Loading...
> >

Saphirewild's Randomness Renders

1…3637394142…69

Comments

  • SaphirewildSaphirewild Posts: 6,668
    edited March 2019

    Here is yet another experiment with lighting and posing.

    Titled: A Sun Dance

    A Sun Dance.jpg
    1500 x 1875 - 2M
    Post edited by Saphirewild on
  • Sven DullahSven Dullah Posts: 7,621
    Saphirewild said:

    Here is yet another experiment with lighting and posing.

    Titled: A Sun Dance

    Sexy:) Love the rim light effect, but there are also some very harsh and sharp shadows that look a bit odd IMO. Very nice, neverthelesssmiley

  • FishtalesFishtales Posts: 6,119

    @Saphirwild

    I'm loving the way your renders are improving over time. That last one looks very good.

  • SaphirewildSaphirewild Posts: 6,668
    Sven Dullah said:
    Saphirewild said:

    Here is yet another experiment with lighting and posing.

    Titled: A Sun Dance

    Sexy:) Love the rim light effect, but there are also some very harsh and sharp shadows that look a bit odd IMO. Very nice, neverthelesssmiley

     Sven Dullah I know there is some odd shadows only noticed them after it was done rendering (2 hours Later)! 

    But I do thank you for pointing it out to me!

  • SaphirewildSaphirewild Posts: 6,668
    Fishtales said:

    @Saphirwild

    I'm loving the way your renders are improving over time. That last one looks very good.

    Thanks @Fishtales for the incouragement and kind words!

  • SaphirewildSaphirewild Posts: 6,668
    edited March 2019

    This time was trying my hand at some postwork in GIMP!!

    I think it turned out good but would like to know what you guys think of it honest opinions plz!

    Dance To The Beat.jpg
    1500 x 1200 - 2M
    Post edited by Saphirewild on
  • FishtalesFishtales Posts: 6,119

    Assuming you are using Layers and the sparkles are on the top one I would erase them where they pass in front of the legs and make it look as if they are going around them. That would give more depth and not make it look like they have been stamped on as an afterthought :)

  • SaphirewildSaphirewild Posts: 6,668
    Fishtales said:

    Assuming you are using Layers and the sparkles are on the top one I would erase them where they pass in front of the legs and make it look as if they are going around them. That would give more depth and not make it look like they have been stamped on as an afterthought :)

    I have not learned layers as of yet. I know I would love to learn how to do this, can you point me in the right direction @Fishtales?

  • Matt_CastleMatt_Castle Posts: 2,561
    edited March 2019
    Tramp Graphics said:
    Saphirewild said:
    Tramp Graphics said:
    Saphirewild said:

    I finally got it fixed and all looks so much better except the fact that all the men are Zombies and the pants and shirts are like balloons.

    Ghouls, not zombies. Zombies don't eat people, ghouls do. 

    Tramp Graphics In the zombie movies I have seen the zombies eat human brains so assumed that they ate humans.

    Those are ghouls. People are using the wrong term. Zombies are "undead" slaves created through Vodou by a Bokour. In fact, this gentleman was a real life zombie, and was covered in the book The Serpent and the Rainbow. 

    That's not really accurate either if we're going back to the original folklore; Ghouls are daemons in Arabic culture (even sometimes claimed to have shapeshifting traits), so the interpretation of them as undead creatures is actually the exact same folklore mutation as you're complaining about with zombies - namely that John Romero's "Living Dead" films borrowed both "ghoul" and "zombie" as loanwords to describe the (then new) concept of flesh-eating, infectious and animate corpses, somewhere between all of the traditional concepts of zombies, ghouls and vampires.

    There isn't any direct parallel in traditional folklore for these beasts. As these are purely fictional, whatever name is used for them will be down to the individual author, but the overwhelming majority consensus within modern pop culture is to borrow the term "zombies".

    Fishtales said:

    Assuming you are using Layers and the sparkles are on the top one I would erase them where they pass in front of the legs and make it look as if they are going around them. That would give more depth and not make it look like they have been stamped on as an afterthought :)

    I would agree in general, but I would suggest the use of a layer mask instead; this kind of thing benefits from being able to unmask things to get them back (rather than having to completely undo an entire erase, you can just paint back in specific parts of the layer).

    Post edited by Matt_Castle on
  • FishtalesFishtales Posts: 6,119

    I don't use Gimp but a Google search brings up a lot of tutorials.

    https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=opera&q=using+layers+in+gimp&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

  • AJ2112AJ2112 Posts: 1,416

    Hi Saph, very cool image, wonder where they are magically, or going.  I rarely ever critique, sorry friend.  But first thing I noticed is the sky does not match the scene, to abstract.  Another is, female appears to be holding sword, wand or whatever on door/wall.  Well, that's what I thought first viewing, otherwise nice job on magical scene yes 

  • SaphirewildSaphirewild Posts: 6,668
    Matt_Castle said:
    Tramp Graphics said:
    Saphirewild said:
    Tramp Graphics said:
    Saphirewild said:

    I finally got it fixed and all looks so much better except the fact that all the men are Zombies and the pants and shirts are like balloons.

