In the interest of generating some philosophical conversations, I'd like to offer the following: I've been struck recently by the pursuit of realism by Poser hobbyists (artists?) and the high value placed on it by gallery viewers, as indicated by comments left in the gallery (e.g. "wow--fantastic realism!" in response more to a texture that was created by a vendor, and has little to do with the rendering created by the person who posted the image.) Personally, I think it's valid to pursue reality for the sake of the challenge as well as to push the envelope and encourage the software and hardware developers to strive for ever-greater levels of realism in the renderings. However, it also seems to me that something gets lost in this pursuit of realism--and that is the search for everything else that makes an image a piece of art: balance, composition, emotion, meaning, mood. There are many images in the gallery that, while highly "realistic", leave me cold. Conversely, there are images that could never be mistaken for a photograph that I think are brilliant. In the end, those whose main pursuit is to see how realistic an image they can create through 3D renderings are more technicians or craftspeople than artists. Those who seek to evoke a powerful mood, or communicate a strongly value or a belief...these are the artists in my book. I want to clarify that I'm not saying there's more value in one or the other...I'm simply saying that what interests, motivates and inspires me are the work of the artists around here...of which there are a few. I do owe something substantial to the technicians as well, because they often provide valuable tips on technique, and often have a wonderful discerning eye. So I guess there's room for both. Pookah

If I want a photograph I'll take a photograph ... The same realism canard can equally be raised against painting. There is nothing wrong per se with 3d stylism.

I try to have a foot in both camps in that my images are reasonably realistic, but at the same time attempt to communicate something other than just a pretty picture. I can understand the fascination with realism in 3D. The idea that something can be a computer generated image, yet look as if it was taken from life is something of a major challenge. On the other hand, the ability to create an image with emotional content is somewhat magical. I have seen a lot of technically excellent pictures which leave me cold, because they appear to be mere demonstrations of technique, whereas a simpler image - perhaps lacking in the technique department - may pack more of a wallop. For me at least, the trick is to combine the technique and the "art".

Everyone to their own - we are all different, all individuals and we all have our own idea what art is and how we wish to present it. I'm not a fan of abstract art but that doesn't mean it's not art or that others shouldn't enjoy creating or viewing it. This for most of us is a release from the real world - time away from paying bills and going to work - everyday tensions. We create images for pleasure and, how, why or what does not matter. If you don't like my images, I don't care because I enjoy making them. I happen to like realistic images and try and create realistic images (I stress the word 'try'). I on the other hand would not dare criticize another artist for producing abstract art or any other kind of art just because it isn't to my personal taste. In short - live and let live and why should it matter what another artist is producing, just as long as he/she enjoys it. What is art anyway? a photograph? a painting or a stack of bricks in the Tate gallery?

Something else which occurred to me after I posted my first reply to this... I believe the whole idea of 3D graphics is to replicate reality. That's not to say it's the driving force behind every artist who works in 3D, but certainly the medium itself is an attempt to recreate the real world, or create a believable alternate.

What is art indeed... I am like bogwoppet, I don't care for abstract art at all. Realism, mixed with a bit of dream-like fantasy, is my choice. I would love to achieve realism in my images to a certain degree. For example, when someone looks at my work, I want them to feel like if they reach out and touch the lion's pelt, it will feel rich in texture, something they can sink their fingers into before he sinks his fangs into them. LOL Real, yet a dream-like creation. It is an incredibly fine line, in my opinion. And one that very, very few artists ever achieve.

Maybe I'm odd (I've been called worse) but I don't see anything realistic about the great majority of Poser graphics. In my world, everyone isn't a supermodel or on steroids, and most people wear a good number of clothes that aren't skin tight. I would say the majority of Poser graphics are a reflection of a never-never world populated by fairly uniform looks that are different colors of skin tones and in different stages of undress, and set in different backdrops, but they have no more to do with realisism than "Friends" does on television. I'd hope it is a progression. First the technical expertise is developed and then some few artists use the techniques to create some real art that pushes beyond the cliches of the top heavy woman and big thighed man. Right now, mostly we have graphics and not art. And that's fine. But let's not pretend it has anything to do with realism. It's nice that we have characters with freckles and moles, and pretty reflective eyes, but they are still vacuous creatures for the most part, and don't demand us to think of anything on our side. We don't honestly believe they have life because they are too rigidly perfect. It's entertainment. Nothing wrong with that. I do my graphics as an amusement with no pretensions toward art. But I also don't pretend it has much to do with realism, no matter how photorealistic the skins I buy are.

