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