    Ghouls, not zombies. Zombies don't eat people, ghouls do. 

    Tramp Graphics In the zombie movies I have seen the zombies eat human brains so assumed that they ate humans.

    Those are ghouls. People are using the wrong term. Zombies are "undead" slaves created through Vodou by a Bokour. In fact, this gentleman was a real life zombie, and was covered in the book The Serpent and the Rainbow. 

    That's not really accurate either if we're going back to the original folklore; Ghouls are daemons in Arabic culture (even sometimes claimed to have shapeshifting traits), so the interpretation of them as undead creatures is actually the exact same folklore mutation as you're complaining about with zombies - namely that John Romero's "Living Dead" films borrowed both "ghoul" and "zombie" as loanwords to describe the (then new) concept of flesh-eating, infectious and animate corpses, somewhere between all of the traditional concepts of zombies, ghouls and vampires.

    There isn't any direct parallel in traditional folklore for these beasts. As these are purely fictional, whatever name is used for them will be down to the individual author, but the overwhelming majority consensus within modern pop culture is to borrow the term "zombies".

    Fishtales said:

    Assuming you are using Layers and the sparkles are on the top one I would erase them where they pass in front of the legs and make it look as if they are going around them. That would give more depth and not make it look like they have been stamped on as an afterthought :)

    I would agree in general, but I would suggest the use of a layer mask instead; this kind of thing benefits from being able to unmask things to get them back (rather than having to completely undo an entire erase, you can just paint back in specific parts of the layer).

    Thanks for the info on the "Zombies" and "Gouls"! Matt_Castle

    Also thanks for the info on layers as soon as I learn more about them I will do what you suggest.

  • SaphirewildSaphirewild Posts: 6,668
    Fishtales said:

    I don't use Gimp but a Google search brings up a lot of tutorials.

    https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=opera&q=using+layers+in+gimp&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

    Thanks for the link @Fishtales!!

  • SaphirewildSaphirewild Posts: 6,668
    AJ2112 said:

    Hi Saph, very cool image, wonder where they are magically, or going.  I rarely ever critique, sorry friend.  But first thing I noticed is the sky does not match the scene, to abstract.  Another is, female appears to be holding sword, wand or whatever on door/wall.  Well, that's what I thought first viewing, otherwise nice job on magical scene yes 

    @AJ2112 I do thank you for you honest opinion my friend and will fix things as soon as I get some lessons in about layers and such.

  • Tramp GraphicsTramp Graphics Posts: 2,411
    edited March 2019
    Matt_Castle said:
    Tramp Graphics said:
    Saphirewild said:
    Tramp Graphics said:
    Saphirewild said:

    I finally got it fixed and all looks so much better except the fact that all the men are Zombies and the pants and shirts are like balloons.

    Ghouls, not zombies. Zombies don't eat people, ghouls do. 

    Tramp Graphics In the zombie movies I have seen the zombies eat human brains so assumed that they ate humans.

    Those are ghouls. People are using the wrong term. Zombies are "undead" slaves created through Vodou by a Bokour. In fact, this gentleman was a real life zombie, and was covered in the book The Serpent and the Rainbow. 

    That's not really accurate either if we're going back to the original folklore; Ghouls are daemons in Arabic culture (even sometimes claimed to have shapeshifting traits), so the interpretation of them as undead creatures is actually the exact same folklore mutation as you're complaining about with zombies - namely that John Romero's "Living Dead" films borrowed both "ghoul" and "zombie" as loanwords to describe the (then new) concept of flesh-eating, infectious and animate corpses, somewhere between all of the traditional concepts of zombies, ghouls and vampires.

    There isn't any direct parallel in traditional folklore for these beasts. As these are purely fictional, whatever name is used for them will be down to the individual author, but the overwhelming majority consensus within modern pop culture is to borrow the term "zombies".

    Fishtales said:

    Assuming you are using Layers and the sparkles are on the top one I would erase them where they pass in front of the legs and make it look as if they are going around them. That would give more depth and not make it look like they have been stamped on as an afterthought :)

    I would agree in general, but I would suggest the use of a layer mask instead; this kind of thing benefits from being able to unmask things to get them back (rather than having to completely undo an entire erase, you can just paint back in specific parts of the layer).