SamTherapy said: "I try to have a foot in both camps in that my images are reasonably realistic, but at the same time attempt to communicate something other than just a pretty picture. " Well hon- I like 'pretty pictures' to make a form of beauty that did not and never will exist is one of the most 'moral' things a person can do with our one shot at life. To add beauty to the world! To in some small way make this lump of rock a little better then when we came in. ----------------------------------------------------- If you look back through the ages isn't almost ALL art (except in recient times) an attempt to recreate the real world. Look at all the old masters- Imagine Michelangeo(sp) or any of the great reniasance artist doing pointalism or cubicism- not going to happen-lol They'd be right in the middle of the 3d revolution. :) Emotional content is a different concept.

I don't see why some people are so interested in encapsulating CGI works whether they are "Art" or whether they are "craft" or whatever. It is a very broad field with many different approaches. I can admire the work of Anime Artists, or Bryce Scenic Artists, Pinup Artists, Poser Mannequin artists and even those who strive for realism in their work (which is my personal favorite). I think may people strive for "realism" simply because of the challenge it presents - I know that is why I do it. I enjoy that challenge and the process of discovering new techniques to achieve that result. I don't think every gallery image needs to be "Art" in order to merit showcasing. Sometimes the value of a work is in the craft or TECHNIQUE even if the final image falls short of other artistic merits. I think we should stop thinking of these galleries as narrowly defined "ART Galleries" because I don't think they are intended to be that - at least the gallery topics suggest otherwise (or the Poser Gallery should be named "Poser Art Gallery"). I think the galleries are here to showcase the WORKS of the individuals, and are not necessarily limited to ARTWORKS.

I also don't think art = realism. Picasso moved from realism to abstract crations that weren't realistic at all. But they make you think, even if you don't like them. Artists have a unique style. You can tell one artist from another when you are dealing with real art. In the Poser gallery, most of us are pretty lookng pretty much the same (and bless be to the people who don't...you make the gallery interesting). But I do agree with Ronstuff. Everything doesn't have to be art, nor should it be. There's room for a lot of graphic expression that got nothing to do with art. And it's not a less than situation...it's a choice.

Useing Dali's melting clock as an example (Don't think he used Poser);-). I like highly realistic techy models (the clock),but I think we must also remember the artistry that goes into the clock face,hands,case textures etc. in my example or the lace,body tex,hair,period clothing in other examples. Then I, a non-techy artist can take the techy/arty clock and make yet more art (put in scene & melt clock etc.). I like techy/arty models with lots of variation and tricks, so i can beat the techy/arty model into submission and make it do more what I want,while maintaining the degree of "realism" I desire in my piece. Surrealism Rocks!!! Strixowl

A bucket of grease tipped over a chair isn't art to me. It's just a mess. To someone else it's art. If I tell them it's not, that doesn't make it any less artistic to them. Art is in the eye of the beholder. As long as ONE person believes something is art - then it IS art. I create images for fun. Purely for fun and for my own enjoyment. If someone else likes them, that's a nice bonus, but not the reason I created the images in the first place. Realism or not, if the image I'm looking at doesn't provoke a reaction from me, then something went amiss. There is room for artistry and realism in one image. If the realism isn't there, but the artistry is, then it may lessen the impact of the image, but it will still leave an impression on us. If the realism is there, but he artistry isn't (the part that makes us feel something when we view something) then the image has no impact at all and we will forget it in the blink of an eye. So in essence - realism on its own isn't worth squat. Realism with artistry - now you're talking. Artistry without realism can easily survive on its own. Did I confuse everyone now? :) Anyway... that's how I see it. Silke

POSER=FUN regardless............

