double r

Got this from one of the ronmatt tutorials. not the best art but, I'm not the best artist. I liked the glow in the wine and the curved reflections

huma

Whoa. That is really cool! Don't belittle yourself. This is a fine art piece.


:}

WOLVERINE

Nice job. My only suggestion would be to add a rim at the top of the glass to take away from the flat look. Nice colors btw.

double r

my only excuse for the rimless glass is that, I have enough skills to make the top rounded. I didn't know how to make it with a rim. I'll practice that. As I said on another post, your comments are encouraging. I half expected to get shot down. no confidence yet

Gaussian

Really nice work double r [righton]

Silky

I think its ok, but I don't like how 'flat' it looks. I guess you're not aiming towards a realistic look, but it does look kinda fake. The reflection is too soft to be glass - looks more like plasticy velvet. I like how you tried incorporate the sub-surface glow of the wine, but the rest looks like black wine. I like the colors, but thats about it.
Sry that I'm not totally impressed, I just had to say what I thought.

ronmatt

the glass is too dense and the inner glow should be more intense. I'll be posting an alteration on that thread and I'll show you how to create the 'rim'. ( if I can use the posted .jpg ).you nailed it patrick. above is what I said on another post to double r.

Gaussian

P?tr??k/Ronmatt, pretty much everything done in Photoshop looks fake, only few really have the ultimate talent to make it look real and to be honest, I haven?t met them on any Photoshop forum in all those years, but did meet a few a Cgtalk.

I think for many people super realism is not the ultimate goal, not only as an artist, but also as a viewer. Art is more than just super realism guys, just look at works of Van Gogh, Dali, Gauguin, Matisse, Cezanne, Derain, Renoir, etc.?
Also their works pay a lot more than a super realistic image of a wine glass, which in my opinion should already be an indication as how most people look at art. I think if you're looking at an image to analyze it in every detail to be able to label it "realistic", I'm sorry, but that's like checking a computer program for bugs in my opinion.

Anyway, just my two Canadian pennies.

Silky

I disagree. Acheiving photo-realism with PS is something that I strive to do.
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y22...tions/m4a1.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y22...tions/iPod.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y22.../orb_white.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y22...ns/eye_big.jpg
All these I did in PS. No images or 3d rendered elements. Pure Photoshop, nothing else.
Yes, I agree with you on this point. It just depends on what your trying to accomplish. Whether it be abstract, realistic, artistic illustration, etc. I'm just pointing out that just because it was made in PS, doesn't mean it has to look fake.

ronmatt

whoa, is this a touchy subject or not [ what is or isn't art? ]. To begin, I don't think this was the issue with this piece
RE: the wine glass. for me it was more about capturing a technique (art aside), not neccessarily 'photorealistic' but truer to what was obviously intended by double r. The images that I create aren't photorealistic, they're quite stylized. Because they're stylized they're more 'art' than camera vs. computer. (If I wanted that effect, I'd be a photographer). I interpret that double r is attempting to capture the same style. I think he missed by an inch or 2, I think patrick agrees.
To me, an illustration should look like an illustration. A photograph...a photograph. Both catagories certainly can overlap combining technical skills and creative skills of both the photographer and artist. (and what better place to do this but with Photoshop). In my opinion, the 'wine glass' is better than a lot of images posted, especially from a new PS'er.