    That same folklore states that Ghouls can transform humans into more ghouls. It also states that ghouls will kill to consume human flesh. So, yes, they are "undead". They're "evil spirits", specifically corporial ones. The original Night of the Living Dead specfically used the term Ghouls, because that is what they were. the creator took the name directly from the folklore because that not only best described what they were, but also what they did. Ghouls eat human flesh, preferrrably corpses, but they aren't above killing the living in order to have a corpse to eat. Look up the term "ghoulish". 

    ghoulish

    [goo-lish]

    EXAMPLES|WORD ORIGIN

    SEE MORE SYNONYMS FOR ghoulish ON THESAURUS.COM

    adjective

    strangely diabolical or cruel; monstrous:a ghoulish and questionable sense of humor.

    showing fascination with death, disease, maiming, etc.; morbid:ghoulish curiosity.

    of, relating to, or like a ghoul or ghouls.

    Eating human flesh is ghoulish behavior. It is the behavior of a ghoul. It's not "zombie-ish" behavior. When someone says a person is acting like a zombie, it means that the person is walking around in a mindless stupor or daze. 

    When someon is described as "ghoulish". it means his behavior is that of a ghoul. it's macabre, grisly, bloodthirsty. cruel and monsterous, just like a ghoul. And what do we see the "walking dead" do in these movies? They act like ghouls. They feed on human flesh, they kill in cruel, brutal ways, and consume the flesh of their victims. This is the behavior of a ghoul. There's an old saying: "if it loks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck. The same holds here. If it looks like a ghoul, acts like a ghould, has all of the characteristics of a ghoul, it's a ghoul. 

    By contrast, Zombies are slaves created through Vodou by a Bokour, and, technically, aren't really dead. They are kept in a stupor through drugs, specfically "zombie cucumber", in order to keep them in a mindless, highly suggestible and controllable state. And regardless of what the "overwhelming majority" think, it's still wrong to use the term "Zombie" for flesh eating undead because zombies don't eat human flesh. 

    Post edited by Tramp Graphics on
  • Matt_CastleMatt_Castle Posts: 2,561
    edited March 2019
    Tramp Graphics said:

    And regardless of what the "overwhelming majority" think, it's still wrong to use the term "Zombie" for flesh eating undead because zombies don't eat human flesh. 

    The final arbitrator in language is always usage, not origin. It doesn't matter that the word "awful" originally meant "reverence inspiring" (it was originally a synonym for "awesome", which has closer kept the original meaning), or that egregious is derived from the Latin egregius (for "illustrious"), majority consensus means that their usage and meaning is now "downright bad". If enough people understand a word to have a definition, then that is one of the word's definitions, even if it is technically incorrect.

    Other than that, I'm drawing this to a close, as this is taking over the entire thread.

    Post edited by Matt_Castle on
  • Tramp GraphicsTramp Graphics Posts: 2,411
    edited March 2019
    Matt_Castle said:
    Tramp Graphics said:

    And regardless of what the "overwhelming majority" think, it's still wrong to use the term "Zombie" for flesh eating undead because zombies don't eat human flesh. 

    The final arbitrator in language is always usage, not origin. It doesn't matter that the word "awful" originally meant "reverence inspiring" (it was originally a synonym for "awesome", which has closer kept the original meaning), or that egregious is derived from the Latin egregius (for "illustrious"), majority consensus means that their usage and meaning is now "downright bad". If enough people understand a word to have a definition, then that is one of the word's definitions, even if it is technically incorrect.

    Other than that, I'm drawing this to a close, as this is taking over the entire thread.

    And I whole-heartedly disagree with your assessment; particularly when talking technical terminology, such as identifying creatures, animals, monsters, or the like, be they real or "folkore". 

    Post edited by Tramp Graphics on
  • AJ2112AJ2112 Posts: 1,416

    Goodness gracious, Rofl !!  This is Saphire's thread.  I will this settle topic.  Actually both of you are correct, pertaning to ghouls and zombies.  I've been a fan of supernatural genre for years !!!  Ghouls are the undead, flesh eaters.  Now zombies on the other hand, did not eat flesh, but as everything in life that evolves, new stories emerge, zombies became more advanced, with each new strain of viruses, became faster, began to hunt humans as food source, which baffled scientist, creating anti virus to cure zombism.  Zombies began to develop slight brain function, etc.... reason one has to shoot brain to kill.  

    Take notice of our world, how it has evolved since the big bang.  How species of humans have changed, from brainless to intellegent, same with zombies.  

    So fact is, everything in our world changes regardless, of terminology, vocabulary, etc.....  Zombies have changed over time.   

  • SaphirewildSaphirewild Posts: 6,668

    I do thank you all for the amazing info about Gouls and and Zombies it has been very inlightening!!!

