[mverta]

Brett -

I must've gotten wordy, because I think my point got muddled. So here it is in brief: Non-real renders are fine, but not what Maxwell was designed for. Because pre-(and post, actually) Maxwell, all other engines produce inherently fake images that require post to correct, it's best to first explore/master getting the new world of realism Maxwell was designed for, before posting to compensate. It's not essential anymore.

So it's only an either/or discussion about realism because unreal renders are what 99.9% of other engines are for The goal of the Maxwell engine has always been to provide photorealism, which we just can't yet take for granted.


That being said, it sounds like it's a thread more about "what's an interesting image," irrespective of Maxwell. Which is why it's appropriately in Off-Topic, I guess. But it seems to me that once photorealism is out, then all bets are off. Just post VRay renders and discuss...

_Mike

P.S., Civil, informative and productive threads have about 3 days shelf life on this forum. You'd be better off discussing things intelligently somewhere else. Trust me on that one.

[Mike Scola]

Yeah, I guess were all looking for something that simulates reality so that we can take that reality and twist it into our own vision of what reality should be.

[KRZ]

my renders are the best...why? simply most of you try to define something there they don't know enough about. its exactly the same with the saying "i know that i don't know anything". im sure no one of us would have said that as a child. we knew what we got told and understood in a practical sense. once you get a bigger picture theres no certainty anymore and things become political.

i would say that you try to define "visual cg advantgarde2007" based on what we had before. but don't confuse that with a concept of "true beauty" or "good pictures". things like that don't exist and if then just to boost our egos, build walls or raise some stock.

just follow your personal inner feeling and get rewarded by materializing your dreams like a alchemist, just don't expect praise because no one truly shares the life you life...and all the praise or criticism you get is pretty much worthless in a artists view. they are just sheep...not artistes. "your categories will never completely be mine"

[mverta]

and all the praise or criticism you get is pretty much worthless in a artists view. they are just sheep...not artistes.

Interesting; it's exactly 180 degrees opposite my philosophy. I was born with some amount of artistic ability. Art transforms the human experience for everyone, and meaningful works become part of the very definition of their lives.

So I don't create art just for me, which is self-absorbed and masturbatory. I create it for everyone else. Poetry, it is said, is not for those who write it, but for those who need it. Sitting around listening to my music all day basking in the glory of how great I am is about as pointless and depressing an idea as I can muster. So the opinions of those who would or would not be affected by my work is not only important, it's all-important. Sheep? Okay... the sheep who give my life purpose and pay my bills, to boot. To waste such a contributory gift on oneself instead of others, in my view, is the ultimate karmic crime. This, "I'm superior because I'm an artist" stuff gives me the creeps.

_Mike

[w i l l]

karmic crime

dark.

[w i l l]

I personally haven't seen an inherently flawed CG render made photoreal by post

Ha ha, you haven't seen the works of Scott Robertson then.

[Leonardo]

...I don't create art just for me, which is self-absorbed and masturbatory....

_Mike

I'm so glad you share with us some of your "masturbatory" material.... it's pretty good!

[mverta]

You mean R2? That's also work for hire

_Mike

[Leonardo]

R2D2 is def a good example!
it sure it looks like you have put a lot more time in texturing it

I personaly like the x-win too

[Micha]

It is much, much easier to make your productshot photoreal as a fully cramped 400m² apartment with exterior view.

I'm not really agree with this statement. Have you ever tried to make a product shot looking photoreal...it's really a pain...well, for me! ....[/url]

I know the pain too.

And than the client like to get a visualisation of a product with black&white plastic and rubber only ... in a white studio environment ... without to much DOF effect .... and photoreal must it be.
You can work many hours to get all together - a reflex at the important edges, no burn out of the reflections, right look of the materials, no boring look of the lights and shadows ... do somebody know a good book about product photography?