Render B/W - for local art prize entry
-
@solo said:
There is a solution, print out the render at 300dpi, get your cheap ass camera and take a photo of it.
Problem solved and it qualifies.
Great idea.
-
wondedrful solution and renderings. Best of luck
-
@solo said:
There is a solution, print out the render at 300dpi, get your cheap ass camera and take a photo of it.
Problem solved and it qualifies.
-
And how do you plan to implant fake EXIF data in your renders? They might look for that. I know I would.
-
right click->properties->details.
-
@solo said:
There is a solution, print out the render at 300dpi, get your cheap ass camera and take a photo of it
Or look for a high definition DLP projector and take a picture of the projection. It might end up looking more natural than the original, who knows
-
Can't wait to see how this goes for you Richard
Here's what I'm picturing...
Judge: This is a great photo! Where was it taken?
Richard: Well, at my house, but strictly speaking the subject doesn't exist in reality.
Judge: oooook.
-Brodie
-
or, what camera did you use? um... Intel i7.
-
"I used my imaginary camera
" Followed my lots of trying-not-to-look-like-a-madman. -
Wow! YOu are totally scamming their contest. . . .That's like Posting a 3D MAx model in the SU speed challenge. You renegade you.
-
Hope you don't mind me modifying your image, but as a former photography judge I always look for some focal point or something for my eyes to keep coming back to. If my eyes follow the perspective lines of the building to their vanishing point my eyes will essentially leave the frame of the photograph and be wondering in space. However if there is a visual focal point within the frame of the photograph my eyes will keep coming back to it. Essentially maintaining my attention. and to win a photography contest you must first Grab the judges attention IE with something that there can be no mistake and the eyes will immediately go to that location. As human we instinctively focus on other human beings. IE: if there is a picture of a wheat field alone and one of the exact same wheat field but the second one has a person in it. In the picture with the person our eyes will First see the person. In general our eyes are drawn to the color white also for this reason. "The whites of their eyes". Well your image just called out to me as a perfect example of a great image that would be even better of it had a human element to grab your attention and then allow you to keep your eyes within the frame pf the photograph.
Again I hope you don't mind
Regards
Phil
-
Certainly dont mind phil!
Great points there mate! I was originally (which actually was the first proposal) aiming to gatch a bird (avium kind) in flight of the centre recess, though the test render actually caught me more without it!
The image came to mind once when I wished I had a video camera with me, I was hanging from a cliff in our blue mountains about 100m up when I heard a rocket sound coming down from above. One of those moments climbing when your blood curls fearing a rock was coming at you!! Though actually it was a bird in a full tucked posture diving straight down the cliff line and within metres of us! The speed of the dive was startling!!!
Thanks phil, I might still revist that option!
-
Phil might have a point here....but I think it can be done very subtly.
Maybe some faint diagonal air plane fume stripes? Or yes, that bird idea. Maybe even just a highlight in the form of a specular sun hit on a window.Photography is a trade on its own.
As Phil said: 'the white of the eyes'. I think we all remember that National Geographic photo with a close up of that Afghan woman with those eyes...wow those eyes...
-
@unknownuser said:
Got thinking about this and how interesting it would be if you are chosen...but then the judges will probably want to look at the tag data on your image ...the data the camera leaves to characterize the photo specs. As it is your image will not have any data cause it is not from a camera. Was this mentioned in the entry info?
If we're talking about the same data (and id guess we are), its very easy to add in yourself. You could keep it generic as well so as not to be an outright lie.
-
I guess the question comes down to whether or not Richard is really looking to fool the judges into thinking he took this image with an actual camera or if the idea is to be open about the fact that it's a photographic rendering. If a point is trying to be made it would seem the later is the only way to go.
-Brodie
-
Right click your image->properties->details, then just click in the appropriate spot in the 'value' column.
-
Hmm, i can just click it and edit away. I wonder if theres some way it can be locked?
getting a bit of topic now, i'll PM you after ive done a bit of poking about.
-
I've never been able to edit EXIF data that way, Remus.
You could open a real photo in your photo editor, size it the size of your rendering, paste the rendering over it, flatten image and save with a new name. Now you have fake EXIF data.
UPDATE: Now that I remember, Photoshop 7.0 used to mess with this data, you better try with GIMP or with a newer version of Photoshop.
UPDATE: Success! This Kerkythea rendering now has fooled Windows into thinking it's a photo from a Canon A75 camera:
IMG_9779.zip -
Funny most of the photography I look at in the mags I buy I never focus on the girls eyes!
I can easily edit exif data through Adobe Bridge, infact given you can edit and add any level of meta data I've always wondered why one of the render apps hasn't advantaged this by embedding shader information for easy exchange! Tiff's ability to hold layers could mean all textures, shader info etc could be hosted in the one file, similar I guess to how Artlantis holds the metadata in their JPG album shots where you can just select a material previously used from a past render (album shot) and apply it to the current scene! I always thought that was a very cool feature!
In regards to tricking the judges! As brodie suggests this isn't my aim, if they don't ask the questions I won't give the answers. Though if they did ask I'm certainly not one to withold the truth! I would just stand on my belief our imagery is an art and even if then disqualified hopefully my silent protest would have them include digital arts as an appropriate catagory for next year!
-
Good luck Richard. I didn't take you for the lying type
Hope you do well,-Brodie
Advertisement