Hi, I understand the criticism. The image that I put up for this weeks display is a two image montage. Judy is a computer generated lady and does not exist in the real world and never has but the background is an image taken at Reigate hill, Surrey. The "girl" polygon was posed in a computer utility that allows normal movements of the body into a sitting position. The rendered image was imported into Photoshop and Judy cut and pasted into the images captured on Reigate hill. She was then sized to match the scale and placed as if to be sitting on a tree stump. The image was tidied up and shadows extraneous to the model were added. The image was then flattened and saved as a jpeg with a maximum dimension of 495 pixels. When you plan an image like this the lighting has to match in direction, colour, focal length and softness. The process is quite good fun, and, in the absence of real models, a necessity. The upload I've sent for next week is just a computer simulation with no photographic component. Using these computer ladies I can make images that I want to without hurting anyone, risking copyright issues or going to the expense and moral problems of live models. And it means that I do not need a studio. This would be impossible in my small suburban terraced cottage. The last stage is to use a utility that makes the image resemble a painting and generate a border with another utility. I'm quite happy to quit these efforts and stick to straighter photography as there are lots of interesting subjects round here. They may not have figures, however. Chris :> -----Original Message----- :> From: owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner- :> photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ADavidhazy :> Sent: 15 February 2005 18:57 :> To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students :> Cc: andpph@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx :> Subject: RE: Chris's computer graphic :> :> Just a thought - should images that have no connection :> to reality be shown in our photography gallery? :> :> andy :>
