A regular Vue artist put a photograph on the gallery to make a point, and though I could see some of what he was getting at about personal input, skies in particular are to a degree restricted if you use only the Vue atmosphere editor. Though I havent used alpha planes for skies, there are certain types of sky that would in my opinion be difficult to produce with the editor and a photo or postwork painting might be the only way to achieve it. Now strangely some who frown on postwork in Vue, looked on as not pure Vue, accept the use of alpha plane photos because alpha planes are part of Vue. Some alpha plane work I have seen is obvious, the shadows on the plane item dont match the image, or the ground shadows show the object is flat, some postwork is also too obvious, but if either method is done okay, then why not use them.

I think as to how much personal input an image contains that comes down to the individuals choice, computer graphics such as Vue were initially a novelty to me, quickly I could knock up a variety of landscapes, this I found great fun. It was friends still using just conventional art, when looking at the images, who would say, Well yes its pleasant enough, but how much have you really created, thats just a composition not a creation. So for me personally, I knew that was right, I was finding it hard to come to terms with 3D modelling programs even though I could sculpt/model in conventional art, the technical side of computer modelling software was puggling my non technical brain. Without learning it though, I was restricted to using only what was available freely or to buy, and a million other people were using that, so my images were going to just be repeats of lots of others, and most of the content not truly mine. I have eventually found Poser an asset, modelling all your own figures from scratch can be too time consuming, remodelling Poser figures to suit the needs of the image, helps considerably. I find I have to model my own clothes for the figures, as the out of the box market rarely supply what I need.

Within Vue alone it is possible to create a landscape that represents an actual place, if its historical, paintings and engravings give a guide. I havent seen many real landscapes in Vue, and I dont mean just saying its such and such a place, anybody knowing the real place will know if its a fictionalised representation. I have done about 4 images creating real places, its relatively hard work, but satisfying when finished. If it needs buildings Wings is great for creating them, I dont find its much use using freebies or bought buildings that bear little relationship to the actual buildings of the scene, because I know its not right. Anyway theres a challenge to the Vue artists, create some scenes of your home areas or favourite places, with accurate landscapes and buildings.

This isnt intended to offend those that cant make any of their own stuff, but for those that can, dont let computer graphics stunt your creativity. People have said to me making their own stuff means they do less images, well surely it isnt all about how many images you can upload, quantity can sometimes mean repetitiveness, and a little more time something different. A sculptor of many years experience said to me in my early days, Never let quantity of work become the controlling factor, or you will never improve on what you do, spend some of your time learning, which you should always be doing, however many years experience you have.

Apologies for missing commenting on lots of images of late, my connections been slow, and many Renderosity images are frequently not coming up lately, unless I use refresh about 3 to 4 times. I have also been very busy learning and still am, but hope to get back to more regular comments shortly. Dave

You know what? I do images because I enjoy it. It's fun. I learn, but mostly, it's fun. I can put people and places together purely out of my imagination. Who am I to criticise? If you want to model all your own stuff, good for you, go to it. If you want to buy all your models, great. If you don't like Poser, don't use it. If you want to make an entire image from alpha planes, fine, enjoy yourself. I don't do this for a living, and I think the majority of folks not only here at Vue but here at Renderosity don't do it professionally. It's one of my hobbies, I like to work on images, I like to collaborate on them, I like to view them. I'm a little bemused that these same "discussions" come up over and over. Put "alpha plane sky" or something similar in the search engine and see what you get. I've gotten snide remarks about using Poser figures so much in my renders. For gosh sakes, let's not take ourselves so seriously and enjoy ourselves and have a good time at it! This is supposed to be fun, folks!!!

I use alphaplanes fro several reasons. One it enables me to use some of the thousands of photographs that I have taken over the past 55 years to use in another medium. Two it is cheaper for me to make an alphaplane of one of my own photos than to buy a model. Three, makeing good aplhaplane requires a lot of work, sometimes as much as an average modeler. Four, it is my work and I enjoy it. I do this for recreation and to meet some very interesting folks, and it is part of the program. That is the way I see it. Amen!!!

