What are your standards?

[dynamike]

Originally Posted by c_canade'

the world is listenting...Hell, even i'm listening

If you were listening you would have got it by reading the blog.

Photography is about freezing a second in time forever. CG is not. When you understand that, you will make a giant leap at becoming a better photographer.

BTW, why don't you show us some of your work?

Of of the things that pisses me off about you is you don't get how it works around here and you think you're immune to proving yourself. A lot of us on this board have grown over the years as photographers, and we prove it. We show our work, all of it.

So, where's yours. Show some work, or shut up!

[JaysonFromMaine]

thanks for telling me...the image looks like its been oversoftened or something...thats what made me think it was heavy with the digital artwork...but even at that...the standards required of the model where on the high end...

Originally Posted by dynamike

Jayson,

That is a real person. It's Angel Boris. That picture is taken fom her July 1996 pictoral. She has not been atlered at all. However the background has been changed. In the original she is leaning on a leather couch.

Mike

[dynamike]

Originally Posted by JaysonFromMaine

thanks for telling me...the image looks like its been oversoftened or something...thats what made me think it was heavy with the digital artwork...but even at that...the standards required of the model where on the high end...

You're welcome. I would only have known that if Angel wasn't one of my favorite Playmates of all time!

[JaysonFromMaine]

People here just like to see the work of people who talk big... one of the golden rules here is if you are critical of someone and there work you show your own work ....

the basics in photography will never change its a craft and art form based on it own rules...its should not be mistaken as digital graphic art which is it own beast...

As far as all the CG and stuff...john paul caponigro II is one of the best digital artests there is...i've met him and seen his studio...and weather(sp) he uses slides or digital he ALWAYS aims for the best possable capture...he even uses the Zone system...

Originally Posted by c_canade'

As a crutch - okay i'll agree with you on that as a whole - no i disagree.
But do feel in some areas Cg will antiquate you as a photographer.

The image i posted is not a photograph at all, it is a vector mesh computor graphic.

But!! that said and with your remarks, i'm glad to see you really couldn't tell the difference from the original that much being pro photographers - that say's alot for and sends a clear message to the CG artists world and probably your future clients. and that is not meant as a dirogitory remark.

As for me posting my work - in good time perhaps -but really - why? Is my posting my photoart work here at G1 relevent to this thread topic - or any thread topic i've participated in for that matter. I don't consider your works, any of you, a basis for argument for this thread. Unless you do that is... is your work basis for argument to the standards you have? i don't think so...

so that to me is a cop out of a question at this time to the real question and thread topic at hand.


- chase -

[GKruts]

I just have to reply to CA... That is a Playboy model, an image taken from their site and "photochopped." Second, it is not rendored 3D, nor are any on the images you posted in your other thread. In fact, read page 1 of the link you provided:

For this work I used Adobe Photoshop CS2 and Wacom Intuos 3 tablet.

Photoshop and digital retouching has been around for ages. Vector graphics are, btw, traditionally referring to 2D images, such as CorelDRAW and PostScript. Wireframe is 3D, and with adequate texture, bump, and other shaders, it can appear close to reality, but the days of the star Trek holodeck are far, far away.

Digitally created art is in no way going to replace film and digital photography. If we look at nothing more than the glamour art arena, they have merely added more venues for artists to express themselves, and given the consumers more variety to choose from. Real art, whether it be created through the glass of a lens or glass of a monitor, will always be in demand.

Glenn

[dynamike]

Originally Posted by GKruts

I just have to reply to CA... That is a Playboy model, an image taken from their site and "photochopped." Second, it is not rendored 3D, nor are any on the images you posted in your other thread. In fact, read page 1 of the link you provided:

For this work I used Adobe Photoshop CS2 and Wacom Intuos 3 tablet.

Photoshop and digital retouching has been around for ages. Vector graphics are, btw, traditionally referring to 2D images, such as CorelDRAW and PostScript. Wireframe is 3D, and with adequate texture, bump, and other shaders, it can appear close to reality, but the days of the star Trek holodeck are far, far away.

Digitally created art is in no way going to replace film and digital photography. If we look at nothing more than the glamour art arena, they have merely added more venues for artists to express themselves, and given the consumers more variety to choose from. Real art, whether it be created through the glass of a lens or glass of a monitor, will always be in demand.

Glenn

Who is CA and did you create the peice in question?

[dynamike]

Originally Posted by c_canade'

As a crutch - okay i'll agree with you on that as a whole - no i disagree.
But do feel in some areas Cg will antiquate you as a photographer.

I don't think so.

Originally Posted by c_canade'

The image i posted is not a photograph at all, it is a vector mesh computor graphic.

But!! that said and with your remarks, i'm glad to see you really couldn't tell the difference from the original that much being pro photographers - that say's alot for and sends a clear message to the CG artists world and probably your future clients. and that is not meant as a dirogitory remark.

Do your homework sonny! That's a photograph that has been altered. You're wrong

Originally Posted by c_canade'

As for me posting my work - in good time perhaps -but really - why? Is my posting my photoart work here at G1 relevent to this thread topic - or any thread topic i've participated in for that matter. I don't consider your works, any of you, a basis for argument for this thread. Unless you do that is... is your work basis for argument to the standards you have? i don't think so...

so that to me is a cop out of a question at this time to the real question and thread topic at hand.

It's not a cop out. You not posting your work is a cop out.

[dynamike]

Originally Posted by c_canade'

intilletual checkmate dynamike, that's what us ignorant pr*cks call it...

That's because those of us who aren't idiots spell 'intellectual' correctly.

Post some work (of your own) or shut up.

[dynamike]

Originally Posted by c_canade'

lol - another standard reveiled heh?

It's a standard that'e been here for a while.

[cifcap]

Whoa,

This thread seems to have gone astray. I agree with the two main parties on some points, but the rants have caused the thread to lose focus. C_canade' there is a place for serious digital artwork and I do believe (to a point) that rendered models will "stand" alongside real models. I think it's okay so long as we don't allow the rendered girls don't take over.

And you're right about people being so "particular" (and it's their God given right to be so) when it comes to this whole business. Heck we all wish we could have that perfect girl just do what we want in front of the camera. I don't see this as an obstacle, but an opportunity to practice people skills (which I lack).

On the flip-side Dynamike (and a few others) are correct. I'm an amateur and I come to this site to see images of beautiful women; it doesn't disappoint. Show us what you can do with real girls (with minimal modifications) and you could very well silence any doubters. Okay I'll get off my soapbox now. Take care all!

JW