Photo realistic CG and photography merging/crossing over

[RHWeiner]

Originally Posted by c_canade'

Here's the tut if you want to learn how to draw the last one, the Asian girl called The making of Yuka

The link takes you to the second page...here's the link to get to the beginning...

http://www.cgarena.com/freestuff/tut...ukx/index.html

I find it interesting that here the technology takes something rough and smooths it out to the same point the photographers do...only in reverse. The artist here starts from nothing, the photographer starts from an existing image.

It does make one take pause and reflect as to the value of learning the ins/outs of capturing a good photo when all you need to do is to start with a few lines.

[natalia.Taffarel]

Originally Posted by jimmyd

interesting subject. i'm a big fan of CG but it has its limitations in scope and results. i wrote up some of my thoughts on the subject but decided to post them on my blog.

http://prettygirlshooter.blogspot.com

Actually Jimmyd I've read what you say on your blog and I found it amusing You said:
"but they will never be able to render the human spirit"
Fashion image tend to have no soul. And if there is some human spirit in the final image, a retoucher will get rid of it to make it look frivolous. That's the market. So do think CG is going to replace models in the future.

[dynamike]

Hello Master Greg. It's nice to see you back. I'm on board with a lot of the things you're saying about CGI. I just don't think it's ever going to really replace photography.

People still like to know that a real person exists behind the picture. They like to think that they can talk to or see that person in real life.

Yes, I know that CGI is all around us. But more often than not, it started with a real image capture.

[dynamike]

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.. )

exactly

Originally Posted by JaysonFromMaine

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

Me too! I seriously doubt Playboy gave anybody rights to alter one of their images and call it their own.

[JaysonFromMaine]

Actully in this case I think copyright should come into play in someway ...the dude is taking subjects photographed by other people and claiming them as his own...at least as far as Angel Boris and Angelina Jolie ...maybe i am think more of licencing and stuff...and please it's Jayson...Jason is the other Guy..lol

Originally Posted by n5wd

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!

[dynamike]

Still clueless huh? Post some original photography. This is a photography forum, right?

Originally Posted by c_canade'

we - i - know about the origianal image - it's this remake image that i made and showed - talking CG here? get it? you had obviously no idea until i showed you in another thread how it was created. Remember the mesh i showed you?

You said that the image was an original creation, right? Just checking.

Now post some original photography or shut up.