Silky

Yes, you said it. When I said the wine glass looked 'fake', I didn't necessarly mean that its a bad thing. It doesn't have to look photo-realistic to be good. I was simply trying to point out parts of the image I thought could be improved to make it look better. Thats all.
And I do think it is an excellent job for a first. I guess I was just a little on the grumpy side when I posted that. [innocent]

ronmatt

this is closer to my idea of what glass should look like. It's certainly not that well executed, but it shows it in spirit

Silky

Yeah, there you go. [righton]

double r

I took a reading of the glass. it is r50-g41 b46. the black in the backgroung is r33 g33 b33. That means theres almost nothing there in the glass, I think. I didn't realize that I could use nothing to make something with. Everyday I learn.
Whats the thing on the side? How did you get the top of the glass and the wine? How did you get the car to kind of bend behind the glass?

Gaussian

p?tr??k, that?s why I wrote ?pretty much everything done in Photoshop looks fake? and that I did meet people who do stuff that?s very realistic.?

I?ve seen these images already a long time ago, so I have some idea as what your skills are p?tr??k. Without a doubt its good stuff, but I don?t consider any of them realistic. Put them in a line-up with 6 random photographs of real objects and I?m pretty sure most people know to pick out the "Photoshopped" ones.

This is a good example why super realism is not important. What I like about your approach Ronmatt is that even when you prefer some kind of realism, you still try to take your images to an extra level by creating an interesting composition that goes beyond the main subject. You understand that just a wine glass is not enough (pretty boring in most cases), so by adding extra elements you?ve given the image a whole new dimension. This shows to me more skills than just being able to create a realistic object.?

There is also a lot of misunderstanding among beginners, that if someone is able to create a? realistic looking object, he must be a great artist/designer and experienced Photoshop user, which is a completely false conclusion.

aironite

For what it's worth..... be it fake or realistic, abstract or surrealistic...... beauty is in the eye of the beholder..... interpretation is in the mind's eye of the seeker.

And from what I see in your stating posts , double r, you've got a good start.

And from everone's posts in the forum...... ohhhhhh..... hot .... Very Hot...... Everyone here has talent.

Lee

Wow! Patrick, that M16 is stunning. Great work, buddy.

Silky

Gaussian - The way your reply came across, I got the impression that trying to make something in Photoshop look realistic wasn't feasible, or at least a waste of time. I agree that my PS drawings aren't picture-perfect, but I posted them to illustrate that making something to look realistic isn't impossible. I wasn't trying to boast, and I had no idea that you had ever seen any of my works before. You just seemed to be quite the pessimist (no offence). I think we often just misunderstand each other. Thats all.?

Oh, and Lee - it's a Maverick M4A1 Carbine assault rifle, not an M16.?

ronmatt

I have to agree with Gaussian regarding 'photorealism' in photoshop. I don't think it can be accomplished, at least by me. I've certainly tried and failed. But in doing so, developed a style that I prefer. I think that that's why I never got into 3d apps. I don't particularly care to create photorealistic images. I don't think though that Ive yet to get all out of photoshop that can be done. Which is why I post all the tidbits that I do. I keep trying to push the envelope of PS's possibilities and share the results with ya'all

Silky

I think there is a line between 'realistic' and 'photorealistic'. All your work, ron, is realistic to some degree. All 3d emulated illustrations are somewhat realistic. It just depends to what extent (how realistic) you want to go. It's up to the artist how far to push that envelope. For me, a like a challenge, to see how 'realistic' I can create things. 'Photorealism', on the other hand, is hard to achieve, even with an advanced 3d program. So, you're right about 'photorealism', I just think there might have been some confusion between the two. Different people having different definitions of 'realistic' and 'photorealistic'. I hope I'm explaining myself here.