 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Google for creative commons images, or stock photography. Pay someone to
>>> take a specific photo if you want. Some people do this for a living.
>>
>> Sure. But it's damned expensive. Would you really do that just to enter
>> a little competition for fun?
>
> It's not like you trained week after week after week to enter a dance
> competition, right? I mean, who would do that for fun? ;)
I spent a whole year learning diabolo. Hint: doing that doesn't cost any
money. I would think there can't be too many people who can just afford
to blow $8,000 on buying some images just to enter a competition.
> Alternately, you can browser image hosting sites and look for images
> which have licencing terms that meet your needs.
What makes you think there will be anything with acceptable licensing terms?
> Or browse through your
> "My Pictures" folder. Most people will have something interesting in there.
It's empty?
>>>> - Lots of designs have astonishingly elaborate calligraphy. Again, not
>>>> something that normal humans can do.
>>>
>>> It takes a lot of practice.
>>
>> Indeed. It's a skill few people have.
>
> Yet, strangley enough, most people who make a living out of it are
> rather good at it. It's almost as if there was some sort of relationship
> between the two!
Well /obviously/ people can make money out of it, given that very few
people are good at it. That's not really relevant to my point - a
typical person wanting to put a website [or other publication] together
can't access beautiful calligraphy. :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 30.11.2011 15:50, schrieb Invisible:
>>>> Google for creative commons images, or stock photography. Pay
>>>> someone to
>>>> take a specific photo if you want. Some people do this for a living.
>>>
>>> Sure. But it's damned expensive. Would you really do that just to enter
>>> a little competition for fun?
>>
>> It's not like you trained week after week after week to enter a dance
>> competition, right? I mean, who would do that for fun? ;)
>
> I spent a whole year learning diabolo. Hint: doing that doesn't cost any
> money. I would think there can't be too many people who can just afford
> to blow $8,000 on buying some images just to enter a competition.
Where the bloop do you get those figures from?
Sure, if you buy the *exclusive* rights to some professional photography
I guess you may end up with such numbers. Hint: Don't do that;
Non-exclusive licenses to use an image with limited resolution will do,
and will leave you with a price tag close to what I guess your diabolo
might have costed.
>> Yet, strangley enough, most people who make a living out of it are
>> rather good at it. It's almost as if there was some sort of relationship
>> between the two!
>
> Well /obviously/ people can make money out of it, given that very few
> people are good at it. That's not really relevant to my point - a
> typical person wanting to put a website [or other publication] together
> can't access beautiful calligraphy. :-P
Want to make a bet?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/29/2011 12:39, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Sure. But it's damned expensive. Would you really do that just to enter a
> little competition for fun?
You're missing the point. "Creative Commons" is the GPL of artwork. There's
a bunch of stuff you can use free, or you can use if you credit the author,
or etc.
> I can't figure out how it's even possible in theory.
I had to google around for about 15 minutes before I found an actual
explanation, rather than someone just saying "use the photoshop filter".
Basically, you rotate the image 50% left and 50% up. (And by "rotate" I mean
it in the shift-pixels-left-wrap-around-at-edge sense, not the
how-many-degrees sense.)
Now your edges match up, right? Yep!
Now fix the seams in the middle.
>> http://darren.s3.amazonaws.com/Seamless/album/index.html
>
> Seemless?
I don't know what that means.
> I gather this is called a "handwaving argument".
No, it's called being amused by you complaining about making textures in a
newsgroup run by people who make the best texture-creator in the world. :-)
>> That's possible too. It takes practice, is all. Not that I'm any good at
>> it, but I'm a lot better than I used to be.
>
> There must be some kind of trick to it.
Just education and practice. Like there's a "trick" to debugging a program.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/12/2011 03:36 AM, Darren New wrote:
> On 11/29/2011 12:39, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Sure. But it's damned expensive. Would you really do that just to enter a
>> little competition for fun?
>
> You're missing the point. "Creative Commons" is the GPL of artwork.
> There's a bunch of stuff you can use free, or you can use if you credit
> the author, or etc.
And you're saying stuff like that actually exists in the real world, and
some of it is actually good quality?
>> I can't figure out how it's even possible in theory.
>
> I had to google around for about 15 minutes before I found an actual
> explanation, rather than someone just saying "use the photoshop filter".
Because, of course, everybody can afford Photoshop(r)... Oh, wait...
> Basically, you rotate the image 50% left and 50% up. (And by "rotate" I
> mean it in the shift-pixels-left-wrap-around-at-edge sense, not the
> how-many-degrees sense.)
>
> Now your edges match up, right? Yep!
>
> Now fix the seams in the middle.
I still don't see how you can "fix" the seems. It's not like you can
move individual blades of grass around.
