Thanks for the chuckle Bruce. I think what made me think of a baseball glove was the color, not necessarily the shape. I do like your observation of his doubling as a piece of furniture. 
-
Welcome to the Community Forums at HiveWire 3D! Please note that the user name you choose for our forum will be displayed to the public. Our store was closed as January 4, 2021. You can find HiveWire 3D and Lisa's Botanicals products, as well as many of our Contributing Artists, at Renderosity. This thread lists where many are now selling their products. Renderosity is generously putting products which were purchased at HiveWire 3D and are now sold at their store into customer accounts by gifting them. This is not an overnight process so please be patient, if you have already emailed them about this. If you have NOT emailed them, please see the 2nd post in this thread for instructions on what you need to do
Always Room For Improvement-- How can I make this Better?
- Thread starter Tynkere
- Start date
Thanks for the chuckle Bruce. I think what made me think of a baseball glove was the color, not necessarily the shape. I do like your observation of his doubling as a piece of furniture. 
My comment on the original picture was sort of touched on by a couple people, but I'd like make it clearer. Everyone said "lots going on", but the problem is that the lots that's going on is a whole bunch of people each doing different things, and the viewer can't decide what to look at first. It's like a half dozen pictures all fighting for space inside of one frame.
If the people in the background are part of what the foreground is doing, might want to make them "more distant" with soft focus (like the camera focused on the girl with the camera and the rest are out of sharp focus range). That'd pull the eye to the foreground and leave the background to "setting the scene".
If the people in the background are part of what the foreground is doing, might want to make them "more distant" with soft focus (like the camera focused on the girl with the camera and the rest are out of sharp focus range). That'd pull the eye to the foreground and leave the background to "setting the scene".
Tynkere
Motivated
@Miss B
Thanks. If I can make someone smile or laugh, then it’s been a good day for me. : )
@Rowan54
“Focus” an interesting idea. It’s not supposed to have any single area of interest, just people doing whatever they're doing if that makes sense. More like street photography, or at least an attempt. ; )
Examples from a photography tutorial here.
I’d be stupid to ignore advice though. The render is simply too cluttered or busy?
Thanks for reading
--Bruce
Thanks. If I can make someone smile or laugh, then it’s been a good day for me. : )
@Rowan54
“Focus” an interesting idea. It’s not supposed to have any single area of interest, just people doing whatever they're doing if that makes sense. More like street photography, or at least an attempt. ; )
Examples from a photography tutorial here.
I’d be stupid to ignore advice though. The render is simply too cluttered or busy?
Thanks for reading
--Bruce
Yeah, it's like a snapshot of a place with several things going on and I don't know what I'm supposed to be looking at.
Good rendering and reasonably good art technique otherwise (poses good, ditto lighting, etc.), just that it's random people doing random things and this tends to be a little confusing to the viewer who may, as I was, be sitting there going, "Huh?"
Good rendering and reasonably good art technique otherwise (poses good, ditto lighting, etc.), just that it's random people doing random things and this tends to be a little confusing to the viewer who may, as I was, be sitting there going, "Huh?"
Tynkere
Motivated
“Huh?”
I’m laughing, but not at you-- more myself. Probably the kind of feedback I was wanting, just didn’t know it.
A bit of explanation-- sorry if long. From layout & design at an ad/marketing agency I’d show stuff to my editor. She was a grand old lady with 40 years of experience in the business. She chain smoked menthol cigarettes, and seldom said more than two words. I’d show her a proof, and she’d get out a grease pencil. More often than not, she’d mark “N.F.” on it which meant “No Future.” (As in can't use this-- come up with something else.) Two weeks of that & decided to quit before I they could fire me! Only when I handed her my letter of resignation did she finally open up. Space prohibits her sage words of wisdom, but suffice to say I learned a lot.
So saying “Huh?” kind of reminds me of "No Future! That’s not me pouting or in a pique-- it’s just business. Work it doesn't. No amount of technical work is going to salvage something that makes people wonder “Huh?”
If only someone had told me that in the beginning could’ve saved myself the trouble!
So thanks for being blunt. Don’t know why people are shy about that sort of thing. Guess it depends on the person asking for the critique. I asked, and you delivered, so thanks once again!