I'm not going to dispute one side or the other, myself I use Vue's atmosphere editor 99% of the time for two reasons. One...To take up the challenge of recreating cloud formations and duplicate the natural world to the very best the programs atmosphere editor is capable of, the atmosphere editor is only limited in it's lack of true puffy clouds, but you can achieve depth in your clouds, you just have to work at it like anything else in your scene. The second reason is to do things that simply aren't able to be captured in real life or evoke a specific feeling through the atmosphere, see my gallery for examples of this. It takes more time and effort to use the atmosphere editor and sometimes you really can't achieve the same results. Though it is easier to use an alpha plane sky there is also the burden that comes with that in attempting to make it fit in with your scene and not look flat and uninteresting. If you want to use alpha planes and that makes you happy then great, go with it, it's your art, it's your hobby. I use Vue both as a hobbyist and as a professional and on the professional side of things I am tasked with visualising proposed buildings/roads and other features as they will appear in an existing photo, so, I use no background and then use post work to mesh the render with the existing photo. Would the client demand that I recreate everything in the existing photo from scratch because it's not pure Vue if I don't?? No, of course not, that would be absurd and a waste of the clients money, But I would still consider it a Vue work simply because it was generated using Vue, the end result would not have been possible without Vue. The same goes for objects and everything else, the client isn't going to pay you to model cars and people for a scene over the course of a few days if you can drop in a 3d car or an alpha plane person in a few seconds in post work. On the hobbyist end of things, I absolutely prefer the atmosphere editor, it works better in the scenes for me and is a lot more rewarding for me than taking a picture of the sky and dropping it into the scene. The same thing can be said of every single feature in Vue or any other program, from objects all the way to terrains, you can do everything using photos and rely on them to create your scene or you can do nothing with photos at all, neither is right or wrong, just a preference of the artist for what he/she wants to see. I prefer the middle ground on photo textures, I prefer to use "real" 3d objects rather than alpha objects, regardless of poly count simply because it's not real enough for me, I know the object has no substance, I want a fully rotatable object that I can look at from any angle and an alpha just doesn't do it for me, but I'm not going to go slam someone else's work because they chose to do it a different way that took a tenth of the time that mine did, it's all about what you want from your work and how much time you want to spend. On average I do about 2 to 3 finished renders a month, and I see people on here who seem to do 1 a day primarily involving alpha planes. Nothing wrong with either one. Ultimately what it comes down to is what you do your art for, do you do it to get into the hot 20 with every piece so that people will sing your praises left and right? or do you do it for yourself, and post it to see what other's think of it? Personally, I fall in the latter category, I try to post things that are different, to stretch my artistic skills in all directions, but that's just me, I'm not happy doing the same thing for very long. Some people are perfectly happy taking less time to create something, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that at all either. We should be using the program to it's fullest extent, regardless of whether we use postwork or alpha planes or photos for textures in the end it's not up to you or me to decide what is art and whether the ends justify the means or not, it's up to the artist and what he/she wants to use the program for. There, ranting done now, just wanted to get that off my chest since the topic keeps coming up. Happy Rendering everybody! :)

Difficult subject. When i read your statement my first reaction was - when i want to copy reality i take my camera and go out. No need for 3D here. Computers (and their users) can only lose in that. Second reaction was, "where is the end of purism?" I had discussions like that for long. Since i started doing computer graphics in the 80s last century. To illustrate what i mean, the real computer graphic artists (as they call themselves) would never ever use a software for doing graphics. Software limits your creativity. You only play with a predefined set of functions and tools. A little too pure for me, but consewuent in a way. Where is the start and where is the end of purism? Maybe someone can tell me! I think i said it already a while ago. Let your common sense decide what is right and what isn't. There is simply no law for things like that. I think i agree with you Dave, everybody must decide for themselves what to do. I prefer to have fun and therefore use stuff great modelers have done for me. BTW,how is the lineup for professional 3D studios? There are guys to come up with an idea, others that draw the storyboards, others that model, others to texture the models, others for the light, others for the motion, others for the postwork, others for invoicing etc etc. And we poor amateurs should do all that alone? Well...

Well thanks for the interesting responses, I have been doing conventional sculpting/modelling for a living, and hope to eventually move over more to computer graphics. If I want to do that of course, I have to learn the modelling programs, simply because not everything I want will be available ready-made. Having said that I agree with nanotyrannus, for commercial images, if a ready model is available to buy then you might as well use it, as a client wouldnt care, that option isnt open in conventional sculpting.

I havent found the task of cutting out a required alpha the problem deevee, you must be missing out, PSP has all the tools to make the task just minutes, background eraser, smart edge selection etc, modelling takes me far more time. I am just never satisfied with the shadows; a flat object if representing anything other than a flat object will not cast a convincing shadow, so it limits the position it can be used in.