>>> http://darren.s3.amazonaws.com/Seamless/album/index.html
>>
>> Seemless?
>
> I don't know what that means.
I mean most of the pictures I looked at have fairly obvious rough edges
where the seems don't line up.
>> I gather this is called a "handwaving argument".
>
> No, it's called being amused by you complaining about making textures in
> a newsgroup run by people who make the best texture-creator in the
> world. :-)
POV-Ray makes nice stone textures (unless you're a geologist) and wood
textures (unless you're a dendrologist). Last time I checked, there's no
way of making a canvas texture or a wet paper texture or a spilled paint
texture or...
>>> That's possible too. It takes practice, is all. Not that I'm any good at
>>> it, but I'm a lot better than I used to be.
>>
>> There must be some kind of trick to it.
>
> Just education and practice. Like there's a "trick" to debugging a program.
Somebody somewhere must actually /teach/ graphic design skills...
Then again, I spent 6 months at drawing classes, and I still can't draw.
So maybe it's just that only a tiny fraction of the population will ever
be good at graphic design?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> On 01/12/2011 03:36 AM, Darren New wrote:
?
> >
> > You're missing the point. "Creative Commons" is the GPL of artwork.
> > There's a bunch of stuff you can use free, or you can use if you credit
> > the author, or etc.
>
> And you're saying stuff like that actually exists in the real world, and
> some of it is actually good quality?
"There's no free lunch" doesn't apply to digital economics of an open-source
nature where there's an advantage to sharing with others (to showcase skills or
simply share maintanance troubles).
It also doesn't apply to public domain goodies. You can read all of Shakespeare
or use classic painting copies for free.
> >> I can't figure out how it's even possible in theory.
> >
> > I had to google around for about 15 minutes before I found an actual
> > explanation, rather than someone just saying "use the photoshop filter".
>
> Because, of course, everybody can afford Photoshop(r)... Oh, wait...
Gimp has a straightforward Seamless feature. Filters > Map > Make Seamless (or
Tileable, I don't remember). Then you can test by choosing Filters > Map >
Tiles and choosing % as unit and 200 as value.
> POV-Ray makes nice stone textures (unless you're a geologist) and wood
> textures (unless you're a dendrologist). Last time I checked, there's no
> way of making a canvas texture or a wet paper texture or a spilled paint
> texture or...
Ah, the desire to reproduce all of nature fractal random designs through pure
math. No doubt some will be up to your challenge, but in this day and age it's
so cheap to just point your camera to nature itself, grab a few samples and make
it seamless with some 2D feature...
> Then again, I spent 6 months at drawing classes, and I still can't draw.
> So maybe it's just that only a tiny fraction of the population will ever
> be good at graphic design?
It's possible. You can feel better though by knowing they secretely wish to
know how to program so they could come up with their own tools... ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 01.12.2011 11:02, schrieb Invisible:
> I still don't see how you can "fix" the seems. It's not like you can
> move individual blades of grass around.
For /really/ good seamless textures, that's exactly what you do.
You haven't spent much time with Photoshop or Gimp, have you?
> POV-Ray makes nice stone textures (unless you're a geologist) and wood
> textures (unless you're a dendrologist). Last time I checked, there's no
> way of making a canvas texture or a wet paper texture or a spilled paint
> texture or...
Make that "last time I checked, no-one had yet found a way of...",
because unless you've checked every possible combination of parameters,
layered textures, averaged textures, and what-have-you, there are still
ways undiscovered that might lead to the desired result.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2011-11-30 09:50, Invisible a écrit :
>>>> Google for creative commons images, or stock photography. Pay
>>>> someone to
>>>> take a specific photo if you want. Some people do this for a living.
>>>
>>> Sure. But it's damned expensive. Would you really do that just to enter
>>> a little competition for fun?
>>
>> It's not like you trained week after week after week to enter a dance
>> competition, right? I mean, who would do that for fun? ;)
>
> I spent a whole year learning diabolo. Hint: doing that doesn't cost any
> money. I would think there can't be too many people who can just afford
> to blow $8,000 on buying some images just to enter a competition.
>
Someone who sees it as an investment to pad his or her portfolio and
resume, in order to get more web design clients?
>> Alternately, you can browser image hosting sites and look for images
>> which have licencing terms that meet your needs.
>
> What makes you think there will be anything with acceptable licensing
> terms?
>
Because I've used some. There's lots of stuff on Flickr with Creative
Commons licences, you just have to look for it.
>> Or browse through your
>> "My Pictures" folder. Most people will have something interesting in
>> there.
>
> It's empty?
