Why you use so many “!!!???” marks, without clarifying anything of substance? Your opinion is clear, but it does not offer specific critique points at all! Don’t confuse readers!
I know that it is American Football. I have the same question to you. What “realistic” do you see at the image? For me “realistic” means that it is close to foto, or to the frame from the movie. This picture is a good looking frame from the cartoon, but not the frame of the movie, or a photo.
Answer with specifics. What causes the illusion to fall apart and be specific… is the bumpmap too deep, too shallow, incorrectly shaped, is it the lighting that is the issue, the specularity, specifics please or all we have is your opinion to go on. Opinions alone are not useful critiques, because opinions alone don’t give sufficient information for identifying and fixing the issue. There are oil-and-canvas paintings that are called “photorealistic era” and even they don’t look as good as this. So be specific… if you did the modeling, texturing and lighting for this football, what areas need attention and how would you fix them in Blender? Make specific recommendations and tell us what tools and setting you would use. Otherwise, you’re just saying “I want it to look more better than I think it looks”, and that is of no help at all.
The critique has not to be only specific. I don’t care about why this image doesn’t look realistic, and I don’t want to spend much time to explain to you, or anybody else what you need to do to fix it. I only mentioned that it is not correctly to use word “Realistic” in this case.
I am not talking about the tutorial itself. The tutorial is good, but it is not about how to create a “realistic” result.
If you think that this image looks photoreal from your point of view, or like a frame from the movie, than no problem. Keep staying on this stage of experience and keep lying to yourself and the author.
chromemonkey
“Lying” and “inexperienced?”
Really?
Well then, if you really want to pull rank:
Here is a link to a painting by John Baeder as it appeared on displayed at the Masur Museum of Art. It is oil on canvas. Regardless of how *you* think it should be “properly” described, the art world categorizes it as photorealism. So which of us do you think has the problem with lack of experience or being deceitful?
You’ve made it clear that, apart from pronouncing your own opinion, you have no wish to make your specifics understood, so good day. Maybe the next person can figure you out.
(Hint: “realistic” has broader meanings than “indistinguishable from a photograph”, something you refuse to recognize.)
Agreed – rule of thumb for tutorial authors, never put “realistic” in the title. I’ve done it many times myself, but looking back at my tuts, they’re *obviously* far from realistic.
But you have to admit, that’s a pretty sweet render ;) far better than most tutorials about “realism”
Thanks Greg. When I stat “realistic” I’m not claiming that my full render is necessary photo realistic, but that I cover all the basics to give the Football a realistic shape/material, and if this Model was composited with a real photo, I believe it would look very convincing. Thanks for the tips though.
It’s as photorealistic as many paintings of the “photorealism” era in brush-and-canvas work ever were, so I think the complaint was silly to begin with. It’s fine as it is.
Maybe the author meant realistic model? It’s not like the model is a stylized football. Or perhaps there is a difference between realistic and photo-realistic?
I actually have never done a study on the photorealism era. That’s why I love the Blender community because chances are that someone such as yourself has studied it and is more than willing to share that knowledge. Thank you for fleshing that out for me a bit. Cheers.
Why you call this tutorial “Realistic”!!!??? It is a good tutorial, but it is not realistic at all! Don’t confuse artists.
Why you use so many “!!!???” marks, without clarifying anything of substance? Your opinion is clear, but it does not offer specific critique points at all! Don’t confuse readers!
It’s an American Football, not a soccer ball. Looks pretty realistic to me. What’s *not* realistic about this?
I know that it is American Football. I have the same question to you. What “realistic” do you see at the image? For me “realistic” means that it is close to foto, or to the frame from the movie. This picture is a good looking frame from the cartoon, but not the frame of the movie, or a photo.
Answer with specifics. What causes the illusion to fall apart and be specific… is the bumpmap too deep, too shallow, incorrectly shaped, is it the lighting that is the issue, the specularity, specifics please or all we have is your opinion to go on. Opinions alone are not useful critiques, because opinions alone don’t give sufficient information for identifying and fixing the issue. There are oil-and-canvas paintings that are called “photorealistic era” and even they don’t look as good as this. So be specific… if you did the modeling, texturing and lighting for this football, what areas need attention and how would you fix them in Blender? Make specific recommendations and tell us what tools and setting you would use. Otherwise, you’re just saying “I want it to look more better than I think it looks”, and that is of no help at all.
The critique has not to be only specific. I don’t care about why this image doesn’t look realistic, and I don’t want to spend much time to explain to you, or anybody else what you need to do to fix it. I only mentioned that it is not correctly to use word “Realistic” in this case.
I am not talking about the tutorial itself. The tutorial is good, but it is not about how to create a “realistic” result.
If you think that this image looks photoreal from your point of view, or like a frame from the movie, than no problem. Keep staying on this stage of experience and keep lying to yourself and the author.
“Lying” and “inexperienced?”
Really?
Well then, if you really want to pull rank:
Here is a link to a painting by John Baeder as it appeared on displayed at the Masur Museum of Art. It is oil on canvas. Regardless of how *you* think it should be “properly” described, the art world categorizes it as photorealism. So which of us do you think has the problem with lack of experience or being deceitful?
You’ve made it clear that, apart from pronouncing your own opinion, you have no wish to make your specifics understood, so good day. Maybe the next person can figure you out.
(Hint: “realistic” has broader meanings than “indistinguishable from a photograph”, something you refuse to recognize.)
http://artstormer.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/johns-diner-001.jpg
Agreed – rule of thumb for tutorial authors, never put “realistic” in the title. I’ve done it many times myself, but looking back at my tuts, they’re *obviously* far from realistic.
But you have to admit, that’s a pretty sweet render ;) far better than most tutorials about “realism”
Thanks Greg. When I stat “realistic” I’m not claiming that my full render is necessary photo realistic, but that I cover all the basics to give the Football a realistic shape/material, and if this Model was composited with a real photo, I believe it would look very convincing. Thanks for the tips though.
It’s as photorealistic as many paintings of the “photorealism” era in brush-and-canvas work ever were, so I think the complaint was silly to begin with. It’s fine as it is.
Maybe the author meant realistic model? It’s not like the model is a stylized football. Or perhaps there is a difference between realistic and photo-realistic?
Ever study the photorealism era in oil and canvas paintings?
I actually have never done a study on the photorealism era. That’s why I love the Blender community because chances are that someone such as yourself has studied it and is more than willing to share that knowledge. Thank you for fleshing that out for me a bit. Cheers.