Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=132471&Start=1&Sectionid=1&WhatsNew=Yes

.. to John as we were having dinner tonight. I have pretty strong opinions about that! You see, - I think that photography never can become 3D art, - and 3D art can never resemble (or very rarely) photography. THey are two very different directions of art.. Hmm... or aren't they??

Now it IS an interesting thing that the only way we truely can see 3D is by looking around... where we are. ;) Britt PS.. the texture for Marc's DayDress2 is in the free section.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=131947&Start=1&Artist=Penguinisto&ByArtist=Yes

I've mixed photographs and 3D art before - the linked example uses a grainy 24-bit digital picture taken from an airplane window at sunset... but the blur and grainy aspects make the 'glass' of the Atrium roof more believable, in a way. Also, if the lighting matches the background, things tend to blend in a little more, IMHO. (By the by, I easily admit I'm not perfect at artwork, but I do like the way that oparticular image turned out...)

WOW.. that IS a nice picture, - and once again showed that I wasn't right! lol I thought it was funny that we talked about this today, - and then I found one of my photo's an acceptable background for Serges dress. What I do think is that it might be a bad idea to put two images next to eachother.. One photography and the other a 3D image. They ARE different, - and by putting them up that way I think the viewer gets "forced" to compare the two, - and unfortunately that often comes out to the 3D arts disadvantage. Britt

You're still right though, - mixing the two types would be tough in most cases... If the photograph is of a far horizon, or things distant, and are blurred a bit to make sure it stays that way (and to introduce some digital aspects to that picture), then you can pull it off. Medium to short-distance photos with no interposing 'glass' between it and your subject are extremely tough to make convincing, at least without a ton of post-work... I wouldn't even think to try it meself :) /P

BTW - one way you may want to do it would be to take the face in your image and run it through Still-to-Real (somewhere in the Renderosity store, I think), to make the face into a 3d model, which you could then put the dress on, and blend with the background (it would also let you treat the background as a different item in post-work without having to worry about the face changing with it.) HTH a little, /P

well, as you could see of MY attempt was that I blurred her face... g and then made a glow around her and smuged the eges a little.. so yup.. you have to cheat... quite a bit. :) Britt

... where do I sign up? ;=] (nice work, guys) ;=]

Attached Link: http://www.geocities.com/odeathoflife/Falcon.htm

I made this awhile ago, got he BG from my corel10 photo's disk, and then manually blurred it, it turned out alright but the Falcon seems overexposed. There is no post work.

First of all, I am a newbie, so my opinion counts for just about nothing. IMHO, by the time it gets posted or printed, all of them are 2D. How to do it? Skill. Not that I have it, but to show it can be done VERY well, visit this site http://www.earthcurves.com/ and look at those images! Check the tuts as well.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=71026&Start=55&Artist=jenay&ByArtist=Yes

i use background fotos very seldom - here is one i did some months ago: the trick is to blend foreground and background ...