I think that achieving realism in 3D is a challange, for me anyway. I create both things, realistic and non realistic, but when someone thinks that a 3D image i made is a photo i feel like i'v acomplished something, but that's just my personal view. Besides, as you know beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Same with art. There are many styles of "art" that i dont like,understand, and wouldnt even call art. But other people would, and that's okay, the point is creating something. Personaly i like realism in 3D and art, but also enjoy the more painterly images. But as i said, that's just my opinion, and people have a lot of those, and different ones. Elantriell~

Art is done for one reason- to invoke a response from the viewer, whether good, bad or indeferent. If it creates controversy did the artisit achieve their goal? Yes. If it gets acclamtes did the artist achieve their goal? Yes. So why do we do this? As DreamestoGo put it: POSER= FUN. Must render if I can ever get computer to coperate.

To make sure we keep this on the question originally posed... Realism is sort of the Holy Grail of many 3D artists and craftsfolk. Dailyn is right that there's nothing "real" about a texture put on a model with a vacuous look, but at the same time, compare those to the renders done by folk like Catharina, where you're really pushed to tell the difference between them and a photo, particularly her black and white work. I think part of it just comes from the sheer challenge. I've created Bryce renders that folks have looked at and swore were photos, and I gotta admit, that gives me a real charge. I haven't gotten that close in Poser yet, but it doesn't stop me from trying. And I know that it's more than just a texture with moles and freckles, although those are great starting points. There are other things to remember: like making sure the model is actually looking at a set point in space, that the facial features aren't exactly symmetrical, that an expression is a combination of dials, not just plugging 1.0 into the "worry brow R" dial and walking away.

I admire the realism renders that I see - when they work well. I also see a lot of stuff in the "Realism" genre in the Poser gallery that just doesn't belong. Maybe 1 in 20 pieces are truly approaching realism. The truth is that Poser simply isn't high-end enough to produce realistic pictures, unless you're talking about close-ups on models with an excellent texture from the likes of Catherina. My personal bete noir is when someone uses a mixture of photo-realistic and non-realistic textures in their picture. That's why the only cyclorama backgrounds I use are the photo-paper ones. Put V3 in front of a photo and it generally doesn't work. Screams "Fake!" I still have a lot to learn about why it is so - I know that it's partly lighting, ambient colours, positioning, and of course the posing of the model's body and face, but I think there's also other stuff there, like the way the eye perceives things... My favourite artworks, and those I think of as most successfully "working", don't tend to be "realistic" in that they wouldn't be mistaken for a photo. If I see a render with an exotic body texture (like Ecstasy's for example) and some beautiful cloth and hair painting, then I don't expect to see it rendered over a background photo. And there's my two penn'orth :-) By the way, I love discussions like this. It makes me glad to be a part of this forum :)

you know how you can tell a poser image, every time? the eyes. they look... wrong. a friend told me this, after i made what i swore was a photorealistic render. i mean, it looked like a photograph (just a person against a backdrop, studio style). i said "like this photo?".. she said "its not a photo, you can tell by the eyes". by that she doesn't mean the texture, or the expression.. i guess the eyelid/lashes just aren't a detailed enough mesh, even on V3. anyhow... i make images that i like. they may be cartoon, or may look real. doesn't really matter, all that matters is the fun i had making it, and how it looks on my wall ;)

1. Re: The value placed on realism in 3D work--what's that about? by LovePyrs on 11/16/03 12:31 What is art indeed... I read recently (can't remember where mind you maybe Danse Macabre) that art is anything that gives the viewer more then the view gives it.

1. Re: The value placed on realism in 3D work--what's that about? by LovePyrs on 11/16/03 12:31 What is art indeed... I read recently (can't remember where mind you maybe Danse Macabre) that art is anything that gives the viewer more then the viewer gives it.

I've found it very difficult to make an Orc stand still long enough to take his picture. Doesn't mean that I don't still want the picture. with more and more movie effects using computer graphic characters or imagry with actors bluescreened etc more and more films are goin for realism. it all boils down to what exactly an artist is trying to communicate pure and simple and how well he or she convayes that with the viewer.