I would agree with Djeser that it should also be about fun, there should also be some pleasure in graphics for commercial purposes, but I was interested in what others felt about what is considered acceptable methods. If those that are involved with computer graphics are not agreed on what is right, then the so-called legitimate art world will not accept computer graphics as real art. The fact that Sir Nicholas Serota boss of the Tate gallery, accepted Tracey Emin's unmade bed as real art, and they accept weird gigantic sculptures that are constructed by others not the alleged sculptor, brings them no nearer to accepting computer graphics as a legitimate form of art.

My reason for saying to those that can create their own stuff, dont lose it, is because I have seen people on other forums, with great creative talents, bog themselves down with repetitive work, because they got the feedback bug, and want to do lots of images for quick feedback, and that is a shame.

As Walther says in the main 3D-art world such as films, of course they have different people for different tasks. As he agreed though it is down to what is right for each individual, and for me after a while, using too much ready made stuff made me lose interest, I wasnt getting the satisfaction that I got from conventional art. I make it quite clear though they are my personal feelings for my images, that does not say that it is right for everybody. I think all of us that respect our viewers would agree though, that however you produce your images, they should be the best you can do at that point in your development, and not purely knocked together for feedback.

Anyway I really only started this thread for feedback, I was getting withdrawal symptoms, I havent posted an image since last year, lol. Dave

sorry for my bad english... Mikeangelo you said "My reason for saying to those that can create their own stuff, dont lose it, is because I have seen people on other forums, with great creative talents, bog themselves down with repetitive work, because they got the feedback bug, and want to do lots of images for quick feedback, and that is a shame" i simply dont agree with that... "repetitive work" "feedback bug"... if i can i make one image every day... 'coz is FUN !! if i can i make a model for community every day, 'coz is FUN ! i agree with djeser and Walther.. this is a place of hobbies no more little rules for all !! alpha-plane, models made by other, poser characters... what is the problem ?? open VUE put what you have in head and in heart and click F9... that's all ! regards Luca.

Dave, I think it has to do with interest and ability as well. If I was doing this stuff for a living, I might be more motivated to drag out my modeling apps and figure them out, among other things. I can see that your viewpoint has to do with your approach to it....my approach is fun and stress relief (even tho I do stress out over an image sometimes, lol), so I guess I try to be less critical of others. My bottom line is, if I had fun doing it, it was worth the time and effort; I learn something new with almost every image I make. If someone want to remake the same exact image over and over, who cares? Did they have a good time doing it? I'm grateful to all the talented folks who give and sell their models and textures, it makes it easier for me to put one of my thoughts or visions into a kind of reality.

Dave, something else that occurred to me after re-reading your original post, the people you would show you're artwork to who said "Well yes its pleasant enough, but how much have you really created, thats just a composition not a creation" do they not consider photography to be an artform as well?? Because I think a lot of what Vue does is closer to photography (in some respects) than sculpture, especially if you have neither the time nor inclination to learn a 3d modeling app (which believe me is not an easy task considering all the options and ways of doing even the simplest of modeling). Just thought I'd throw that one out there as well.

There will always be many different reasons for different people doing artwork Christie, but I am not sure I can ever come to terms with Tracey Emin's unmade bed. I am probably only jealous because she got a few thousand pounds, for a tent with the names of all the men she had slept with sown on to it. If Saachi has money to burn, could he please not burn it, and send it my way, lol.

No nanotyrannus, they do not accept photography as art, so for them computer graphics comes a close second to that. In reality though even in Vue, there is always a reasonable degree of creativity, materials, atmospheres, creating your terrains which can be randomly generated or modelled with a definite idea in mind. Its all about opinions I suppose, and the time may come when computer art will be up there with the rest. Dave

Hi - I was so absorbed in writing my own message, that I missed out on this one in the first round, sorry. Of course I'm the "bad guy" posting the rendered photo as a provocation to open excactly this debate. Now, I don't want to repeat myself, so if you like, read my message :) - Lars

I use alphas for waterfalls because it is much easier and takes alot less time than getting the terrain positioned/textured right and usually isnt what I imagined in the first place. Alphas are good for putting a ton of objects that dont need much detail as well. Ive yet to use an alpha for a sky but would try it. Lately I've been opening my images in photoshop or paint shop pro and adding some saturation to them, they look much better than they do right out of vue. I say if your going to make art, use any technique possible that gets the results you desire.