Chris, You're a goof! That's a complement. Seems to me that you could have a blast with your little model ( I love the double meaning here) in "real" photographs. To name just one, they could be quite charming comments on conventional photography. I'm thinking the photo should be perfectly acceptable as a conventional image. The usual expectations for a photo could then be challenged. AZ Build a Lookaround! The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed. NOW SHIPPING http://www.panoramacamera.us > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: Chris's computer graphic > From: "Chris" <nimbo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Tue, February 15, 2005 2:43 pm > To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students" > <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > 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 > :>