--Bruce
PS: Also want to thank everyone who ‘liked’ the render. Good balance of support & encouragement versus critique here. : )
I’m laughing, but not at you-- more myself. Probably the kind of feedback I was wanting, just didn’t know it.
A bit of explanation-- sorry if long. From layout & design at an ad/marketing agency I’d show stuff to my editor. She was a grand old lady with 40 years of experience in the business. She chain smoked menthol cigarettes, and seldom said more than two words. I’d show her a proof, and she’d get out a grease pencil. More often than not, she’d mark “N.F.” on it which meant “No Future.” (As in can't use this-- come up with something else.) Two weeks of that & decided to quit before I they could fire me! Only when I handed her my letter of resignation did she finally open up. Space prohibits her sage words of wisdom, but suffice to say I learned a lot.
So saying “Huh?” kind of reminds me of "No Future! That’s not me pouting or in a pique-- it’s just business. Work it doesn't. No amount of technical work is going to salvage something that makes people wonder “Huh?”
If only someone had told me that in the beginning could’ve saved myself the trouble!
So thanks for being blunt. Don’t know why people are shy about that sort of thing. Guess it depends on the person asking for the critique. I asked, and you delivered, so thanks once again!
--Bruce
PS: Also want to thank everyone who ‘liked’ the render. Good balance of support & encouragement versus critique here. : )
well...i think that can be right if you want to sell a product or something...but i am a person that likes "busy" images..even if usually there is an only point of attention in an image...that is no reason why you can´t create more than one point...really i agree...is more easy for the creator and the viewer to have only a point...but art is not only math...i like what is "out of the box" because ...who is the one that make the rules? Picasso and other artists broke them...and look at their art now! as beauty art is not only in the mind of the artist ...but in the eyes of an understanding viewer...that is how i see it...please don´t take ofense anyone !
There are lots of very good photos/art/pictures with huge amounts of people in them, like "Night Watch" by Rembrandt, which I happen to like. However, there tends to be a *focus* to the picture. A place your eye goes, first. And a feeling that you know what it's about. And the focus is somehow separated from the rest of the picture. Maybe the focus is shown by distance (near to compare with far?), or color (bright spot amongst the drab?), the amount of light on it, or everyone in the picture is looking towards one thing, or even a circle/triangle/square of things/people that are the focus.
This is not easy to learn, and harder to make happen. (I have so many photos that are just, well, messy, and not focused, and they're not making it into the world. And I've done art that didn't work, as well.)
As for getting brave enough to say something, you did say you had a skin like a rhinoceros (or something equally thick) and I decided to test it. Some people don't take criticism well at all, even when tempered by a list of what's right. You have taken the criticism well, which is good.
This is not easy to learn, and harder to make happen. (I have so many photos that are just, well, messy, and not focused, and they're not making it into the world. And I've done art that didn't work, as well.)
As for getting brave enough to say something, you did say you had a skin like a rhinoceros (or something equally thick) and I decided to test it.
Some people don't take criticism well at all, even when tempered by a list of what's right. You have taken the criticism well, which is good.
This is probably why I don't do a lot of scenes with a lot of people or action, but tend to do portrait type work. Much easier to focus the viewer on what you want them to look at when there is only one or two creatures/people in the scene.
I know several people have mentioned DOF, but as someone who's vision has deteriorated with age (I'm far sighted, and since near vision is the first to go, it's hit me hard), I absolutely hate DOF. That's because even with glasses, I often experience blurriness in real life. I often find DOF is overdone ... in my opinion, but then again, it could be that it's a combination of a bad day for me rather than a heavy use of DOF.
I like the idea of a ray of light on the camera girl ... if she's supposed to be the focus. Then too, the fish is so colorful, maybe he's the focus :wink:
Removing the guy on the grass might keep from distracting viewers from camera girl, since all the other people would then definitely be in the background.
It would be interesting to see how you change the image ... if you decide to do so.
I know several people have mentioned DOF, but as someone who's vision has deteriorated with age (I'm far sighted, and since near vision is the first to go, it's hit me hard), I absolutely hate DOF. That's because even with glasses, I often experience blurriness in real life. I often find DOF is overdone ... in my opinion, but then again, it could be that it's a combination of a bad day for me rather than a heavy use of DOF.
