salt & pepper ! (re-visited)

[Big Frank]

I didn't see this thread for a while, but now that I have, I'd like to make few observations. I've started a new thread because the original was getting lost in etymology and I wanted to get back to Jens' original artwork.

Jens, whilst your illustration is a great work of Xart (and a great design... you should patent it! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img] ), there are a few observations I'd like to offer the forum regarding the representation of shiny metals such as your salt and pepper shakers. In a thread some while ago (or it may have been the guest tutorial in the Xaraxone) I mentioned that it impossible to draw chrome. It is, really! Chrome (or polished brass, whatever) is nothing more than the reflection of the environment in which a shiny object is placed.

Therefore, your representation of the shakers in your image is short of the mark as they don't reflect anything. This is made more apparent with the observation that your brushed metal holder does have reflections.

I have added my version of your salt 'n pepper shakers to show you what I mean. It was designed and rendered in trueSpace. I have a picture of the inside of a kitchen which I used as a global environment, and placed the objects on a smoked glass table. There were two light sources, an ambient one and a diffused spotlight behind and to the left of the camera.

As you can see, the salt 'n pepper shakers have reflections mapped onto them of the environment, the holder and each other. This demonstrates that creating something that is intended to look like shiny metal needs to be thought out before one puts pen to paper, as the position of your object(s) will determine the shape, position and colour of the reflections, and it is the complex relationships between these factors that will eventually determine how well your drawing represents shiny metal.

Apologies if this sounds pompous and condescending. It's not meant to! One thing we don't like round here is pompous people - just ask Gary! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] The subject of 'chrome' is one that is often re-visited here and I hope the above explanation and the drawing below illustrate that this is not a black art and is perfectly possible for anybody with the patience to experiment.

This one's for everybody: use your eyes [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif[/img] , draw what you see and you will be well rewarded! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]

--
Big Frank was

[Big Frank]

I didn't see this thread for a while, but now that I have, I'd like to make few observations. I've started a new thread because the original was getting lost in etymology and I wanted to get back to Jens' original artwork.

Jens, whilst your illustration is a great work of Xart (and a great design... you should patent it! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img] ), there are a few observations I'd like to offer the forum regarding the representation of shiny metals such as your salt and pepper shakers. In a thread some while ago (or it may have been the guest tutorial in the Xaraxone) I mentioned that it impossible to draw chrome. It is, really! Chrome (or polished brass, whatever) is nothing more than the reflection of the environment in which a shiny object is placed.

Therefore, your representation of the shakers in your image is short of the mark as they don't reflect anything. This is made more apparent with the observation that your brushed metal holder does have reflections.

I have added my version of your salt 'n pepper shakers to show you what I mean. It was designed and rendered in trueSpace. I have a picture of the inside of a kitchen which I used as a global environment, and placed the objects on a smoked glass table. There were two light sources, an ambient one and a diffused spotlight behind and to the left of the camera.

As you can see, the salt 'n pepper shakers have reflections mapped onto them of the environment, the holder and each other. This demonstrates that creating something that is intended to look like shiny metal needs to be thought out before one puts pen to paper, as the position of your object(s) will determine the shape, position and colour of the reflections, and it is the complex relationships between these factors that will eventually determine how well your drawing represents shiny metal.

Apologies if this sounds pompous and condescending. It's not meant to! One thing we don't like round here is pompous people - just ask Gary! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] The subject of 'chrome' is one that is often re-visited here and I hope the above explanation and the drawing below illustrate that this is not a black art and is perfectly possible for anybody with the patience to experiment.

This one's for everybody: use your eyes [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif[/img] , draw what you see and you will be well rewarded! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]

--
Big Frank was

[gwpriester]

While I agree with your rendering Frank, it seems too busy with too many reflections.

Using Xara, how can you simplify the reflections to really make that gold and chrome really sing. (Wagner?)

Gary

Gary Priester

Moderator Person

Be It Rarely So Humble...

[Big Frank]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> While I agree with your rendering Frank, it seems too busy with too many reflections.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is only rendering what it sees...

