Photorealistic question

[STRAT]

lol. ur right Fran. talk about tangents in a post. mind you, we always seam to do this

[Susan]

I've watched these discussions with interest. Indeed Fran is correct, the discussion is not about whether one "likes" or dislikes photorealism. It's about techniques to make it better.

 

There really should be no schism between the traditional method of making images and the newest medium, the digital one. There is a very reich history in the development of how to make an engaging and convincing image that goes back well over 1000 years. Each generatin built, in baby steps, on the knowledge of the previous generation. Those who come to work in digital media from this background are fortunate to have this knoweledge and employ it in their work, to their advantage.

 

I have read over and over again in forums such as these where people comment that anyone can learn to put together a digital image but not are all equally adept. Right here I have seen been wishing that they had more of a traditional art background.

 

 

Some talented individuals are able to produce digital work of extraordianry impact without having the "background". They are naturals and they are rare. In looking at some of the work in the Finished Work Fourm, I see exactly the sort of work that causes me problems with Photorealism and the critiques do not really address that which is missing. They have a childlike, naive look. The colors are invariably of very high chroma, too blue skies, too too everything. Trees that were definitely originally photographed up close are placed into the background relying on the diminution of size to make them look convincingly distant. There is no sophisticated interplay of light against dark, interesting lighting, varitey of texture and so on.

 

Clearly there are people doing this work that have learned the software very well and are adpet at creating the image and even put together a well balanced composition. But somehwere on the learning curve they have not been taught or haven't discerned those very "canons' of image making that our forbears learned so painfully. I know many CG Illustrators have learned them because there are many compelling images out there.

 

Those guidlines regarding depth of field, focus, atmpspheric perspective all apply in a digital image as well as a traditional image. Our eye can take in a 24"x30" image all as one yet this image is intended to represent what we would see on a far larger scale. If we wish to fool the eye convcingly, we need to take into account the question of "focus". Besides, as a "marketing" tool, the image should be very directed. If your client doesn't call for such expertise, certainly you can improve for your own sake and in so doing you may find a better client.

 

To sum up. Photorealistic digital techniques are just part of the continuum of learning to make images. Photorealistic image makers can benefit by employing all of the knowledge that has preceded them.

[Fermi Bertran]

...

To sum up. Photorealistic digital techniques are just part of the continuum of learning to make images. Photorealistic image makers can benefit by employing all of the knowledge that has preceded them.

 

If we change "photorealistic digital techniques" by Computer Graphics, I totally agree with you, tools are just tools, and supports are just that; supports, be them oil on canvas, watecolor on paper or pixels on a screen. Skill, craftmanship or talent is something different, and we are stupid if we don't learn from history.

[Sawyer]

Actually Susan I agree with you. I personally would love to see someone (like yourself with a traditional background) contribute tutorials to this site. My art background is pretty far behind me & I would love to have a refresher on composition and color choosing. I would also appreciate c & c in these arenas often adjusting a line of site is as important as a gi tweak.

 

Something that always comes to my mind is that if we only stive to do photreal work we will be limited to the content that we do (ugly building ugly rendering) but if we do take our work further than just photoreal it (our work) will look good regardless.

 

Not trying to put you on the spot Susan.

[Susan]

Talk is cheap, huh? Actually, my own work doesn't meet my expectations/standards so it is difficult to put myself in the postiiton of a pedagogue.

For me, it is much easier to spot a problem on a tangible work and then critique it than it is to teach the generalities. The truth is I even have trouble with that. I prefer to make a general comment rather than hurt someone's feelings or butt heads with someone in a difference of opinion. Even with the very general comment that it would be nice to see better use of atmospheric perspective, I've managed to raise the hackles of some.

 

I think someone like Ernest Burden (III) would be the best person for this as he has his feet firmly planted in both worlds.