I like the idea of a ray of light on the camera girl ... if she's supposed to be the focus. Then too, the fish is so colorful, maybe he's the focus :wink:
Removing the guy on the grass might keep from distracting viewers from camera girl, since all the other people would then definitely be in the background.
It would be interesting to see how you change the image ... if you decide to do so.
Hornet3d
Wise
There are lots of very good photos/art/pictures with huge amounts of people in them, like "Night Watch" by Rembrandt, which I happen to like. However, there tends to be a *focus* to the picture. A place your eye goes, first. And a feeling that you know what it's about. And the focus is somehow separated from the rest of the picture. Maybe the focus is shown by distance (near to compare with far?), or color (bright spot amongst the drab?), the amount of light on it, or everyone in the picture is looking towards one thing, or even a circle/triangle/square of things/people that are the focus.
This is not easy to learn, and harder to make happen. (I have so many photos that are just, well, messy, and not focused, and they're not making it into the world. And I've done art that didn't work, as well.)
As for getting brave enough to say something, you did say you had a skin like a rhinoceros (or something equally thick) and I decided to test it.
A point that many people who claim 3D are is not real art tend to forget is that composition is major part of any render. With photography composition is often limited by restricted access and other than exposure you have limited control over light unless you are in a studio. I 3d art you have a a lot of control over light and composition and even how surfaces react to light that opens th scope you have but that is a lot to get right in a render. Photography was my prime hobby for over thirty years, some studio work but mainly wildlife, it was not easy but I put more work into most my renders than I ever did in to my photographs.
As an example.
Very little control over light, you dare not move in case he flys off, all you can do is press the shutter and hope he/she stays still long enough. Imagine trying to duplicate this in Poser of DS. Sorry about the DOF Satira a by product of a long lens I am afraid.
Hornet3d
Wise
DOF has it's uses but as you say it is often overdone and sometimes used to hide a less than perfect background. Most my work is portrait based or only has one or two figures in the render, I do some landscapes but as landscape I want it to be sharp into the distance, not blurry.
Like you I would be interested what could be done to an already very good render.
Lots of people have mentioned a lack of a single point to focus on and a general busyness. Just to throw in a countering point you could, perhaps, make it even more busy. No, even busier than that: a dragonfly skimming over the fish, smaller insects for the bird on the branch and one of the frogs to be stalking, a cat hiding from the dog, a mouse hiding from the cat, the photographer's foot about to miss a step, a dropped icecream on the floor where the woman near the doorway is startled by the monk carrying boxes, piled fruit in the boxes with one falling off the top, the reading man's sandwiches beside him on the bench, a crow about to steal those sandwiches; building up more and more until it's a bit like one of those Where's Waldo (Where's Wally) books, or a couple of artists whose work I can picture but whose names totally escape me. An abstract maze of imagery on first glance, then something new to see everywhere you look. Makes for a heavyweight scene on the rendering side though.
this is what i think too!
Bonnie2001
Extraordinary
That's a great shot Hornet, and proper use of DOF with all attention drawn to the main subject. We started learning photography in school year before last and we had a few photographers from different fields in for a chat over the course. The sports, action and wildlife photographers all stressed how shallow DOF was important for them. I am trying to remember that in my renders as after all it's what we do in the final render and settings that make or break it.
Tynkere
Motivated
Goodness-- this topic just keeps going!
@mininessie
Thanks. I got tired of predictable “Here’s an elven mage render... Here’s a Jason Statham render with a trick car and plenty of guns.” So I decided on something different. : -)
@Rowan54
Been in photography since 1979, so yes! For every 10,000 snaps, I might have a dozen ‘keepers’ by end of year. Look back at them and maybe one makes final cut.
