A Squarecan

Hey guys maybe this is a dumb question, but how come with all the technology we have we cant make realistic pictures that look real? I have a feeling it is goign to be a real simple answer but I had to ask .

Thanks
Keith

namvet

A Squarecan wrote:.. do you mean real as in pencil sketch, oil painting, photographs?? ... or do you mean "how come you and I can't make pics real?" ... I can answer the me bit ... it's 'cos I haven't learnt enough (and probably never will ) and I am very definately short on artistic talent ..... anyhow some do make realistic pics ... take the test (originally posted by ranger72 ... go to .. http://www.fakeorphoto.com/ .... and let us know what you think

kiwi

Keith we can with 3D HDRI now and a lot of tweaking ,but I think the problem with the digital angle is lighting and texture Personally I feel happier if I paint something realistic-ish then make it in 3D.


Some of the masters used to be able to paint still life like it was almost photographic.



There is the problem of what looks real to one person may not to another.



Personally I hope the day when you click a button and create realism never comes jmo



Stu.

hedsteve

well the masters kind of cheated too though. Use of lenses to project the picture onto the canvas weren't uncommon.

and I've seen some digital art that is realistic enough but I agree that the greatest challenges are light and texture and I'd add Hair to that list too

Iro Koii

I think the number of times that the Renaissance masters used a camera obscura to project an image on canvas in order to paint it is probably so small as to be insignificant. Setting up a camera obscura and getting the work done with the lighting available back then would have been a much more annoying and inconvenient problem than doing the necessary layout work to get things in perspective on the canvas. I think the guy that has been touting that particular theory is basically full of beans.

Iro Koii.

AmerDIVA

Yeah right! As if the technology decides if it's going to be realistic or not [bustagut]

I don't understand why you want an exact copy of reality. What if an image looks like a photograph... big deal

It would never be able to compete with the works of Picasso, Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Van Gogh, etc etc....

namvet

hedsteve wrote: ... .. ugh! .. hair .. .. yeh, definately add hair (in caps [bustagut] [bustagut]) ..

Iro Koii

To answer A Squarecan's question, it is all a matter of learning to deal with the medium you've chosen. The old masters used oil paints. Many of the new masters use opaque watercolor or acrylics. Some of the new master still use oils! So what you are really asking is "How do I become a master?"

There's no royal road to geometry or art. Both of 'em take study and work.

Oddly enough, I can tell you the first thing that I have learned is that I was not always seeing what was in front of me. Why are cars shiny? It's because they reflect partially complete images of their surroundings. They pick color from their surroundings. A black car with a good paint job sitting out in the drive way on a sunny day will have a bluish sheen with whitish flares in it. On a cloudy day, it will look completely different. It's all a matter of seeing the light. If you don't see it, how you gonna paint it?

Iro Koii.

Well said Iro Koii [righton]

kiwi

I agree with that Iro Koii [righton]



I have seen some incredibly realistic/photographic work done with an airbrush,yet air brushes are basically shunned by the natural media art world,makes me hesitate to think what they think of digital art.



It also never ceases to amaze me how many new 3D users think they are off to ILM as soon as they install a copy of Maya .I suppose that is Maya marketing,but they get a real shock when they find that 3d software will not make you an artist,and that it still takes practise using many of the tried and proven techniques which originated before the computer.




Add water to that list as well guys.....

Stu.