this scene as I was not happy with
>> the
>> composition of the previous one.
>
> HOLY ROLEX!
>
>
>> Still planning on adding a few more shells on the ground and some
>> seaweed (the
>> latter is causing me problems though).
>>
>> Also may change the big stone on the left at the front and not too
>> sure about
>> the barnacles (they look a bit like a flock of seaguls have left a
>> deposit on
>> the rocks.)
>
> Yes, the big stone on the left looks wrong somehow; too polished I guess.
>
> As for the barnacles, they look perfect on the dark stone, but there's
> indeed something wrong with them on the other rocks. Maybe they're too
> clustered. Or maybe they're in the wrong places; I'd imagine that they'd
> have an easier life clinging to the sides, where the waves don't come
> crashing down on them every few hours. Or maybe they should be more
> prosperous close to the water, where they're less frequently exposed to
> air.
>

Thanks, I think you could be correct about putting them on the side. 
Also, they tend to grown in clusters so maybe I will try positioning 
them less randomly. I am using a pattern to position them currently with 
an element of randomisation.

Sean

Post a reply to this message

Sean Day <s.d### [at] uelacuk> wrote:
> Also, they tend to grown in clusters [...]

They have to, if they want to reproduce.  (As it is, the males have the longest
in the animal kingdom.)

Post a reply to this message

> Am 02.02.2014 10:06, schrieb s.day:
>
>> Made a few changes to the layout of this scene as I was not happy with
>> the
>> composition of the previous one.
>
> HOLY ROLEX!
>
>
>> Still planning on adding a few more shells on the ground and some
>> seaweed (the
>> latter is causing me problems though).
>>
>> Also may change the big stone on the left at the front and not too
>> sure about
>> the barnacles (they look a bit like a flock of seaguls have left a
>> deposit on
>> the rocks.)
>
> Yes, the big stone on the left looks wrong somehow; too polished I guess.
>
> As for the barnacles, they look perfect on the dark stone, but there's
> indeed something wrong with them on the other rocks. Maybe they're too
> clustered. Or maybe they're in the wrong places; I'd imagine that they'd
> have an easier life clinging to the sides, where the waves don't come
> crashing down on them every few hours. Or maybe they should be more
> prosperous close to the water, where they're less frequently exposed to
> air.
>

Barnacles literaly cement themselves to rocks, and boat hulls, with a 
natural epoxide cement that they make.
So, waves crashing down on them is not an isue.

Post a reply to this message

Am 03.02.2014 19:29, schrieb Cousin Ricky:
> Sean Day <s.d### [at] uelacuk> wrote:
>> Also, they tend to grown in clusters [...]
>
> They have to, if they want to reproduce.  (As it is, the males have the longest
> in the animal kingdom.)

I guess you're talking about relative size; when it comes to absolute 
length, it's probably some whale species.

Post a reply to this message

Am 03.02.2014 23:12, schrieb Alain:

> Barnacles literaly cement themselves to rocks, and boat hulls, with a
> natural epoxide cement that they make.
> So, waves crashing down on them is not an isue.

Well, they need to /start/ cementing themselves to a surface at some 
point, and I guess that's easier to do where the water isn't /too/ upset.

Post a reply to this message