Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=737057

I've recieved much more attention to my latest "picture" than I expected. It was a "provocation" where I rendered a photo as an alphaplane in Vue, and posted it in the Vue gallery (thanks for your attention, btw). Of course it doesn't really belong there, nor anywhere else, for that matter :) But I feel the necessity to justify the provocation and elaborate on the subject, which was the basis for the "outburst". [Please, I don't want to write "IMHO" behind every second line, this is of course an all together subjective "essay"]

When I started out in the "rendering business" 2 years ago, in Bryce 5, I was completely baffled by the beautiful work of "hobbit", Andy Simmons, and really wanted to be able to something like that - in Bryce! How disappointed I was to find out later, that much of his work is more or less digital paintings, and only partial renders. It was very, very misleading to find such artwork in a section, where you would expect to find 3D renders!
Something similar is happening now in the Vue gallery: More and more people make heavy use of photo aphaplanes in work that is presented as 3D renders. I think it is a wrong turn.

I find nothing wrong with creating art using all kinds of media and tools. Very interesting, creative and beautiful work is achieved this way all the time. A prime examples of this IS the work of "hobbit" (his "real" renders are spectacular, btw.). But again, this has very little to do with 3D rendering. Such work belongs in the mixed media gallery.
Of course the whole subject is bit tricky, since many renders will include material based on photose. g. bitmap textures. One of the differences between this use, and the plain photo alphaplane, is that the bitmap textures are integrated in the scene, and do not exist "on their own". They just define "surface quality" etc. to the 3D objects to which they are applied.

Also, for me, a more acceptable way of using photo skies/clouds, is if they are applied as materials in the atmosphere editor. Here they interact with the other atmosphere settings, and work as textures.
On the technical side, alphplane skies moreover won't reflect (completely) correct in water surfaces etc., they lack the spatial aspect.

• For commercial work the whole subject is irrelevant, as this is about producing results, and not creating art (the term "commercial art" is in fact self-contradictory in most cases). Let's make a little twist here: If you had a poster of a beautiful landscape (photo) and added some objects using acrylics and brush, this would be completely OK as a commercial poster, if this was the intention. Also it could be an interesting artistic comment, provocation, or whatever. But it would hardly qualify as a landscape painting.

Now, of course, it's a questionable approach to try and define "what is art and what is not". Often this is a matter of trends and fashion. 20 years ago, airbrush paintings were considered "bad taste", now they can qualify as "fine art". In the Vue gallery, works with photo skies have become a trend, and accepted as "art", because certain "leading artists" have begun using them. Before that, very few people would use them in this kind of software, because they "knew" that it was considered a dubious and kitschy approach.(As you know by now, I still think it is.)

At Renderosity, this is easier to handle, since there are categories that suggest, how an artwork should be interpreted. A render made in Lightwave should be posted in the Lightwave gallery, a Vue render should not be posted in the Bryce section, and so forth. What else are the categories for?

My bottom line is this: When an image becomes more photo than 3D scene, it belongs in the mixed media gallery. The same goes for postwork: When the appearance owes more to 2D painting and compositing than rendering, it's no longer a render. (- Note: This does not apply to post-processing the render, for the same reason as the work in the developing room on a photo, still makes the photo a photo.)

• Lars

Well, I think that the main reason people use post processing and bring in alpha planes is either to make up for the lack of features in an program like Vue or Bryce, or for memory problems that can result of too many models being imported... I do a lot of vegetation pictures using alpha planes for the plants, because when I tried the using models, the rendering times shot through the roof, and the plants didn't look as good as the plants I got as alpha planes.. Another reason is that you want variety in your pictures... If a picture is using trees, you can always tell if a picture is Vue or Bryce from the type of trees in the image... I think at some point, you want use different type fo trees, so that it doesn't look like the stock trees that come with the programs, so you use alpha planes.. In the end, I think that the important thing is, are the tools you're using helping you make better art? If the answer is yes, it doesn't matter what it's classified as, whether it's vue, vue with post processing, or vue with alpha planes, as long as the render was done in Vue or Vue related..

I rarely involve myself in discussions of this subject in any of the forums but since it's been visited twice here in recent days, I think I will chime in with my 2 cents. It too is a subjective opinion but one offered not only from the 'art for fun's sake' point of view but from a professional 3d artist's perspective as well. Mind you, I'm not the best Vue artist out there, nor am I a beginner, but I do have my own lucrative art business wherein Vue and 3d figure prominently.

There are some trends that appear in the communities that continue to boggle my mind. Such as...

....The propensity for a lot of folks to become so empassioned about the tool they use that any art created with it becomes incidental...and they champion that tool to the death in much heated debates. Why, is beyond me. In the analog art world, you never see Grumbacher or Dick Blick users tearin' it up. Then there's that trend for application 'purism' that often rears it's ugly head along with many and sundry unwritten rules as to what is proper and what is not. I will never just use one tool in a picture. Unless, of course, they actually invent one that does everything and does it well.

Whatever application you've used as your staging and rendering environment regardless of what elements were used in or out of that environment for the final image qualifies it for entry into that app's gallery. Unless it specifically states in that gallery the percentage of this or that which is allowed, I think the staging app should rule. To me, that's just plain sense.

Even hobbyists and just for funners are always trying to get better at what they do (as well as some that don't care), to improve, to become more 'professional'. Then why not follow the example of the professionals..the big boys that we admire and want to do art like? Whatever it takes to get that final image..that primo shot is the rule of thumb with them. Prework, midwork, postwork, compositing, one tool, three tools, half a dozen or more. It doesn't matter. The final image is all that matters.

And besides, to quote one of 'Rosity's own, Mighty Pete.."It's all fake!!" All of it...there is no 'real' 3d.

In my opinion, it's not what you use in an image but how well you use it. Using alpha planes, pict objects, billboards, whatever you want to call 'em is neither dubious nor kitschy, but a well established and standard professional technique. It has been for many years.

But if you're going to use them, use them well that's all. In Vue, make sure all your lighting is coming from the same direction in all your elements. Disable shadows where appropriate and tweak your luminosity and material settings. If you're going to make alphas of Vue trees, don't use the white background. Either do it in Outer Space atmosphere with no stars and the color set to 000, or render and use the object mask. You can move the sun to match and get full depth. The white background makes your alphas flat and washed out. Apply shadows in post if necessary and remove any unwanted lines and halos.

The secret, once again imho, is to have someone look at your work and not be able to tell how you did it at all. That's one of my goals when I work. And it is a secret. It's no one's business how I did anything and I don't tell anyone unless it's community colleagues who sincerely want to know. I never tell clients my processes. They have no need to know and wouldn't understand half of it anyway.

Well, that concludes my spewing forth. I appreciate the opportunity. No offense was given anyone...so don't take it.

Yours,

Monsoon

Message edited on: 08/14/2004 13:55

Bravo Monsoon! You said it best...

Back in the day, I used MatchMove software to render 3D objects in filmed environments.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10y9Y0sWQV8

This was when Vue was compatible with such software before Autodesk bought up the technology and shut things down.

I see using photo backdrops as part of the overall render process. I still use HDRI images in Vue scenes when they are needed.  I still do the occasional QTVR render from Vue (pointing the render camera in six directions and putting the images together to view the scene). Sometimes, with photo backgrounds.

Would I consider such renders strictly Vue renders or mixed media renders? I tend to categorize my art by what app I use the most.