Well, I don't want to see pimples, pores and nasty wrinkles on my dolls... I have a mirror for that! ;-)

Silke said, 'As long as ONE person believes something is art - then it IS art' Well, that's a valid viewpoint, and I'd defend to the death your right to hold it, but..... it's incorrect. What eventually becomes 'Art' is dictated by factors way beyond the control of the artist. The dealers, the market, time, taste and sometimes, sheer luck. Anyone has the right to say "I think this is art, therefore it is". But that doesn't make them right. What people forget is that the majority of poser users tend to make do with what's available. When posette was the only girl in town, the images were usually pretty unrealistic. Now that v3 is around and that some amazing textures are on the market, the ante has been upped considerably. You couldn't do a render with posette nowadays and reasonably expect to be praised for it's realism. The people who really push the limits of the program (in the technical sense), can come up with some pretty amazing stuff. Someone recently mailed me a kozaburo pic (nikita, I think), asking 'Is it easy to do stuff like this?'. Er... well... sort of.... As long as people are content to use the latest dragon or whatever in every render for the 1st month after it comes out, there won't be much in the way of radical new imagery in the galleries. Luckily, a lot of folks do their own thing, regardless of what the 'currently fashionable form of idiocy' happens to be. (Spot the quote and win a coconut!) But you know something? I'd far rather see a stick-figure cartoon image that SAYS something, than a full-on 'Is this a photo or not?' image that says nothing. mac

"What eventually becomes 'Art' is dictated by factors way beyond the control of the artist. The dealers, the market, time, taste and sometimes, sheer luck." I'm sorry Maclean, I have to totally disagree with you. If some dealer says that a bunch of cow patties creatively arranged is art, well, it's still a pile of shit to me. Dealers and the market do not decide for me what makes something art. What makes art art, is the person creating it and the person viewing it. If I create something, by the very definition of 'art' (From Merriam-Webster...the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also: works so produced), I have produced art. What the dealers and market do decide is which pieces of art make money.

'If I create something, by the very definition of 'art' (From Merriam-Webster...the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also: works so produced), I have produced art' With respect, I beg to differ. You've produced something which you consider to be art. That's not quite the same thing as the rest of the world considering it to be Art (with a capital A). Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that whatever you produce WON'T be art. Nor am I saying it won't have any value, whether it is or isn't 'Art'. I'm just saying that, in order for it to be considered as art by future generations, you'll need a lot more than just a personal opinion. It would be easier if we all just had fun, but it's part of human nature to strive to do something that has some value. I think this is a good thing, but we can't ALL be remembered by our descendants. No matter what the PC people tell us, in real life, people do get left out or forgotten. Just as well, really. I'd hate to think of people discussing me in 200 years time. LOL. mac

Oh, I don't think so. The dealers and market are driven by what sells, and if we all sit around demanding the same old thing week after week, and that's what we buy, and we don't buy anything that is new or forces us to challenge ourselves other than one we have made a hundred times before, then we have ourselves to blame. The dealers ask over and over again what we would like to see...and I can tell you without looking what the best sellers will be, and what kind of pictures will appear in the Hot 20. Because that's what the majority wants. And that's what the majority pay for. And it is the money of the community that drives the marketplace. Simple economics. And what does that have to do with art? Not much. The real artists are the ones who are the originators and the originals, in my mind. But I also don't think we can blame it on the big, bad merchants. I need them because I can't model or texture on my own. I credit them and I don't pretend the results are art. And there are people who do original work using what is available to them in the market and free stuff...but they are the ones who look beyond what has been done before and aren't afraid to have their own vision, even if it takes them where there aren't as many hits or views or whatever we substitute in for quality or originality. But it's okay. If doing the same basic thing over and over again makes people happy, doesn't seem like it's something that we should complain about. It's not for me to tell you what you should be doing. Not for you to tell me what I should be doing. As long as we had some small respect for the person (even if we have none for the graphics), it would help.

Ah, Mac, we are talking about two seperate entities then. =) While I am just talking about the creative process and the end result it produces, you are talking about, for a lack of a better word/phrase "Works of Art". Something may be artistic, but not be a "Work of Art". Is that the gist of what you are saying? Even so, it is still based upon opinions of what the viewer likes or dislikes. I mean, Picasso is considered to be one of the "Masters", but I honestly cannot stand his work. I think the debate over what is art is really fruitless. It all boils down to what an individual prefers to see. Either way, if my work never is seen or remembered, it's all good. I enjoyed making it, er...starting it, and that is all that really matters in the end IMO. =)

If, in what you're doing, whatever image you want to create, you want to go for realism then go for realism. If you want more of a fantasy look, go in that direction. There's no reason to confine yourself to attempting realism or not even trying with every image just because you use Poser or any other 3d program.

In other words, do what you want and to hell with what someone else thinks of it.

