Back in my school days, I remember having done a few great pictures using
watercolors.

Not the way you usually work with this medium, typically leading to bleeded
specks of thin color on damp, curly paper. Instead, I would pick up as much of
the watercolor pigment with as little water as I could, giving me a thick
paste, much like oil paint (or how I imagine oil paint to be; I never bothered
to do oil paintings myself, so I'm not perfectly sure). No curly paper. No
color bleeding. No thinned-out pigments. I was a true master of this technique.

Even then, I found this process quite frustrating at times: If you happened to
have picked a sufficiently wrong hue for a certain object, unless the "good"
hue would be a dirty brown, you'd have no real chance of correcting your
mistake. Other than throwing away the paper and starting all over again, that
is. And if you found that the tree over there in the background would have been
better placed one or two centimeters to the right... oh crap!


Boy, do I love 3D rendering as an artistic medium!

Got some color wrong? Want to change some detail, or even add another one? Just
tweak the respective parts of the scene as desired, and let the *computer*
spend hours and hours painting it all over again :P

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> And if you found that the tree over there in the background would have been
> better placed one or two centimeters to the right... oh crap!

You can do that with oil paint, tho.

> Got some color wrong? Want to change some detail, or even add another one? Just
> tweak the respective parts of the scene as desired, and let the *computer*
> spend hours and hours painting it all over again :P

That's one of the nice things about the POV-ray approach, compared to (for 
example) Blender. I think once you've textured and animated your character, 
you're going to have a hard time going back and redoing his nose.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Yes, that is a good reason. An artist's reason.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:

> Even then, I found this process quite frustrating at times: If you happened to
> have picked a sufficiently wrong hue for a certain object, unless the "good"
> hue would be a dirty brown, you'd have no real chance of correcting your
> mistake. Other than throwing away the paper and starting all over again, that
> is. And if you found that the tree over there in the background would have been
> better placed one or two centimeters to the right... oh crap!

This is why watercolor is considered one of the hardest media in which 
to work.  If you can't make a mistake look like something you intended 
all along, it's time to start over.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Boy, do I love 3D rendering as an artistic medium!

Yeah, it's great and all, but I once spilled a container of green pixels 
all over myself. Wouldn't come off for days :(

Sam

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:

> Even then, I found this process quite frustrating at times: If you happened to
> have picked a sufficiently wrong hue for a certain object, unless the "good"
> hue would be a dirty brown, you'd have no real chance of correcting your
> mistake. Other than throwing away the paper and starting all over again, that
> is. And if you found that the tree over there in the background would have been
> better placed one or two centimeters to the right... oh crap!

I've always been amazed by the pictorial results of the watercolor 'masters',
for just the reasons you mention. Seems to be an awfully unforgiving medium.
Which is why I've never dabbled in it. Seems that you have to have almost
everything in the scene, all the colors, pre-planned in your mind. Ugh. It may
be a good exercise in patience and thoughtful planning...but give me POV-Ray
*any* day (or Photoshop, for that matter) where I can screw up and test things
out.

KW

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Back in my school days, I remember having done a few great pictures using
> watercolors.
> 
> Not the way you usually work with this medium, typically leading to bleeded
> specks of thin color on damp, curly paper.




I still remember when the little red flash on the wing of my red-winged 
blackbird bled into the rest of the feathers and my first grade teacher 
yelled at me for it.  Dumb b*tch.  Like she could even get close to 
drawing any bird.

btw they have these pre-stretch tablets of paper now which work quite 
fantastically. No crinkling nad curling. Maybe you should give it 
another try.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> btw they have these pre-stretch tablets of paper now which work quite
> fantastically. No crinkling nad curling. Maybe you should give it
> another try.

With Poser being *SO* much bettern than me at depicting living beings? Nay,
definitely not! :P

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <nomail@nomail> schreef in bericht 
news:web.4a081093928e08f9f708085d0@news.povray.org...
> Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
>> btw they have these pre-stretch tablets of paper now which work quite
>> fantastically. No crinkling nad curling. Maybe you should give it
>> another try.
>
> With Poser being *SO* much bettern than me at depicting living beings? 
> Nay,
> definitely not! :P
>
>
Still, it is another world of experience. It is worthwhile to keep both 
going if you have the opportunity.

I am not good with paint. I know. I tried. However, I like to draw once in 
while. Paper. Pencil. Nothing fancy nor particularly good, but very 
satisfying to do.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> That's one of the nice things about the POV-ray approach, compared to (for
> example) Blender.


A life's creative effort can fit on one CD.

Post a reply to this message