Quote - > Quote -> Quote - 2) Like it or lump it, some folks want realistic, and view CG through that lens. BFD.

As long as that is the standard they judge their OWN work on, and NOT anyone else.  Period.

Sorry, but you don't get to dictate what people think, or how they critique. If it's any comfort or consolation, neither do I.

A "photorealist" has about zero knowledge of what I'm doing, and is unaware that his ideas will NOT work.  He doesn't care. 

Quote -> Quote - The "Purists" on anything have no idea of the damage they do, nor would they care if they did. 

Same story with {insert group of artistic types here}. Shit, man - CGSociety has been around for how long now, and you still haven't figured this all out yet?

Never visited the site, probably never will. If the site is all consumed with photorealism, then that's where the conversation concerning it belongs.  Not in a place where there are hobbyists that are probably having just as much fun and getting just as much satisfaction out of it as the one spending days on getting a "photorealistic" look on the figure.  I know what I want in a render, if someone else thinks they know what I want more than I do, the quarter to call the chaplain is still on the table and he probably doesn't give a shit either.  Just don't tell me my idea would be better done in your style.  Bulls leave enough of that behind them, when it gets too deep here, I bow out and do something else.

But it don't have to be brought out every damned time someone mentions any figure.  That just gets sickening.  Trekkie asked if it was a nice face, I thought it was a nice face.  All the "realism" talk is just bullpucky. 

Doric.

The "I" in Doric is Silent.