Photo realistic CG and photography merging/crossing over

[dynamike]

Originally Posted by c_canade'

dynamike - okay, what ever you say...

Here's the original you idiot



http://www.elcaballero.it/fotografie...te_1996_07.jpg

[gregkdavis]

CGI imagery will be the wave of the future as computer costs come down and processing chips get faster. I've been doing this off and on since the 70's. Recently took a sabbatical from photography (approx 18 months) to get my 3-D skills down. By integrating it with photography, I now have mastery over light and enviroment. No one knows the difference
and I like to keep it that way.

Each medium has it's advantages and disadvantages. Still lifes in advertising are quickly
using CGI as their medium of choice ( especially in Europe).
And other countries and moving quickly towards the digital realm as well.

The only difference, you cannot shake hands with a virtual model in the "real world."

[JaysonFromMaine]

to me there is nothing realistic about these images..thay are based on real images yes...but thay are in no way realistic...thay are obvious heavy digitalized reproductions of said art... The concept of photorealistic should make the Viewer beleave upon the most casual glance that it is a REAL untouched PHOTOGraph even if its in fact an oil painting ( yes there are some painters that good.. )

Personally I think there is some copyright theft going on here....I know I have seen the image of Ms. Jolie before .....

[JaysonFromMaine]

Thats the key phrase... "No one knows the difference"

Originally Posted by gregkdavis

No one knows the difference
and I like to keep it that way.

[gregkdavis]

Thanks Jayson-
I read and watch several forums from various mediums and it's interesting how
many people just sit and toss rocks at others, in the meanwhile, not really getting much
done. CGI is just another tool to get the job accomplished.

Just as there are great photographers, there are great artist who can mimick their work.
and here lies the difference. Those artist have an edge. They are able to recreate then
use their abilities to mimic real world objects - and from there, create more original
works because their ability to match the minds eye becomes more pronounced.

I have worked with some of the best from all over the world, and these guys are so
good, you would not know a photo from a CGI image. Combine the two and the
sky is the limit.

People watch movies and T.V. shows and have no idea how much CGI goes into
even the most mundane imagery. The key is to make it appear seamless.

As I have upgraded my art and photography skills and equipment, I decided to go
ahead and upgrade myself. Lost approx 100 pounds, throw out old clothes, get rid
of most things I consider junk and just get myself lean and mean.

All these things take discipline, time, practice, and the willingness to persue
excellence relentlessly.

I hope to begin posting images next year as I slowly reveal the things I've learned
over the years-- but one thing I have learned, I don't necessarily point out what is what.
An image should always be able to stand on it's own.

[gregkdavis]

Hello Mike-
I think the point is that, there are artist out there who can take a 2-D likeness and
wireframe it to a 3-D object. This is an incredible skill. The person must not only
know his software, but also, lighting, anatomy, shading ( an advanced way of saying
coloring), and rendering. Every thing that a photograher has to know, a CGI artist/
illustrator has to know it better.

Photography can make a CGI artist understand lighting, and CGI can help a photographer
understand previsualization techniques to elevate his work with minimal expense.

[JaysonFromMaine]

My causen Matt had a degree in fine art and a degree in computer animation...i've watched create a UFO in the middle of a field of flowers using nothing but his smudge tool back when he just used photoshop3.... now he can play with soft ware like 3D MAX that makes photoshop look like a childrens toy....its kinda scary..lol

Originally Posted by gregkdavis

Thanks Jayson-
I read and watch several forums from various mediums and it's interesting how
many people just sit and toss rocks at others, in the meanwhile, not really getting much
done. CGI is just another tool to get the job accomplished.

Just as there are great photographers, there are great artist who can mimick their work.
and here lies the difference. Those artist have an edge. They are able to recreate then
use their abilities to mimic real world objects - and from there, create more original
works because their ability to match the minds eye becomes more pronounced.

I have worked with some of the best from all over the world, and these guys are so
good, you would not know a photo from a CGI image. Combine the two and the
sky is the limit.

People watch movies and T.V. shows and have no idea how much CGI goes into
even the most mundane imagery. The key is to make it appear seamless.

As I have upgraded my art and photography skills and equipment, I decided to go
ahead and upgrade myself. Lost approx 100 pounds, throw out old clothes, get rid
of most things I consider junk and just get myself lean and mean.

All these things take discipline, time, practice, and the willingness to persue
excellence relentlessly.

I hope to begin posting images next year as I slowly reveal the things I've learned
over the years-- but one thing I have learned, I don't necessarily point out what is what.
An image should always be able to stand on it's own.

[gregkdavis]

Yepper- it's scary. LOL...
I'm from the "old" school.
It took awhile, but I managed to cross-over.

[n5wd]

Originally Posted by JaysonFromMaine

to me there is nothing realistic about these images..thay are based on real images yes...but thay are in no way realistic...thay are obvious heavy digitalized reproductions of said art... The concept of photorealistic should make the Viewer beleave upon the most casual glance that it is a REAL untouched PHOTOGraph even if its in fact an oil painting ( yes there are some painters that good.. )

Personally I think there is some copyright theft going on here....I know I have seen the image of Ms. Jolie before .....

Hey, Jason... either it's a copy of the original or it's not... you can't have it both ways.

If it's an imperfect recreation, then there's no copyright infringement - you can't copyright an idea, only the representation of that idea. If it IS a perfect recreation, then an infringement can have taken place.

Pick one stance and stick with it!