> Very nice, but as predicted loses something when "properly" textured. By
> modeling in different colors, you revealed things that wouldn't be
> present in a photograph or photo-realistic render.
>
> This is important, I think, because so few things render or photograph
> well. What looks good in flattened 3D? Relatively convex objects like
> faces, buildings, and landscapes. That's it. Sure, you can find some
> impressive 3D examples of other things, but compare those to 2D work of
> the same subject and I'll bet you find the 3D lacking. A few years ago,
> I ran across the CGTalk "Grand Space Opera" challenge which blew my mind
> when I compared the 2D to 3D entries.
>
> What's the problem with 3D? I believe there's a human tendency to
> separate any image into positive and negative or light and dark space
> (look at the difference in perspective one can gain from cropping a
> render). A 2D artist can overcome this and create more spaces with his
> complete control of localized contrast and "texture" of the flattened
> image. A 3D artist could exercise more control than most do, but the
> time required for extra light sources and experimentation is great.
>
> Something I will continue to think on.
>
>   -Shay

I think you're on to something.  In this way, 3D art is similar to photography.
A good photographer can turn an ordinary scene into a piece of art by careful
consideration of composition and lighting.  In reality, the potential for the
same is even stronger in 3D artwork, but like you say, we give up too soon.

Post a reply to this message