    But now I must get back to my mad experimenting with Lights and posing and such!!!

  • SpaceVagabondSpaceVagabond Posts: 139

    as it was said before, the sky doesn't fit to the scene. better find another one or use a camera angle where the sky isn't visible.

    the sparkles don't looking good too.

    but, keep on,,,,,,,you can do it! :-)

  • mori_mannmori_mann Posts: 1,152

    Perhaps it's not so much that the sky doens't fit (although a less bright one might do better), but more that there seems to be empty space between the top of the wall and the sky. I think lowering the skydome on the y-axis may change the look of the image a lot.

  • FishtalesFishtales Posts: 6,119
    edited March 2019

     

    mori_mann said:

    Perhaps it's not so much that the sky doens't fit (although a less bright one might do better), but more that there seems to be empty space between the top of the wall and the sky. I think lowering the skydome on the y-axis may change the look of the image a lot.

    Easier to select all the figures and raise everything up until the horizon is hidden, either that or lower the camera. Dropping the horizon on the y-axis will lower the Dome below the horizon but the horizon will stay in the same place Scrub that bit you are correct you can drop the horizon too as well as the Dome. I do that if I have an HDRI with a nice sky but with buildings or hills along the horizon to hide them.

    Post edited by Fishtales on
  • SaphirewildSaphirewild Posts: 6,668
    Fishtales said:

     

    mori_mann said:

    Perhaps it's not so much that the sky doens't fit (although a less bright one might do better), but more that there seems to be empty space between the top of the wall and the sky. I think lowering the skydome on the y-axis may change the look of the image a lot.

    Easier to select all the figures and raise everything up until the horizon is hidden, either that or lower the camera. Dropping the horizon on the y-axis will lower the Dome below the horizon but the horizon will stay in the same place Scrub that bit you are correct you can drop the horizon too as well as the Dome. I do that if I have an HDRI with a nice sky but with buildings or hills along the horizon to hide them.

    I will defently try that with the sky, but you are right it has buildings in the pic as well so was trying to give it a "It's just a beautiful day" instead of "Just another day in the city" feel to the render. @Fishtales and mori_mann!

  • SaphirewildSaphirewild Posts: 6,668
    edited March 2019

    Here is a crazy experiment I just got done doing, I rendered a total IRay settings in 3Delight progressive rendering, postwork done in GIMP.

    Also got to use some of the Birthday Gift Card my hubby got me this past weekend as my BDay was on the 8th.

    Wait a Minute Mr. Chow.jpg
    1500 x 1875 - 2M
    Post edited by Saphirewild on
  • Sven DullahSven Dullah Posts: 7,621
    Saphirewild said:

    Here is a crazy experiment I just got done doing, I rendered a total IRay settings in 3Delight progressive rendering, postwork done in GIMP.

    That's very interesting:) Are teh skins IRay too? Potatoes look nice=) Are rendertimes like with 3DL mats? Longer? Shorter? Do you get the same results in non progressive mode? But I bet it will make for super long rendertimes?

  • SaphirewildSaphirewild Posts: 6,668
    edited March 2019
    Sven Dullah said:
    Saphirewild said:

    Here is a crazy experiment I just got done doing, I rendered a total IRay settings in 3Delight progressive rendering, postwork done in GIMP.

    That's very interesting:) Are teh skins IRay too? Potatoes look nice=) Are rendertimes like with 3DL mats? Longer? Shorter? Do you get the same results in non progressive mode? But I bet it will make for super long rendertimes?

    Yes the skins are IRay, Sven Dullah

    The render time is a bit longer about 1 hour longer depending on the size of your scene and how many people are in it.

    No I don't get the same result without it being in Progressive mode

    Post edited by Saphirewild on
  • SaphirewildSaphirewild Posts: 6,668

    I am working on yet another Iray type scene rendering it out in 3Delight when done putting it together will post when done!

  • WinterMoonWinterMoon Posts: 1,937
    edited March 2019

    This is interesting. It seems like Iray textures look a lot better rendered in progressive 3DL, than 3DL textures look in Iray.

    Post edited by WinterMoon on
  • SaphirewildSaphirewild Posts: 6,668
    edited March 2019

    Here is yet another IRay done in 3Delight Progressive rendering.

    Postwork done in GIMP

    Titled: A Beautiful Worship

    A Beautiful Worship.png
    1500 x 1200 - 2M
    A Beautiful Worship.jpg
    1472 x 1150 - 1M
    Post edited by Saphirewild on
  • SaphirewildSaphirewild Posts: 6,668
    edited March 2019

    Titled: Car Love

    It did not work out this time around with the IRay skins s had to convert them to the 3Delight skins.

    Post edited by Saphirewild on
Sign In or Register to comment.