Attached Link: http://web.infinito.it/utenti/m/maclean/

LovePyrs, I think that's about the size of it. Anything can be 'artistic'. Whether it's a 'Work of Art' (insert big drum roll) or not is another question. You see, I'm a bit of a tradionalist. When someone mentions art to me, I think of Renoir or Da Vinci - not Joe Blow and his new DAZ Millenium Fantasy Critter. Now, I know I'm in a minority because practically everyone nowadays has to be an artist of some description. And if you say they're not, they're liable to belt you one. Well, fair enough. I do think people should try to create something bigger and better than themselves, but let's not get carried away here. What we're doing with poser is more along the lines of tinkering with technology and imagery. It can produce some amazing results, but it has a long way to go before it will be considered as Art. I'm a fashion photographer and I've never made any claims to being an artist. I turn up sober, do the shoot and get a result. Some of my stuff may be well done and interesting, but Art, it ain't! Ah well, I hope I haven't offended anyone. I usually refrain from mouthing off in these discussions. "Your Honor. The defendant pleads Boredom and asks for another 632 counts of cheesy photography to be taken into account" mac Site addy for those who think people with no poser gallery can't state an opinion.

Given the success that Pixar and PDI Dreamworks have had with distinctively NON-realistic 3D work, it's hard to justify the idea that "the whole point" of 3D graphic generation is "realism". I prefer stylized art. I always have. Peter Max, Roger Dean, the Brothers Hildebrandt, these are the people who really inspire me. I couldn't care less about "photorealistic" textures and so forth. Just doesn't impress me or appeal to me. I also happen to be one of those people who think that Poser isn't the best tool to try to do "realistic" renders in, and attempts at it, while an interesting challenge, are sort of like trying to win the Indy 500 in a Mercedes sedan. Nothing wrong with Mercedes sedans, but that's not what they're designed to do and it's pretty hard to do it successfully. I'm NOT going to get into the whole "is it art" debate. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. And my t-shirt says, "Who CARES?!" If it fulfills its purpose (whatever that purpose may be), then it's fine, IMHO. Arguing about whether or not it "qualifies" to be or not be anything or nothing is just a big waste of neurotransmitters. bonni

Mac, beautiful work! I love the black and whites! Thank you for sharing. =)

Well, I can only speak for myself, but you haven't offended me in the least. I apologize if I gave you the feeling you did. I love a good debate/discussion, and a lot of the time I just take the opposite side for the heck of it.

Bonni, while I like to go for the realistic look, the photorealistic textures do nothing for me either. Like I stated earlier, it is a blend of realism and fantasy that I like. On the surface, at first glance, it looks real, but as you study it, you begin to see where it crosses the line into the "fantasy" side.

In defence of the Poser artists, I have seen some beautiful work. Granted, it wasn't all Poser, but nevertheless, it started there and the overall picture looks awesome.

"Bonni, while I like to go for the realistic look, the photorealistic textures do nothing for me either. Like I stated earlier, it is a blend of realism and fantasy that I like." Yeah, me too. That's why the art of the Hildebrandts (or Frank Frazetta or Vargas) appeals to me. It's clearly not real, but it has elements of reality. Roger Dean's stuff is like that. You KNOW it can't possibly be real, but it MIGHT be... ;) bonni

Hehehehe Mac. I hold by my statement. It may not be art to you - but if Jane Doe considers it to be art... it IS art. Whether the dealers, other artists, other viewers agree or not. To that one person it is art. And that makes what they are viewing... art. Maybe only to THEM, but to THEM it is still art. Dealers, critics and the like can take a flying leap as far as I'm concerned. They are not who decides if something is or isn't art. They only do the same thing our fictional Jane Doe is doing. They are looking at it, and forming an opinion. Just because someone says to me that something is art, doesn't make it art for me. I agree with the cowpat / pile of sh!t comment above. You can tell me that a bunch of cowpats arranged in a pile is art - I will never accept that as art because to ME it isn't. But that doesn't make it any less Art to the person who has decided that it is Art. The trouble is, that if you have "Art Critic" attached to your name, your opinion on what is / isn't art is given infinitely more weight than my uninformed and blatantly "I like / I don't like" opinion and people are more apt to agree with the critic than they are with Joe Public who doesn't know squat about "Art". However - just because I don't like it, doesn't mean to say I don't say it's art. There is art out there that I would define as such - even though I utterly dislike it. (i.e. "Modern Art" has never appealed to me. I like to be able to identify what it is and often I really struggle with that - but yes, it's Art... it's just not something I would hang on my wall.) Anyway, that's how I see it :) Silke

