IC Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 http://www.spinquad.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15290&page=1&pp=15 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 can you find an open gallery? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IC Posted November 9, 2006 Author Share Posted November 9, 2006 Sorry I forgot you can't view there without registering. Can't find a gallery but here is some of the work posted. The artist's details are on the images.(His exteriors are actually better.) **I am not claiming this work as mine** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricardo Eloy Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 These samples look nice. I wouldn't say stunning, but they're very good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hao La Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 well, they look "normal" to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic H Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 average and grainy. definately not stunning. the bed looks very good other than that.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJLynn Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 I agree, they're quite good but I wouldnt say "stunning". The bed is great (is it Evermtion?) and there's a really good quality of realism I can't quite put my finger on. I don't like what the light next to the bed is doing and I think the glow under the sinks is either a GI error or a misguided fill light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IC Posted November 10, 2006 Author Share Posted November 10, 2006 Here's two of the exteriors. Maybe I just have lower standards than all of you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Msamir Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 The second exterior image is very nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IC Posted November 10, 2006 Author Share Posted November 10, 2006 I probably did him a disservice by just posting the interiors as it was the exteriors that really impressed me. The main reason I posted this however was to highlight the fact that there are people out there doing great work with software other than Max, VRay and Maxwell. I think a lot of LightWave users on this site feel pressure to switch software because they don't see artists like this get any exposure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kippu Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 exteriors are looking sweet ... but whats the software gotta do with anything, as long as you reach a comfort zone with one set of tools ,,i guess the work gets better after that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 His watermarks aren't doing him any favours. Why spend all that time doing an image and then slap a crappy italic font in the middle of it all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IC Posted November 10, 2006 Author Share Posted November 10, 2006 exteriors are looking sweet ... but whats the software gotta do with anything, as long as you reach a comfort zone with one set of tools ,,i guess the work gets better after that I think you've misunderstood my last post. People are of the general misconception that LightWave should not be used for architectural work. Software shouldn't matter but look at all the mentions of software on this site, Max/VRay and not much else. So a lot of LW users are understandably disheartened. That was what I was trying to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richyrich Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 iain i understand you totally.................for straight lightwave renders these are quite amazing................. unless you use lightwave day in day out other people will not see anything special with these images...........vray can churn out images like this but cleaner without much difficulty but as lightwave user's know it takes alot of skill to achieve this amount of quality.................. from a lightwave point of view, stunning work................. richardo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilky9 Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 iain i understand you totally.................for straight lightwave renders these are quite amazing................. unless you use lightwave day in day out other people will not see anything special with these images...........vray can churn out images like this but cleaner without much difficulty but as lightwave user's know it takes alot of skill to achieve this amount of quality.................. from a lightwave point of view, stunning work................. richardo I'd say stunning work from ANY point of view. I admit to being one of those who has yearned for the MAX/Vray combo, or at least the user base and large number of tutorials available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manta Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 iain i understand you totally.................for straight lightwave renders these are quite amazing................. unless you use lightwave day in day out other people will not see anything special with these images...........vray can churn out images like this but cleaner without much difficulty but as lightwave user's know it takes alot of skill to achieve this amount of quality.................. from a lightwave point of view, stunning work................. richardo I've always been quite impressed by lightwave, however I could never get my head around it.... Is it really that hard to get a great render out of ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IC Posted November 11, 2006 Author Share Posted November 11, 2006 It's not hard to get great results from LightWave, but in recent years render engines have appeared for other platforms that leave the inbuilt LW one behind and external options for LW are limited. (Basically you can't use VRay with it.) FPrime changed things a great deal speed-wise and of course Maxwell has a LW plug in but in our line of work, there is still shortcomings in what is a great but dated application. Kray looks set to change that however but its been a while coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IC Posted November 15, 2006 Author Share Posted November 15, 2006 Another couple of extracts from Sylvain....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STRAT Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 These samples look nice. I wouldn't say stunning, but they're very good. i must admit, i got similar comments. all this work it's very nice, but certainly nothing jaw dropping or amazing. but then, it's all personal taste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IC Posted November 15, 2006 Author Share Posted November 15, 2006 ........but then, it's all personal taste. Well of course, and for LW users who aspire to VRay quality without switching to Max (and while waiting on KRay to reach its full potential) they will be viewed totally differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilky9 Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 I'm going to go ahead and say that I am amazed at the quality of this guy's work. If it was just one image, then maybe it would just be above average. But his results and style are consistent throughout his work, which is a sign of a truely skilled artist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkletzien Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 I got hooked in with the thread title - but if we're defining what constitutes an artist...I would say that for me an artist is gonna be able to distill and convey an emotional aspect of the subject to the viewer. These are OK, but they don't work for me on that level. So if I was a diving, or ice skating judge: Artistic Merit: 3 Level of difficulty: 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IC Posted November 17, 2006 Author Share Posted November 17, 2006 if we're defining what constitutes an artist...I would say that for me an artist is gonna be able to distill and convey an emotional aspect of the subject to the viewer. I'm not sure I agree with that definition, especially if you're talking about architectural or product illustration. Not much emotion to be found in most of the work in either of those sectors but we're still regarded (and regard ourselves) as artists. From wikipedia: art·ist (ärtst) n. 1. One, such as a painter, sculptor, or writer, who is able by virtue of imagination and talent or skill to create works of aesthetic value, especially in the fine arts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkletzien Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 I can go change their defintion if you want.. Using that definition I guess my question would be what's the difference between a craftsman and an artist ? Certainly we come to terms with the word independently but their definition is pretty broad. As far as emotion goes, I'm not talking abstract expressionism, but I do believe that any commercial artist worth their salt looks to the subject to alter how they might alter the environment/techniques/palette to bring more of its qualities to light. Maybe it is there, but I don't see it in the pieces we're discussing. But I'm wrong all the time just ask my wife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STRAT Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 i've argued the toss over the definitian of artist before in other 3d forums and no conclusion was met. the term is pretty open ended and up to you. some felt too humble to call themselves artists and felt it too pretentious to use the term lightly, whilst others would draw a simple line and consider themselves artists. personally, i feel i land somewhere in the middle. if i produce a visual peice of material that's of any use or merit in the office i consider it art. good or bad. the first description in my dictionary i found was - Artist - a person who produces works in any of the arts that are primarily subject to aesthetic criteria. sorry Iain, kind of wondered off topic a bit there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now