HOME | DD

Elle-Arden In reply to Tarpeia3D [2016-07-30 17:01:42 +0000 UTC]

Thanks!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Elle-Arden In reply to Kachinadoll [2011-09-09 19:48:34 +0000 UTC]

Thanks! I think the texture is Venus from Renderosity and I'm pretty sure I used the eyes that came with her.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Kachinadoll In reply to Elle-Arden [2011-09-09 22:24:26 +0000 UTC]

Your welcome! It really turned out awesome! Very realistic! Great job!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Elle-Arden In reply to Elchanan [2011-08-01 23:16:24 +0000 UTC]

Aww thanks! Lovely feature!!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Elchanan In reply to Elle-Arden [2011-08-03 01:25:25 +0000 UTC]

You are welcome!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Elle-Arden In reply to Elchanan [2011-07-30 22:41:02 +0000 UTC]

Thanks!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Elchanan In reply to Elle-Arden [2011-08-01 04:25:40 +0000 UTC]

You are welcome!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Elle-Arden In reply to brokenrose80 [2011-07-30 22:45:52 +0000 UTC]

Plus I have to change her eyes. Mine are more green with no blue in them, but some gold/brown instead.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

brokenrose80 In reply to Elle-Arden [2011-07-31 15:20:57 +0000 UTC]

so yours more hazel...still very pretty

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Elle-Arden In reply to brokenrose80 [2011-07-31 21:13:18 +0000 UTC]

Thank you!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Elle-Arden In reply to brokenrose80 [2011-07-30 22:41:57 +0000 UTC]

Thanks, I am not convinced it looks that much like me LOL! But my husband and daughter say it so I guess they would know. That's not what I see in the mirror, but that's how it goes.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

brokenrose80 In reply to Elle-Arden [2011-07-31 15:20:23 +0000 UTC]

yeah people see me differetn fro what i see int eh mirror too..but not in a good way unfortunately....oh well...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Elle-Arden In reply to brokenrose80 [2011-07-31 21:14:06 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Elle-Arden In reply to kitiekat4U [2011-07-30 22:42:05 +0000 UTC]

Thank you so much!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Elle-Arden In reply to Raina-Hopkins [2011-07-29 23:05:10 +0000 UTC]

Thanks! I answered on Gary's comment but if you need me to clarify anything feel free to ask. It was kind of speedy. Because the pizza is on it's way!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Raina-Hopkins In reply to Elle-Arden [2011-07-29 23:06:40 +0000 UTC]

Awww, now I'm jealous...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Elle-Arden In reply to Raina-Hopkins [2011-07-30 00:09:14 +0000 UTC]

YUM!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Elle-Arden In reply to capn-gary [2011-07-29 23:01:44 +0000 UTC]

Oh you are so sweet. Thanks! The focal distance was super easy. I duplicated the layer (once I had all the other stuff done) and put a gaussian blur on the second layer, I think it was about 20. I don't remember, but I adjusted it until the part I wanted blurry looked good. Then I used a layer mask with a round gradient to make it gradual. This is in PS, I think you can do similar things in PSP, but I don't know exactly myself. If any part of it didn't make sense let me know and I will explain better. That was kind of a fast overview.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

capn-gary In reply to Elle-Arden [2011-07-29 23:36:23 +0000 UTC]

I know you can do layers in PSP, because any time you add alphanumerics, they're a separate layer that you have to merge. I'll give what you were talking about a try... I think I can figure that out. Certainly it's possible in GIMP (which I think is really PSP 11 or 12 )

I thought maybe you'd figured out the secret of doing it in Studio...

Reality has a much easier to use FOV. You just highlight the character you want to be in focus before you go to Reality/Lux, and then set the f:stop. The default is f:1.4 Reality makes a lot of sense to me because I played with SLR cameras and burned the gods alone knows how many thousands of feet of film. (I bought my film in 500 foot rolls and put it in cartridges myself.)

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Elle-Arden In reply to capn-gary [2011-07-30 00:08:42 +0000 UTC]

Yeah I think Reality would be fun to play with once I ever get it working. I have tried the DOF in Daz and it always came out terrible. I have an easier time with Poser because it's like a camera and it seems to work more like it's supposed to. I just started doing it with PS because it takes like 5 seconds.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

capn-gary In reply to Elle-Arden [2011-07-30 01:24:02 +0000 UTC]

LOL...
I have another really weird Lux render going right now. Since we're doing water...

My luck with water planes hasn't been wonderful just yet. However, I'd never tried 'taking a picture' of an aquarium. So I've put my two fish in a nice big aquarium, tinkered some lights, and put the whole thing 'in the oven'.



