Photoshop Gurus Forum
Welcome to Photoshop Gurus forum. Register a free account today to become a member! It's completely free. Once signed in, you'll enjoy an ad-free experience and be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
play with light
- Thread starter double r
- Start date
my only excuse for the rimless glass is that, I have enough skills to make the top rounded. I didn't know how to make it with a rim. I'll practice that. As I said on another post, your comments are encouraging. I half expected to get shot down. no confidence yet
I think its ok, but I don't like how 'flat' it looks. I guess you're not aiming towards a realistic look, but it does look kinda fake. The reflection is too soft to be glass - looks more like plasticy velvet. I like how you tried incorporate the sub-surface glow of the wine, but the rest looks like black wine. I like the colors, but thats about it.
Sry that I'm not totally impressed, I just had to say what I thought.
Sry that I'm not totally impressed, I just had to say what I thought.
Gaussian
Retired Administrator
- Messages
- 1,526
- Likes
- 67
p?tr??k said:
P?tr??k/Ronmatt, pretty much everything done in Photoshop looks fake, only few really have the ultimate talent to make it look real and to be honest, I haven?t met them on any Photoshop forum in all those years, but did meet a few a Cgtalk.
I think for many people super realism is not the ultimate goal, not only as an artist, but also as a viewer. Art is more than just super realism guys, just look at works of Van Gogh, Dali, Gauguin, Matisse, Cezanne, Derain, Renoir, etc.?
Also their works pay a lot more than a super realistic image of a wine glass, which in my opinion should already be an indication as how most people look at art. I think if you're looking at an image to analyze it in every detail to be able to label it "realistic", I'm sorry, but that's like checking a computer program for bugs in my opinion.
Anyway, just my two Canadian pennies.
I disagree. Acheiving photo-realism with PS is something that I strive to do.
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y227/patrick24/illustrations/m4a1.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y227/patrick24/illustrations/iPod.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y227/patrick24/illustrations/orb_white.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y227/patrick24/illustrations/eye_big.jpg
All these I did in PS. No images or 3d rendered elements. Pure Photoshop, nothing else.
Yes, I agree with you on this point. It just depends on what your trying to accomplish. Whether it be abstract, realistic, artistic illustration, etc. I'm just pointing out that just because it was made in PS, doesn't mean it has to look fake.
whoa, is this a touchy subject or not [ what is or isn't art? ]. To begin, I don't think this was the issue with this piece
RE: the wine glass. for me it was more about capturing a technique (art aside), not neccessarily 'photorealistic' but truer to what was obviously intended by double r. The images that I create aren't photorealistic, they're quite stylized. Because they're stylized they're more 'art' than camera vs. computer. (If I wanted that effect, I'd be a photographer). I interpret that double r is attempting to capture the same style. I think he missed by an inch or 2, I think patrick agrees.
To me, an illustration should look like an illustration. A photograph...a photograph. Both catagories certainly can overlap combining technical skills and creative skills of both the photographer and artist. (and what better place to do this but with Photoshop). In my opinion, the 'wine glass' is better than a lot of images posted, especially from a new PS'er.
RE: the wine glass. for me it was more about capturing a technique (art aside), not neccessarily 'photorealistic' but truer to what was obviously intended by double r. The images that I create aren't photorealistic, they're quite stylized. Because they're stylized they're more 'art' than camera vs. computer. (If I wanted that effect, I'd be a photographer). I interpret that double r is attempting to capture the same style. I think he missed by an inch or 2, I think patrick agrees.
To me, an illustration should look like an illustration. A photograph...a photograph. Both catagories certainly can overlap combining technical skills and creative skills of both the photographer and artist. (and what better place to do this but with Photoshop). In my opinion, the 'wine glass' is better than a lot of images posted, especially from a new PS'er.
Yes, you said it. When I said the wine glass looked 'fake', I didn't necessarly mean that its a bad thing. It doesn't have to look photo-realistic to be good. I was simply trying to point out parts of the image I thought could be improved to make it look better. Thats all.
And I do think it is an excellent job for a first. I guess I was just a little on the grumpy side when I posted that. [innocent]
I took a reading of the glass. it is r50-g41 b46. the black in the backgroung is r33 g33 b33. That means theres almost nothing there in the glass, I think. I didn't realize that I could use nothing to make something with. Everyday I learn.
Whats the thing on the side? How did you get the top of the glass and the wine? How did you get the car to kind of bend behind the glass?
Whats the thing on the side? How did you get the top of the glass and the wine? How did you get the car to kind of bend behind the glass?
Gaussian
Retired Administrator
- Messages
- 1,526
- Likes
- 67
Gaussian said:
p?tr??k said:
p?tr??k, that?s why I wrote ?pretty much everything done in Photoshop looks fake? and that I did meet people who do stuff that?s very realistic.?
I?ve seen these images already a long time ago, so I have some idea as what your skills are p?tr??k. Without a doubt its good stuff, but I don?t consider any of them realistic. Put them in a line-up with 6 random photographs of real objects and I?m pretty sure most people know to pick out the "Photoshopped" ones.
ronmatt said:
This is a good example why super realism is not important. What I like about your approach Ronmatt is that even when you prefer some kind of realism, you still try to take your images to an extra level by creating an interesting composition that goes beyond the main subject. You understand that just a wine glass is not enough (pretty boring in most cases), so by adding extra elements you?ve given the image a whole new dimension. This shows to me more skills than just being able to create a realistic object.?
There is also a lot of misunderstanding among beginners, that if someone is able to create a? realistic looking object, he must be a great artist/designer and experienced Photoshop user, which is a completely false conclusion.
dv8_fx
Retired Administrator
- Messages
- 13,761
- Likes
- 4,789
For what it's worth..... be it fake or realistic, abstract or surrealistic...... beauty is in the eye of the beholder..... interpretation is in the mind's eye of the seeker.
And from what I see in your stating posts , double r, you've got a good start.
And from everone's posts in the forum...... ohhhhhh..... hot .... Very Hot...... Everyone here has talent.
And from what I see in your stating posts , double r, you've got a good start.
And from everone's posts in the forum...... ohhhhhh..... hot .... Very Hot...... Everyone here has talent.
Gaussian - The way your reply came across, I got the impression that trying to make something in Photoshop look realistic wasn't feasible, or at least a waste of time. I agree that my PS drawings aren't picture-perfect, but I posted them to illustrate that making something to look realistic isn't impossible. I wasn't trying to boast, and I had no idea that you had ever seen any of my works before. You just seemed to be quite the pessimist (no offence). I think we often just misunderstand each other. Thats all.?
Oh, and Lee - it's a Maverick M4A1 Carbine assault rifle, not an M16.?
I have to agree with Gaussian regarding 'photorealism' in photoshop. I don't think it can be accomplished, at least by me. I've certainly tried and failed. But in doing so, developed a style that I prefer. I think that that's why I never got into 3d apps. I don't particularly care to create photorealistic images. I don't think though that Ive yet to get all out of photoshop that can be done. Which is why I post all the tidbits that I do. I keep trying to push the envelope of PS's possibilities and share the results with ya'all
I think there is a line between 'realistic' and 'photorealistic'. All your work, ron, is realistic to some degree. All 3d emulated illustrations are somewhat realistic. It just depends to what extent (how realistic) you want to go. It's up to the artist how far to push that envelope. For me, a like a challenge, to see how 'realistic' I can create things. 'Photorealism', on the other hand, is hard to achieve, even with an advanced 3d program. So, you're right about 'photorealism', I just think there might have been some confusion between the two. Different people having different definitions of 'realistic' and 'photorealistic'. I hope I'm explaining myself here.