[Maxer]

Your right and I'm not trying to say that everyone is going to be able to do this. I think as time passes and as newer versions of Maxwell are created that are even more powerful and easier to use were going to slowly but surely move to that one button renderer that everyone is afraid of. I don’t know if this would ever completely replace the 3D artist, but it will be good enough for like 95% of the industry.

[deesee]

Maxwell can't do proper lighting for you. In fact, it is quite blunt in telling you when your lighting setup sucks. There are many examples of work in this forum that demonstrate how bad a Maxwell render can be with poor lighting. Lighting plays a major part in a render's realism. However, you also can't have good illumination with poor materials or by whacking out the camera to try to make up for bad lighting.

Damn skippy!! My living room renders are proof that MW won't do the work for you. I'm quickly coming to the realization that I need to learn some photography and lighting basics to take my work to the next level. I had no understanding of f-stops, etc. until I started using Maxwell. Materials are a challenge too.

[stonelli]

Damn skippy!! My living room renders are proof that MW won't do the work for you. I'm quickly coming to the realization that I need to learn some photography and lighting basics to take my work to the next level. I had no understanding of f-stops, etc. until I started using Maxwell. Materials are a challenge too.

That brings up the point that it would be even nicer if MW emulated dumb cameras, as well, and gave us the ability to set the exposure meter to automatic, with time or aperture overrides
I wonder whether the guys at NL have thought of that.

[giacob]

good point... photrealism is the starting naive goal of whom are discovering of a means of expression ( cg ) that isnt matured yet

[Maxer]

So now it's naive to want to produce photorealistic images?

Why isn't it naive to want to produce non photorealistic imagery?

[DELETED]

DELETED

[giacob]

is naive (just a bit though) to say: how good is this image is so photrealisyic... imo photorealism is not the meter on which esthetic level of an image must mesured....
in itself count not much... which count is composition, lighiting balance of color, inmagination, etc , wath make the render good is not just photorealism....
pthorealism is antithod against accademia....... looking at things as they are and not as we think they are, by convention, tradition, etc
but is just a step
among the greatest architect render u see rarely photorealistic imagines... rnedering in the best cases is conceptual is not just taking a picture, not just photorealism

[Maxer]

Yes, Yes I know, I've read many a post on how the computer will never replace the artist. Although I agree somewhat with that I also know how clients and employers are, and to a vast majority of them it's all about money.