Comments: 24
akulla3D [2008-03-18 12:41:47 +0000 UTC]
It was worth the effort nice job.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
De3pBl4ck In reply to Tenebere [2008-03-17 13:47:41 +0000 UTC]
Thank you!
And yeah, specific lighting schemes, reflections, and camera focus tend to add to render times.
As does staging with these additional tools and techniques.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Tenebere In reply to De3pBl4ck [2008-03-17 19:14:39 +0000 UTC]
your welcome.
upon closer examination i notice pokethrough on the socks, and a possible lack of underwear. also curious if the painting was done as a seperate render.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
De3pBl4ck In reply to Tenebere [2008-03-17 20:39:01 +0000 UTC]
For one, the shearing in the socks was not something I could correct while in DAZ.
I may need to touch it up later in postwork.
And she has underwear, but the shadows and some shearing around her left leg make it seem somewhat ubiquitous.
May need to work on that in postwork, too.
The painting is actually something that was part of the bedroom set I have.
Methinks that is a resized render of another's work.
It's looks pretty damn good, but I would eventually like to replace it with something else.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Tenebere In reply to De3pBl4ck [2008-03-18 05:07:10 +0000 UTC]
thank you for your elucidating notes.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
De3pBl4ck In reply to Tenebere [2008-03-18 13:55:18 +0000 UTC]
Elucidating?
That's a new one.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
ken1171 In reply to De3pBl4ck [2008-03-15 21:56:56 +0000 UTC]
With real-world cameras, only the very expensive models can shoot depth of field effects, but in Poser it's just another checkbox. ^^
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
ken1171 In reply to De3pBl4ck [2008-03-17 20:59:28 +0000 UTC]
That feature alone can double the price of a real camera. ^^
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
De3pBl4ck In reply to ken1171 [2008-03-17 21:20:53 +0000 UTC]
No doubt!
Especially if it's digital camera.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
ken1171 In reply to De3pBl4ck [2008-03-17 21:31:55 +0000 UTC]
They are mostly digital nowadays, even with some professional photographers I have seen here. ^^
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
De3pBl4ck In reply to ken1171 [2008-03-17 21:34:50 +0000 UTC]
Yea, verily.
Analog photos seem to be dying out.
But then again, this has been said before of analog photography, and yet it still survives.
As does print.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
ken1171 In reply to De3pBl4ck [2008-03-17 21:43:16 +0000 UTC]
Considering that image resolution is fixed with digital cameras, analog ones will still be needed for larger size photography. A problem with digital resolutions is that anything larger than 6MP will start adding more and more digital noise to the picture. Most modern cameras include automatic filters to help reducing the noise, but they also kill image quality by adding blur to smaller details. Analog cameras have *none* of such problems, especially in low light conditions. ^^
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
De3pBl4ck In reply to ken1171 [2008-03-17 21:47:41 +0000 UTC]
Yea, verily.
Thusly, analog is not quite dead yet.
Just being pushed around by a more aggressive species of numbskull.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1