I have a low-end Canon digital SLR camera that I'm still learning how to drive. Sigh. I'm going to hit the electronics shop tomorrow and see if I can find a really, really fast SD memory card. The one I have is slower than a seven year itch, which makes taking multiple pictures of something that's moving impossible, and difficult to even catch a 'panned' shot of a moving object. I took it to the airshow recently. What a waste of time. Fortunately, I was only a mile from home, so I came home and dug out my ancient Minolta SRT-101 SLR camera 4 rolls of film and went back--got there in time to catch a few good pix, anyway. And the Minolta always works. Every time. Plus I have a ton of lenses for it. 35, 50, 55, 90, 120, 200 and a couple of zooms. My 50mm is an honest f:1.1. I picked it up most of my lenses at a pawn shop that was right next door to a casino in Vegas. My Nikon has a problem. The shutter is sticky, and I really don't want to spend 125 bucks getting it looked at--let alone fixed. So for now I'm out of the Nikon business.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Elle-Arden In reply to capn-gary [2011-07-31 00:36:47 +0000 UTC]

I like the aquarium. I've never thought of that. I have a mermaid render that may or may not make it in time for the feature. I tried it with Lux and CRASH so I rendered a couple versions in Daz and I'm not happy with it. Maybe I can get it open in Poser and have a go at it. I'm really trying to push the reality of the water on her skin and it's really not working out like I want. Oh well. Maybe when Isabella is grown up, lol.

I have a Minolta slr also and always loved it. I don't use it anymore but I still have it. I am saving for a Nikon digital slr, but my main camera now is a Panasonic point and shoot, that actually I really love. I get some nice shots with that that I might not get even with an SLR because it fits in my purse. It's always there and it's fast to whip it out. But it has it's limits in low light. Way too much noise. Oh well. I would use my Minolta occasionally but it has a green fog on part of it, someone said it was mold inside the camera somewhere. I didn't want to pay to fix it because I was planning on the digital anyway. Oh well.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

capn-gary In reply to Elle-Arden [2011-07-31 01:03:47 +0000 UTC]

Cameras can get moldy just like anything else, I reckon. I wouldn't expect it in the camera body, though. Most molds need warmth and moisture to grow. Certainly I wouldn't expect inside a lens. Maybe on the outside, and that can be cleaned. Just don't use bleach, or you'll ruin the coatings. A lens cleaning kit might be order...

The truth is, you can find all the SLR film cameras you want--cheap--in the pawnshops. Especially right now. The big pawn shop in St. Augustine must have 2 dozen good cameras. I haven't really looked at them recently...maybe I'll go see if they have a Nikon F...

A friend's daughter has a professional model Nikon digital, and it's amazing, but it's just as heavy as the old Nikon F. Maybe a big heavier. She uses it primarily in her studio. (She does kiddie pictures & doggie portraits at home). I'm not sure what she uses when she's doing weddings. I know she's got an ancient 120mm film camera she likes to use for the real wedding portraits. And when she really wants good pix, I gave her my even more ancient 4x5 SpeedGraphic. She laughed at it until the first time she used it...It's hard to laugh at a 4x5 inch piece of Kodacolor ASA 64 film. You can blow those up into wall murals and not see the grain

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Elle-Arden In reply to capn-gary [2011-07-31 21:17:35 +0000 UTC]

We lived on the East Coast when I used that one and there was always mold on everything so I just assumed that's what it was. The Nikon's are pretty heavy but I like they way the feel. I have played around with a couple Canon's and they never impressed me. But I haven't actually bought one yet so until I do I guess it's wide open.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

capn-gary In reply to Elle-Arden [2011-07-31 21:22:28 +0000 UTC]

The reason I went for Canon was that it was the most bang for the buck--at that time. I also liked the shape and so forth. It looks like a compact SLR, and you can actually get a hand on it and hold it. The little ones that are the size of a 3x5 card and a 1/4 inch thick just aren't comfortable to me. Besides...I like looking through the 'real' lens and not through something being generated by the electronics.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Raina-Hopkins In reply to Elle-Arden [2011-07-29 23:09:34 +0000 UTC]

The only thing I need to ask is about the layer mask...I'm a noob where masks are concerned. How did you set it up so that only the lower part ended up blurred?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Elle-Arden In reply to Raina-Hopkins [2011-07-30 00:07:16 +0000 UTC]

I did a hide all layer mask. And then I used the gradient tool (on the layer mask) with a black to white gradient, and then the circle shape selected, and I just kept playing with the mask until it looked good. It's really quick and easy once you do it a time or two. Let me see if I can hunt up a tutorial on it, it's easier with the screen shots so you can see it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Raina-Hopkins In reply to Elle-Arden [2011-07-30 22:56:10 +0000 UTC]

Cool, thanks very much...I really need to start practising with masks.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Elle-Arden In reply to Raina-Hopkins [2011-07-31 00:38:14 +0000 UTC]

Yeah you can do a lot of really cool things with them. I use masks on almost every picture I do now whether it's a photo edit for a client, a logo design, or a render. You can do almost anything you can imagine. I'm sure I am hardly scraping the surface.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0