1 Attachment(s)
Re: The January 2012 Tutorial Discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jvila
Gare,...and appreciate how light impacts on every part.
Best regards
Hi Javier—
You see how you drew all those arrows to show points of illumination?
Wrong!
True=light can come from a source such as a lamp or a flashlight.
It is EQUALLY true that light comes from the atmosphere and from the surroundings. It is called "indirect illumination", it is almost EVERYWHERE you look, and unless you were gifted at birth with a Godlike understanding of how natural scenes are illuminated, I recommend that artists use a modeling program to let the program calcualte where light comes from, where it goes, and how light scatters in a scene.
Here is the same scene, same camera angle, and I have lit the scene with one bare lightbulb, above the box and a little in front of it.
Attachment 86875
Clearly, it's easy to see and calculate where the light comes from and what areas of the box are hidden in shadow.
But consider how ugly the picture is!
My point is that a scene we see in the real word is very, very, VERY visually complex. Surfaces can be rough, or smooth, or a combination, things like lamp shades are not transparent, but they do not block light either (translucence and occasionally subsurface scattering of light), add more than one light to a scene you imagine, and I promise you...you cannot attain accuracy from your mind alone. Our brains don't do that sort of calculating. The human mind is best at recognition of what we already see, and associations.
Example: "That cloud in the sky. It looks like a turtle." Recognition, and comparison.
Example: "That flower sort of looks like a trumpet." Association.
We don't do calculations very well. That is why we use computers to assist us in the mind-numbing calculations so we can be free to create.
We are good at comparison, and synthesizing images based on our impressions.
And a lot of times that is why I feel "photorealism" is a waste of a creative artist's mind.
If you want photorealism, and you want it quickly, take a photo!
When we literally interpret a scene by reproducing it, we give up part of the artist's spirit, who wants to be creative and modify, correct, enhance what we really see.
Does any of this make sense, and is it of use to you professionally?
—g
1 Attachment(s)
Re: The January 2012 Tutorial Discussion
I decided to take my thinking outside the box a little further, I have stayed with the cardboard texture I created using layered fractals and made a few changes. I changed the perspective of the floor and experimented with the shading some more. Then after reading what you said about putting something in the box inspiration struck! :D I decided to turn it into an advertisement for my favourite graphics software!:D
Attachment 86876
Re: The January 2012 Tutorial Discussion
hahahaha, you made me laugh, completely agree, if you want photorealism take a photo.
Best regards
Re: The January 2012 Tutorial Discussion
Frances,
It looks really great.
Best regards
Re: The January 2012 Tutorial Discussion
Thanks Javier! And thanks to everyone who commented on earlier versions as well. I've quite enjoyed participating in this thread!
Re: The January 2012 Tutorial Discussion
That's great Frances, it looks like a cardboard box. =D>=D>
Re: The January 2012 Tutorial Discussion
1 Attachment(s)
Re: The January 2012 Tutorial Discussion
This came to me via some email from a vendor of 3D media.
I think this list a little severe and a tad immature, but interesting and overall I'd have to agree with most of it.
An artist who cannot accept things in shades of grey has fewer colours to play with!
Attachment 86882
—g
1 Attachment(s)
Re: The January 2012 Tutorial Discussion
Re: The January 2012 Tutorial Discussion
That would be Rule #10, wouldn't it?
:)
—g