>
You don't own a digital camera? Sometimes, just a regular picture of
Grandma at her birthday can tunr out to be very interesting...
http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1001/1352236849_b85aee03f5_z.jpg?zz=1
[Ed: My Flickr stream is still set to "all rights reserved", mainly
because I haven't asked my family if they wanted to have their face
plastered all over the Internet, also because I'm lazy)
>>>>> - Lots of designs have astonishingly elaborate calligraphy. Again, not
>>>>> something that normal humans can do.
>>>>
>>>> It takes a lot of practice.
>>>
>>> Indeed. It's a skill few people have.
>>
>> Yet, strangley enough, most people who make a living out of it are
>> rather good at it. It's almost as if there was some sort of relationship
>> between the two!
>
> Well /obviously/ people can make money out of it, given that very few
> people are good at it. That's not really relevant to my point - a
> typical person wanting to put a website [or other publication] together
> can't access beautiful calligraphy. :-P
Sure they can. If they are unable to write it themselves, there's bound
to be someone in their immediate surroundings who is. You'd be
surprised to find that - even in a lab full of boring scientists, or
telecom engineers - many people have artistic hobbies. Especially since
the advent of scrapbooking.
Case in point: the very people in this newsgroup are mostly nerds, and
some of us DO produce amazing art pieces.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2011-12-01 07:22, clipka a écrit :
> Am 01.12.2011 11:02, schrieb Invisible:
>
>> I still don't see how you can "fix" the seems. It's not like you can
>> move individual blades of grass around.
>
> For /really/ good seamless textures, that's exactly what you do.
>
> You haven't spent much time with Photoshop or Gimp, have you?
>
No, because he's already made up his mind that it was impossible.
(Insert Yoda quote here)
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> It's not like you trained week after week after week to enter a dance
>>> competition, right? I mean, who would do that for fun? ;)
>>
>> I spent a whole year learning diabolo. Hint: doing that doesn't cost any
>> money. I would think there can't be too many people who can just afford
>> to blow $8,000 on buying some images just to enter a competition.
>
> Someone who sees it as an investment to pad his or her portfolio and
> resume, in order to get more web design clients?
$8,000 is more money than I have ever owned at any time in my entire
life. (I just changed the exchange rate. On 8 Nov 2007, that would have
been £3795.07 - and that's the lowest it's been in the last 10 years.)
Would you seriously take out a 5-year loan just to afford some pictures
to put together a website that *might* get you a few more orders?
>>> Alternately, you can browser image hosting sites and look for images
>>> which have licencing terms that meet your needs.
>>
>> What makes you think there will be anything with acceptable licensing
>> terms?
>
> Because I've used some. There's lots of stuff on Flickr with Creative
> Commons licences, you just have to look for it.
In my limited experience, the stuff on Flickr is no better than the
rubbish I could shoot myself.
>>> Or browse through your
>>> "My Pictures" folder. Most people will have something interesting in
>>> there.
>>
>> It's empty?
>
> You don't own a digital camera?
No, I just don't put the pictures in the My Little Pony folder. But
regardless, no photo I have ever taken is even remotely good enough to
be used in an art project.
>> Well /obviously/ people can make money out of it, given that very few
>> people are good at it. That's not really relevant to my point - a
>> typical person wanting to put a website [or other publication] together
>> can't access beautiful calligraphy. :-P
>
> Sure they can. If they are unable to write it themselves, there's bound
> to be someone in their immediate surroundings who is.
Given that calligraphy is a rare skill, the idea that there's "bound to
be" someone "in their immediate surroundings" seems rather questionable...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2011-12-01 05:02, Invisible a écrit :
> On 01/12/2011 03:36 AM, Darren New wrote:
>> No, it's called being amused by you complaining about making textures in
>> a newsgroup run by people who make the best texture-creator in the
>> world. :-)
>
> POV-Ray makes nice stone textures (unless you're a geologist) and wood
> textures (unless you're a dendrologist). Last time I checked, there's no
> way of making a canvas texture or a wet paper texture or a spilled paint
> texture or...
>
By playing with gradient and checker textures, I'm sure you could come
up with a decent canvas texture in less than half an hour.
>>>> That's possible too. It takes practice, is all. Not that I'm any
>>>> good at
>>>> it, but I'm a lot better than I used to be.
>>>
>>> There must be some kind of trick to it.
>>
>> Just education and practice. Like there's a "trick" to debugging a
>> program.
>
> Somebody somewhere must actually /teach/ graphic design skills...
>
If you are talking about the technical ability to perform a task? yes.
Many schools, do teach those.
However, if you are talking about the artistic ability to come up with a
concept, then this is a little more difficult to teach. But in order to
be able to do it, you must first rid your mind of all those negative
preconcptions. Let the creative energy flow through you. If it ends up
looking like crap, then throw it away, but don't hold yourself from
trying because "It's going to look like crap!".
Geez, I really sound like Yoda!
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