3D art probably going to be even worse? Finish a render, and always think, “This is great!” Set it aside for a month. “This is awful!” Everyone their own worst critic? ;- )
@Satira Capriccio
Glad you said that about eyesight. Mine is going south in a hurry. Blood sugar might play a part, or just too stubborn to get ‘computer’ glasses. O _ 0
@Hornet3d
Amazing capture! Doesn’t look like you used super-strobe flash in daylight to fill in either. What lens if mind me asking? My all time favorite is an AF Micro Nikkor 200mm 1:4D-- don’t usually have to crop with macro & makes nice ‘reach out & touch someone’ lens for candids. Only drawback might be bokeh. As for 3D-- agree about using DoF just to hide things. Barren hills in Terradome-- blur out 'zone B' because don't want 1000 instances of tress, etc. : 0 !
@HaiGan
That might be the only way to salvage it. There is nothing in RH corner to lead viewer full circle. A sense of it being incomplete? Nothing there but a butterfly, so it's somehow unsatisfying? A child playing, or maybe creatures, as you suggest, might bring viewer full circle, and more of a sense of completion?
@Bonnie2001
Trade off I guess. Ansel Adams-- most everything is crisp and in focus! IRay having “f-stop” in the hundreds... Maybe that’s what I need to learn too. 3D art & render settings seems to be its own animal. Highest f-stop on lens I have his 32. An f-stop of 700 in DS? Wow!
Anyway, want to thank everyone again for replies. Had no idea I’d get so many!
--Bruce
@mininessie
Thanks. I got tired of predictable “Here’s an elven mage render... Here’s a Jason Statham render with a trick car and plenty of guns.” So I decided on something different. : -)
@Rowan54
Been in photography since 1979, so yes! For every 10,000 snaps, I might have a dozen ‘keepers’ by end of year. Look back at them and maybe one makes final cut.
3D art probably going to be even worse? Finish a render, and always think, “This is great!” Set it aside for a month. “This is awful!” Everyone their own worst critic? ;- )
@Satira Capriccio
Glad you said that about eyesight. Mine is going south in a hurry. Blood sugar might play a part, or just too stubborn to get ‘computer’ glasses. O _ 0
@Hornet3d
Amazing capture! Doesn’t look like you used super-strobe flash in daylight to fill in either. What lens if mind me asking? My all time favorite is an AF Micro Nikkor 200mm 1:4D-- don’t usually have to crop with macro & makes nice ‘reach out & touch someone’ lens for candids. Only drawback might be bokeh. As for 3D-- agree about using DoF just to hide things. Barren hills in Terradome-- blur out 'zone B' because don't want 1000 instances of tress, etc. : 0 !
@HaiGan
That might be the only way to salvage it. There is nothing in RH corner to lead viewer full circle. A sense of it being incomplete? Nothing there but a butterfly, so it's somehow unsatisfying? A child playing, or maybe creatures, as you suggest, might bring viewer full circle, and more of a sense of completion?
@Bonnie2001
Trade off I guess. Ansel Adams-- most everything is crisp and in focus! IRay having “f-stop” in the hundreds... Maybe that’s what I need to learn too. 3D art & render settings seems to be its own animal. Highest f-stop on lens I have his 32. An f-stop of 700 in DS? Wow!
Anyway, want to thank everyone again for replies. Had no idea I’d get so many!
--Bruce
Hornet3d
Wise
I was using an Olympus E1 and this was shot with my favorite lens of the time the Olympus 50 - 200mm F/2.8-3.5 Zuiko Digital which covered a wide range of subjects and cut down on constant lens changes. I did have a 2X converter in the kit but not used in this shot. No flash, just natural light.
I meant to add ... the blurred background is perfect in this photo.
Bonnie2001
Extraordinary
I believe those 4/3rd system lenses give more DOF than an equivalent full frame lens. I seen a chart online somewhere that gave the DOF for various sensor sizes/focal lengths.
Hornet3d
Wise
Your probably right. When I purchased the camera I was working in a Digital Camera Shop and so had the opportunity to test what was available. I decided on the Olympus E1 as it was one of, if not the first digital camera, to be built from the ground up, hence the 4/3rd system. Up until then the competition were film based bodies that had been converted. Now around ten years Canon has stopped making film cameras altogether.
To think when I started photography if you wanted to do anything close to postwork you had to shut yourself away in an almost dark room with trays of evil smelling chemicals. These days you can do amazing post work from the comfort of your own room in full daylight.