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> how can you simplify the reflections to really make that gold and chrome really sing. (Wagner?) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Put the objects in an empty room. Tralaaaa! (FalsettoFrank) [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

But seriously, that really is the answer:

less clutter = cleaner reflected lines

However, this was Jens' original work and I would never presume to take somebody's work and re-work it unless the author specifically asked me to. We're not pompous round here, Gary, ask anybody! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif[/img]

[This message was edited by Big Frank on May 07, 2001 at 06:41 AM.]

[jens g.r. benthien]

Frank,

check this one - it's a raytraced picture in Cinema 4D XL.: salt and pepper in 3D


3D ** IS ** a different world. Raytracing and illustrations are two different universe.

jens

[Big Frank]

Jens, that is vastly superior to your first attempt. it really brings out the flavour of the reflections - that's just what I was talking about!

Now go out and patent that design and make loads of money! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

--
Big Frank was

[Klaus Nordby]

FABULOUS design, Jens!!! I want one on my table, send it ASAP!

But if you took that overly mechanical 3D-image - with still a bit too many and busy reflections - and redid it with Xara and your own mind, THEN you would have a piece which REALLY sings. AND you could show those 3D guys where it's really at!

K!

[This message was edited by Klaus Nordby on May 07, 2001 at 07:22 AM.]

[gwpriester]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Put the objects in an empty room. Tralaaaa! (FalsettoFrank) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is kind of the idea.

I always try to imagine how a professional photographer would light something like this.

Traditionally photographers who specialize in photographing silver or chrome type objects shoot in a dark studio and use white cards on either side of the lens to add highlights. If you look closely at a photo of siverware you can often see the camera lens in the center and sometimes even the photographer. Often they cheat, however and shoot through a hold cut in a piece of white foamcore.

Gary

Gary Priester

Moderator Person

Be It Rarely So Humble...

[jens g.r. benthien]

Frank,

I love the gold texture in your 3D raytracing ! It's absolutely fantastic.

OK, I placed my objects into an 'empty' room for my raytracing, just with a light cloudy sky as an environment. And I believe my brass looks more like brass than gold. Maybe we should swap textures :-)

Klaus,

you are right. I should use the 3D image and rebuild the XARA reflections, but just consider that the XARA version has been done BEFORE the 3D... and I don't want to waste too much time on it.

Yes, the idea behind is more important, and I wish I had the funds to send each one of you the real product! I am currently talking to a small manufacturer :-). And no, I won't be able to make millions of it, because it will definitely be in a high price segment of the market, and today everybody is looking for bargains...so I won't be able to close a deal on volume sales.

Gary,

I know too much about photography (unfortunately), and the process you explained is familiar to me. However, the biggest difference between photography and 3D is the way the 'rendering' or raytracing is performed. Raytracing follows the lightbeams from the camera backwards to the objects, while in photography the lightbeams come from the objects. Small difference, but great effect: place a prism on a table, send a lightbeam through it, and take a photograph. Bingo, you've got the many colors at the other side of the prism. In 3D the white light beam will NOT be split up into the basic colors at all - no way.

And to be honest: if this would have been an existing product, I'd rather made a photograph. But this is a non-existing product, so 3D is one of two ways to SHOW it to an audience / manufacturer.

For this reason I would never try to draw or model an orchid or plant or any natural object in 3D - we can't beat nature, and nature is so beautiful that only a photograph can capture the very beauty of that particular moment.

Illustration and CAD / 3D are only tools for me to develop products that don't exist. Or improve products. Just trying to illustrate an existing product wouldn't make sense to me - I would grab my 4x5 bellows camera and take a photograph. Much more fun than being glued to the screen for hours or days.

Anyway, have fun, and I appreciate your input! Thanks to all of you - and keep on posting - this topic is xtremely interesting and rewarding.

jens

[Big Frank]

...here's four versions of the same bunch of objects. The only thing I changed in all four was the environment the objects were placed in (the inset).

My point in raising this is that you draw beautiful chrome objects if you are aware of what it is they are reflecting, and the image below illustrates that the same objects can look very different depending upon the environment. I use 3D apps to help me visualise an object and other objects it interacts with if I don't actually have that object or environment to hand - but there is no substitite for using your eyes.

Klaus, you can witter on as much as you like about "you could show those 3D guys where it's really at" but I ain't biting that hook! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

--
Big Frank was