 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 01.12.2011 15:24, schrieb Invisible:
> $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.)
I'm still waiting for an explanation where you got that $8,000 figure from.
> 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?
I bought a license for this photograph to put on both my website and my
business card when I was a freelancing embedded software developer:
http://de.fotolia.com/id/4337839
As you might guess from the price tag, I did /not/ have to take a 5-year
loan to afford it. (I went for the "L Standard" license, btw.)
I also bought a handful of "S Standard" licenses for other images there,
which I planned to use on my website as well.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Interesting. As I expected, it doesn't actually produce a very
>> convincing effect; it merely wraps the image, and then does some
>> cross-fading. The result is a very visible transition. (Still, at
>> least they made it circular, eh?)
>
> it's a smooth transition that is barely noticeable in the large scheme
> of things. Once it's mapped on a 3D floor, you simply don't notice the
> faded edges on the tiled floor.
Maybe. But I'm talking about a 2D website background. It's pretty
noticeable when half a pebble cross-fades into a different pebble.
>> As an aside, I'd never noticed the Filter menu before. There's quite a
>> lot of stuff in there...
>
> o_0
>
> It's just the bread and butter of bitmap editors...
Well, it's the bread and butter of image processors. It won't help you
if you're trying to (for example) remove an object from an image...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/12/2011 04:26 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 01.12.2011 15:24, schrieb Invisible:
>
>> $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.)
>
> I'm still waiting for an explanation where you got that $8,000 figure from.
Photography is expensive. That's why only huge publishing corporations
can afford to do it.
> I bought a license for this photograph to put on both my website and my
> business card when I was a freelancing embedded software developer:
>
> http://de.fotolia.com/id/4337839
I'm quite impressed that you can buy a good quality image like that for
less than a thousand dollars. Presumably the range of available images
is highly limited, however...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 01.12.2011 15:26, schrieb Invisible:
> On 01/12/2011 12:22 PM, clipka wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Except that, uh, it can't be done? :-P
Hush - don't tell my mom; she does stuff like that for a hobby. Copying
stuff from one photo and pasting it into others. She'd indeed isolate
and copy around individual leaves or grass blades if that gets her where
she wants to go. You need sufficiently high-res photographs to start
with of course.
>> You haven't spent much time with Photoshop or Gimp, have you?
>
> Photoshop is /far/ too expensive for me to ever afford. (Especially
> given that I'd probably hardly ever use it anyway.)
How about Photoshop Elements? That's what my mom's been using.
>>> 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.
>
> Most interesting textures do not have closed-form representations.
> POV-Ray only renders closed-form equations. QED.
I don't know the theory behind closed-form and non-closed-form
equations, but I guess both of your axioms are somewhat flawed, so no
QED yet.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/12/2011 4:33 PM, Invisible wrote:
> Photography is expensive. That's why only huge publishing corporations
> can afford to do it.
Andrew, where do you get these ideas from? You speak/write
unsubstantiated rubbish at times. Please try not to post before thinking
because you do yourself no favours.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 01.12.2011 17:33, schrieb Invisible:
> On 01/12/2011 04:26 PM, clipka wrote:
>> Am 01.12.2011 15:24, schrieb Invisible:
>>
>>> $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.)
>>
>> I'm still waiting for an explanation where you got that $8,000 figure
>> from.
>
> Photography is expensive. That's why only huge publishing corporations
> can afford to do it.
Photography created specifically according to your specifications /can/
be expensive, yes. Depends on your motif though: Studio photography is
pretty affordable actually. After all, the equipment is all there
already, and all you need to pay is the working time of the
photographer. With digital cameras, there's also virtually no material
expense involved.
For example, a professional photo shooting (including makeup and all)
for a photograph of yourself might come at around 50 €. Probably worth
it when applying for a new job.
It's when lighting equipment needs to be deployed to some site, the site
closed down for the shooting, or special props be available, that things
start getting costly.
>> I bought a license for this photograph to put on both my website and my
>> business card when I was a freelancing embedded software developer:
>>
>> http://de.fotolia.com/id/4337839
>
> I'm quite impressed that you can buy a good quality image like that for
> less than a thousand dollars. Presumably the range of available images
> is highly limited, however...
*facepalm*
You have the website there. Why /presume/, when you can take a look
around to /see/ for yourself?
You might of course want to try the English site at www.fotolia.com.
(Hint: They claim to have 15 million images available at present.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible escreveu:
>>> Interesting. As I expected, it doesn't actually produce a very
>>> convincing effect; it merely wraps the image, and then does some
>>> cross-fading. The result is a very visible transition. (Still, at
>>> least they made it circular, eh?)
>>
>> it's a smooth transition that is barely noticeable in the large scheme
>> of things. Once it's mapped on a 3D floor, you simply don't notice the
>> faded edges on the tiled floor.
>
> Maybe. But I'm talking about a 2D website background. It's pretty
> noticeable when half a pebble cross-fades into a different pebble.
true enough. In that case, automatic seamless filters won't cut. In
that case, you should select through between borders, cut away
everything else (ctrl+i for inverse select + ctrl+x), and manually clone
the layer and position precisely (with ctrl hold down) the center (a
small cross) of the cloned layers in each of the cardinal positions
(including nw or se) around the image. Since you manually selected
interesting borders through the pebbles, it'll look natural as they are
one on top of the other.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/1/2011 8:06 AM, Invisible wrote:
> Interesting. As I expected, it doesn't actually produce a very
> convincing effect; it merely wraps the image, and then does some
> cross-fading. The result is a very visible transition. (Still, at least
> they made it circular, eh?)
Then fix up the seams manually, it's not that difficult. I've attached
an example that I whipped up GIMP to illustrate that it is totally
possible (and not very hard) to do this sort of thing.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'pentland-pebbles_tileable.png' (469 KB)
Preview of image 'pentland-pebbles_tileable.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 16:33:45 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> On 01/12/2011 04:26 PM, clipka wrote:
>> Am 01.12.2011 15:24, schrieb Invisible:
>>
>>> $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.)
>>
>> I'm still waiting for an explanation where you got that $8,000 figure
>> from.
>
> Photography is expensive. That's why only huge publishing corporations
> can afford to do it.
>
>> I bought a license for this photograph to put on both my website and my
>> business card when I was a freelancing embedded software developer:
>>
>> http://de.fotolia.com/id/4337839
>
> I'm quite impressed that you can buy a good quality image like that for
> less than a thousand dollars. Presumably the range of available images
> is highly limited, however...
Andy, if you make me hit my head on my desk so hard I shatter the glass,
you're going to owe me a new desk. ;)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 16:06:12 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>> is this more challenging than writing a Haskell monad?
>
> What's so hard about that?
I sure as hell couldn't do it, wouldn't even know where to start. Of
course, Haskell is one of the many things that I suck at.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
