Offline
Anyone have any input on this can of worms? Has anyone upgraded to KeyShot? Also, if you upgrade to KeyShot does that invalidate your ability to upgrade to BunkSpeed's promised new product called Shot?
I asked this question on the Bunkspeed forum but I wanted to get some insight from outside the battleground.
@unknownuser said:
My only crit would be that the figures are too low poly for such a close shot.
Scott
I disagree. I think the low poly count adds to the other worldly feel of the image. The way the light is blowing out some of the forms and the primitive quality of the forms themselves seems to me to be what it 'is'.
@solo said:
there is a loneliness, almost a recognisable place of the past, I like it and hate it at the same time.
Well said, very well said.
Like the first building image better, but not the 'thing' next to it. The thing seems too distracting, maybe too interesting - I want to know what it is, but that toying with identification is probably not what the picture is intending. But I like the wider image, showing a bit more of the plaza around the building. I think it balances the building.
The furniture object conjures the word 'cowl'.
I got a call from them some time ago, offering me a discount if I paid for the upgrade to V2 early. Glad I didn't put my money down.
You're getting a beautiful light in these, especially the one with the red bedspread. Very warm and clear and inviting. Very impressive.
@michaliszissiou said:
Well, I downloaded most of these ruby plug-ins. Tried them. Never used them before because my usual workflow involves blender. Some worked fine but IMO a lot of them are just trashes (SU crashes). My advise: learn some blender, doesn't cost anything and its just superb. To try do organic modeling in SU (+UVs) looks somehow... lost of time.
michaliszissiou - I don't know, I use modo now so I see a lot of wires on their gallery and the final version of Solo's Popeye could stand up to any of them.
A question for Solo - do the Ruby plugins you use create a proxy that is retained like a regular subdivision modeling program? Or is that shape being deformed in the modeling process rather than being subdivided?
modo
Unfortunately I don't know how to make the ground plane in modo into an ocean surface
@solo said:
Okay, my third try, this time I tried a watercolor, gotta do some real work now.
To my eye, that is real work.
I'd like to have Oli's render on one wall facing Solo's 2nd render on the other - that'd be great.
This forum is getting to be the best place around to see interesting art.
You guys should get together and organize a group show.
@unknownuser said:
I know. I'm no fan of self-exegesis, but I'm aware there's no way around it.
I would not want to be misunderstood here. Artists self-exegesis of the This piece illustrates Man's Inhumanity to Man sort tend to give me hives. But your work, or anyone else who is working from a computer model, raises interesting questions. Let's imagine your first show (at the Gagosian Gallery) - does the announce card say An Exhibition of Photographs by Stinkie? (I doubt the long term commercial viability of that name by the way). But are they photographs? And if so, of what? No camera was involved and nothing was photographed.
These are potentially interesting questions. Is the score the music or is the performance the music? Is the photograph the work or the negative? Are your digital files just the source that the final work is derived from or are they themselves the work of art? Would a collector buy a print or the digital file? If Larry Gagosian wanted to carry your show over to one of his European galleries, would framed prints be sent by Fedex or would the digital file be emailed with attachments to a printer?
Just some idle speculations before going out to dinner.
@unknownuser said:
Edit: The idea seemed so outlandish, I actually sent them some images. $ 10 000 000 says they tell me to b*gger off. You a betting man?
You will have to tackle (if you haven't already) the conceptual issue of what your artwork is. Is the digital file the work or is the final output (a photograph?) the work? It's rather like the dilemma of earthworks or conceptual art - what is it that is sold? Is the photograph of the piece the thing or is that just a picture of the art, no different than what you'd see in a magazine.
Your work is strong and interesting in and of itself but an intelligent response to this question is one way you can immediately distinguish yourself from other artists.
Lacks the 'noir' quality of your other work. Whether that's good or bad I'm not sure. You should start looking for a gallery. Gavin Brown?
@unknownuser said:
The space is rather large, and I'd prefer people to perceive it that way. Obviously I don't know whether that's a good idea. Did you like the image better when you perceived the space as relatively small?
Yes, I liked it better as a shallow, awkward space. The odd trapezoidal shapes flip back and forth from 2D to 3D when I see it as a shallow space, less so when it recedes further away from me. But that might just be the effect that occurs when you first hear a piece of music and from that time forward, other performances of it sound 'off'. I will never be comfortable with the new MOMA because it's not the old MOMA, etc..
@unknownuser said:
It's a generic kitchen cupboard, the kind you'd find in cheap flats from the sixties or seventies.
That's interesting. The proportions of it made me think it was something smaller, like an electrical fuse box. Knowing it's a kitchen cupboard makes the space visually larger to me. The mind telling the eye what to see.
All kidding aside, this is a great image. One of your best.
The odd angle of the wall to the right, the way the chair rail defines the shallowness of the space. All very quiet, very subtle, very impressive.
A question - is the box on the wall something common where you live? In other words, would a viewer there recognize that object? I see it as just a 'thing', jutting into the picture, without definition or explanation, which I like but I'm aware that might be a cultural effect.
