Comparisons
Egg and Larry—
I think this discussion has devolved into the taste I have in rendering the models I create, the content of the scene itself, and the rendering engine I use.
Let me play a "Which do you like better?" game here, and then move on, okay? :)
Okay, I'm thinking for the subject of an electric guitar (over 300 individual parts I had to model), that modo's rendering engine is more appropriate, right?
Next comparison: I think without looking very long, you'll note which image is a photo, and which one is my creation. Is there anything you like, such as an improved rendering, or anything you don't like in the rendered image? Is there anything you like or don't like in my photography skills? That was a joke (I hope).
How about this one? Is the glass glass-like?
Egg, I know you don't care for my choice of depth of field; in my defense, that was an effect in the Rickenbacker image I was only starting to grasp back in 2008. And I'm still pleased with the composition, enough to include it in this gallery.
As far as the noise you mention, and admitting you're not a photographer, there is grain in any physical photo (except Polaroids, I think). If you bought Kodachrome and used it at a very slow shutter speed (such as 1/30th of a second), you'd probably not see the grain. But in you used the 1970s Fuji color stock, you'd see color inaccuracies and a lot of grain because in the 1970s Fuji color wasn't very good, but inexpensive so if you wanted to slum it, you'd buy Fuji.
I'll work on the amount of film grain I choose in future renders. Although modo adds a little "jittering" to pixel values that neighbor one another, a 1 yo 1 viewing resolution, the effect contributes but is virtually unnoticeable:
On with the show!
My Best,
Gary
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks