just when you thought it was gone...
Tuesday, September 21, 2004 by queezendorf | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
I'm a pretty regular person on here. People know me, and from what it seems admins don't mind me much either. It's been a good while since i've uploaded a wallpaper on here. I limit my expectations now, just because i understand sometimes 'newbies' get picks over the long runners. Altho, I do have to ask, "How many Apophysis renderings (with no alterations or creativity) will be accepted over good-old photoshop/max melds?" Seems like wasted effort when i can just randomly pic some colors in Apophysis and play with the mutations. Where's the fun in that? I also remember when Bryce seem to be a problem... and it seems its been a while since ive seen some... this seems to be one of those trends... I'm just curious because Apophysis renders seem to be taking a lot of wincustomizes space. Another 'Bryce' ? this isn't a bash on anyone.. I'm just wondering........ seems mindless.
queezendorf
Reply #2 Tuesday, September 21, 2004 4:35 PM
Reply #2 Tuesday, September 21, 2004 4:35 PM
but where does it come from? Did they themselves actually construct an original idea? ..or let a machine do it for them? ... and how fair is that if the machine did? i guess i may be alone in thinking that it takes no effort.. and effort matters to me. The amount of effort i put into my work far exceeds that of a simple render. I devise a flow first, then a color sheme, then piece together elements from various media, blend them as seemlessly as possible. Sometimes i can work on a piece for months.. weeks.. days.. even hours... but 2 minutes is what it takes to render something in Apophysis... how is that original and creative?
[Message Edited]
[Message Edited]
CerebroJD
Reply #3 Tuesday, September 21, 2004 4:57 PM
Reply #3 Tuesday, September 21, 2004 4:57 PM
I dont know how long it takes to render stuff in it, or even how they are made, but I do know that its good to have a new, if repetitive, style to choose from. 
CygnusXII
Reply #4 Tuesday, September 21, 2004 5:27 PM
Reply #4 Tuesday, September 21, 2004 5:27 PM
I more than often am less impressed by any manufactured, artificialy rendered "whosits" & "whatsits." How many blue, red, green, brown blobs do you have to wade through to get to some genuine art? Iremember a long time ago it was Balls connected singular and in many forms, then there was alien looking tech, alien swooshes, pseudo tribal icons in the middle of the screen, Portals, Kanji, just about every wave has been run out. No matter how good, you are in Bryce, everyone can tell it was done in Bryce. Face it the field is diminishing, of good work and really good software Dev as well. Any company that made cool software five years ago is gone, and the bones of thier software is twisting in a grave somewheres'. I hate to say it, but the more the PC is a boon to the true graphic artist, it is also the boon to many a would be hack as well. You can not derive talent, and vision from software alone, and what is missing from 99.9% of all these whosits' and whatsits, is talent and vision. welcome to the point and click equivalent of paint by numbers.
Alternate Setting
Reply #6 Tuesday, September 21, 2004 11:48 PM
Reply #6 Tuesday, September 21, 2004 11:48 PM
Personally I like that there are different levels - it makes it sort of like getting my photo's back from the chemist - going through loads to find the one gem that made the roll worthwhile. Sort of like treasure hunting.
I'm also sort of struck by the concept of 'sniffiness' in art - artists have frequently fallen back on cheats, technology and guile.
"Over 100 years of speculation and controversy surround claims that the great seventeenth-century Dutch artist, Johannes Vermeer, used the camera obscura to create some of the most famous images in Western art.
This intellectual detective story starts by exploring Vermeer's possible knowledge of seventeenth-century optical science, and outlines the history of this early version of the photographic camera, which projected an accurate image for artists to trace. However, it is Steadman's meticulous reconstruction of the artist's studio, complete with a camera obscura, which provides exciting new evidence to support the view that Vermeer did indeed use the camera.
These findings do not challenge Vermeer's genius but show how, like many artists, he experimented with new technology to develop his style and choice of subject matter."
I'm also sort of struck by the concept of 'sniffiness' in art - artists have frequently fallen back on cheats, technology and guile.
"Over 100 years of speculation and controversy surround claims that the great seventeenth-century Dutch artist, Johannes Vermeer, used the camera obscura to create some of the most famous images in Western art.
This intellectual detective story starts by exploring Vermeer's possible knowledge of seventeenth-century optical science, and outlines the history of this early version of the photographic camera, which projected an accurate image for artists to trace. However, it is Steadman's meticulous reconstruction of the artist's studio, complete with a camera obscura, which provides exciting new evidence to support the view that Vermeer did indeed use the camera.
These findings do not challenge Vermeer's genius but show how, like many artists, he experimented with new technology to develop his style and choice of subject matter."
queezendorf
Reply #7 Wednesday, September 22, 2004 6:32 AM
Reply #7 Wednesday, September 22, 2004 6:32 AM
Photos aren't really all that different as far as the process is concerned, which brings me to another point thats on my mind. I've submitted a photo i had taken as a wallpaper that got rejected. I'm assuming because it was a photo, or the disbelief it was mine that caused it to be rejected. We don't see photos much here (just 3d renders in Terra Gen.) . They at least can be -widely- different looking, when an Apophysis render isn't really all that different from one another. Now if the renders could break the mold of the "swirly-doos" I think i would be more impressed. I've used Apophysis in some of my pieces, but i have interwoven them somehow into the other medias. To me that seems to unlimit more possibilities, Not to mention it takes more effort is finding what works together.
paxx
Reply #8 Wednesday, September 22, 2004 7:33 AM
Reply #8 Wednesday, September 22, 2004 7:33 AM
Oh, I agree 100% queenendorf. A few more of those and we'll probably have to stop accepting them. It was nicec when it was different, but if it starts to be a new trend of "push a button and let the computer do the work" kind of walls, we'll adjust our criterias accordingly.
Erk.
Reply #9 Wednesday, September 22, 2004 8:26 AM
And I believe that is a good way to use the program.
On their own, my opinion is that the Apophysis renders seem lacking in something. All of them.
I play with it every now and then too, with some (imho) pretty nice results. But always, the result is 'lacking' finality.
Take the resulting finished render over to photoshop or even psp, and there's virtually unlimited opportunity for improvement.
Me? ...I wouldn't d/l a render on it's own as a wall. But that's personal choice. All in all though, there's folks that do like them (check the counts), so I guess they have their place here, just like the Bryce's of old did.
...it too, shall pass.
Reply #9 Wednesday, September 22, 2004 8:26 AM
| I've used Apophysis in some of my pieces, but i have interwoven them somehow into the other medias |
And I believe that is a good way to use the program.
On their own, my opinion is that the Apophysis renders seem lacking in something. All of them.
I play with it every now and then too, with some (imho) pretty nice results. But always, the result is 'lacking' finality.
Take the resulting finished render over to photoshop or even psp, and there's virtually unlimited opportunity for improvement.
Me? ...I wouldn't d/l a render on it's own as a wall. But that's personal choice. All in all though, there's folks that do like them (check the counts), so I guess they have their place here, just like the Bryce's of old did.
...it too, shall pass.
queezendorf
Reply #10 Wednesday, September 22, 2004 12:11 PM
Reply #10 Wednesday, September 22, 2004 12:11 PM
There's some comfort then... thanks paxx and Wreckless Eric.
thanks paxx and Wreckless Eric.Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
Reply #1 Tuesday, September 21, 2004 4:31 PM