I have posted here befor, so this is my last time. Females come in all sizes and shapes, my work is the study of female proportions and positions, I use this 3D software to evaluate 3D sculpture as in the human figure and 3D printing technology. This is the future, and the realism is getting out of hand in terms of graphic reality. The detail now is way beyond when I started 4 years ago, in the future this software will become the main frame for pornography because there is no real human figure involved, only real human skin and other attributes. In the future everything will be left to your own imagination, not the future I choose to follow.
The nude figures posted here are simply that, and I see nothing wrong with the posts, it isn't where I am coming from, so enjoy my work or ignore it, the female figure will always be interesting and vitally important. Polygamy Porter is a Micro brewery in S.L.C. (Uinta Brewing) and a take off from Porter Rockwell, a hit man for Brigham Young. This is my version of the bottled beer "Polygamy Porter".
No I didn't create the roadster, it is a file product available for public use.
This is a photography forum, and this isn't photography.
I admire your work, Anderzander, even if it's not to my taste, and I seem to remember the last word in this section is 'Pictures'... So keep posting and creating pictures!
JohnFrim
Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.
I have no problem with these created images. I also believe this could be where digital imaging is heading. It will be challenging to figure out what is real... if anything...
"There is no reality; there is only perception."
RogStrix wrote:
I admire your work, Anderzander, even if it's not to my taste, and I seem to remember the last word in this section is 'Pictures'... So keep posting and creating pictures!
So would paintings or drawings be acceptable in this forum?
JohnSwanda wrote:
So would paintings or drawings be acceptable in this forum?
That's not for me to say but I would suggest if someone did post such images it would be interesting to read the constructive opinions of other viewers.
As far as I'm concerned if people don't like particular subject, they simply don't need to read or follow it. There is no need to criticise someone just because they have posted something you don't like. Constructive criticism however is always welcome.
RogStrix wrote:
That's not for me to say but I would suggest if someone did post such images it would be interesting to read the constructive opinions of other viewers.
As far as I'm concerned if people don't like particular subject, they simply don't need to read or follow it. There is no need to criticise someone just because they have posted something you don't like. Constructive criticism however is always welcome.
It's not whether I like it or not, it's a matter of posting in the appropriate section. Art work which is not photography belongs in Chit Chat, where such work is often posted. I don't like to see the line between digital photography and computer generated imagery blurred.
JohnFrim
Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.
RogStrix wrote:
That's not for me to say but I would suggest if someone did post such images it would be interesting to read the constructive opinions of other viewers.
As far as I'm concerned if people don't like particular subject, they simply don't need to read or follow it. There is no need to criticise someone just because they have posted something you don't like. Constructive criticism however is always welcome.
Since the Nude Section is largely unmoderated there is no outright control (or censorship) of what gets posted. Content is ultimately "managed" by the feedback posters receive from the readership of the Section. If a poster is told often enough to "take a hike" with some particular content I suspect they will stop posting that kind of material. This process is not entirely fair in that the vocal minority could trump (damn that word) the silent majority. But that's the best we have.
JohnSwanda wrote:
It's not whether I like it or not, it's a matter of posting in the appropriate section. Art work which is not photography belongs in Chit Chat, where such work is often posted. I don't like to see the line between digital photography and computer generated imagery blurred.
But the poster has used nude images, albeit fully or partially computed generated so placing them in this section is appropriate.
This was posted to explain and examine the future, reality and illusion will overlap and you won't be able to tell the difference. It is already here, this is photography in the future simply because of the illusion, and I'm the tip of the ice berg because there are far more talented people out there than me.
anderzander wrote:
This was posted to explain and examine the future, reality and illusion will overlap and you won't be able to tell the difference. It is already here, this is photography in the future simply because of the illusion, and I'm the tip of the ice berg because there are far more talented people out there than me.
Lol, shades of the film/digital argument taking on a new chapter.
anderzander wrote:
This was posted to explain and examine the future, reality and illusion will overlap and you won't be able to tell the difference. It is already here, this is photography in the future simply because of the illusion, and I'm the tip of the ice berg because there are far more talented people out there than me.
Photography has had a specific definition since it was invented, of an image formed by the action of light on a light sensitive material. That definition still works for digital photography. It doesn't work for computer generated imagery. The fact that they may eventually be impossible to tell apart visually is even more reason to keep them separate. I have nothing against computer generated images, and I'm sure there will be true art created by that process. It's just not photography, and I can't see changing the definition of photography to fit other processes.
JohnFrim
Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.
JohnSwanda wrote:
Photography has had a specific definition since it was invented, of an image formed by the action of light on a light sensitive material. That definition still works for digital photography. It doesn't work for computer generated imagery. The fact that they may eventually be impossible to tell apart visually is even more reason to keep them separate. I have nothing against computer generated images, and I'm sure there will be true art created by that process. It's just not photography, and I can't see changing the definition of photography to fit other processes.
Photography has had a specific definition since it... (
show quote)
I like your argument that photography remain defined as in your first sentence. But that should not preclude digital art from being presented on this site; perhaps not by itself, but I could see -- and would appreciate -- seeing a totally digitally-created rendition of a light-captured photograph for comparison. As for UHH becoming swamped with digital creations, I suspect there are other websites for that art form that would provide more gratification to the creator/poster.
JohnFrim wrote:
I like your argument that photography remain defined as in your first sentence. But that should not preclude digital art from being presented on this site; perhaps not by itself, but I could see -- and would appreciate -- seeing a totally digitally-created rendition of a light-captured photograph for comparison. As for UHH becoming swamped with digital creations, I suspect there are other websites for that art form that would provide more gratification to the creator/poster.
People regularly show computer art in the General Chit-Chat (non-photography talk) section.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.