"However - just because I don't like it, doesn't mean to say I don't say it's art. There is art out there that I would define as such - even though I utterly dislike it." Well said. And the converse is also true. Many people mistake what they like/dislike as a judgement of the worth/lack of worth of an artwork, which ain't so. Ultimately, the question with regard to any work is the informed judgement of posterity. You can go back in time to a point where Joachim Raff was considered one of the greatest composers. Now it's "who?". And that assessment is not going to turn round again (though personally I like Raff). And you can find a time when JS Bach was considered a boring mediocrity. Again, that view can never be held again seriously in the future. As to whether in the future the work of Carl Andre and Josep Beuys will still be considered art, or judged an embarassing episode of posturing best forgotten, we wait to see.

LovePyrs, No offence taken whatsoever. I like a good discussion too and have a bad habit of throwing in comments to provoke a reaction. I also have a (good) habit of not taking myself too seriously. In the end, we can discuss art till we're blue in the face and it's all meaningless. People will like what they like and that's that. Silke, Re the dealers. I HATE art dealers with a deadly loathing. And, for that matter, a lot of art critics. IMO, these people have far too much power. On the other hand, I do believe in the teaching of art appreciation. I'm no lover of modern art, but there are certain pieces which can be understood and appreciated properly if they're explained. Mind you, I doubt if that applies to 'cow-pat art'. Some of the stuff that wins the Turner Prize in the UK makes me want to puke. But I've seen some amazing stuff by Damien Hirst which a lot of people wouldn't class as real Art. As you say, in the end it all comes down to personal taste. Re realism - I'm not quite sure how we got from realism to art, since the 2 things have never has anything in common. Most paintings that are regarded as Art are the exact opposite of realism. Entire schools of painters - Impressionists, Dadaists and Surrealists - avoid realism like the plague. And don't mention 'Art' photographers to me! There are 2, maybe 3 real artists in photography. Ansel Adams, Cartier-Bresson and Avedon. The rest are just trying to make a quick buck. mac

Realism is clever - the question too me is whether or not being merely clever is good enough? My guess would be no. My favourite stuff that turns up in the Poser gallery is where people do something unexpected - realism may or may not be relevant. My least favourite Poser gallery stuff are the endless pseudo soft porn ("glamour"!) renders - yawn. Some are very realistic but decidely dull.

Hmmm. Most of my scenes are either late evening, or foggy mornings. Realism there isn't hard to reach, doesn't even have to be detailed. On the flip side, one scene that is in my head, was on a late afternoon glider flight, I looked down to the area north of me and saw the south Milwaukee area with the little patches of ground fog. Quite a sight from 3000 feet, but one that I have been unable to reproduce well enough that I could say I like it. My guess, realism is called for sometimes, others, it isn't important.

millman, Your glider flight reminded me of something interesting. I live in the italian alps, about 6,000 feet up, in the middle of nowhere. About 10 days ago, I stepped out onto the balcony sometime after midnight, It was bright moonlight, and I saw that a bank of fog (read 'cloud' up where I am) had moved up the valley. The peculiar thing about it was that the top of the fog was perfectly flat - like it had been sliced with a knife - and the moon was shining down on it. The cloud was thin enough for me to see the landscape below through it, but the whole thing looked too weird. It was more like water, than cloud. I've actually seen something similar several times before here. What look like flat lakes of fog across the valley. Anyway, the point is, I thought to myself at the time "If I were to render a scene like that, no one would ever consider it realistic". I've seen some incredible weather phenomena that, if you saw them in a 3d scene,you'd say "No way!" So, sometimes reality just isn't believable enough for us. Or too unbelievable, maybe. mac

The flat topped fog in a valley is actually quite common, the flat top delineating the boundary where the temperature is on the dew point. I saw it often when I lived in California, we were high enough that many mornings I could climb the hill behind the house and see the blanket of fog over most of the valley, with the high spots becoming "islands" sticking up. I could see it sometimes late at night, but cursed it because I was usually driving home from work, and fog isn't what I was looking for.