Pretty In Pink: Yup, still playing with 3D CG-because it is the future. I also prefer the non objective matter of fact steril look to the images in order to reflect a ultra realism to...

anderzander

Yup, still playing with 3D CG-because it is the future. I also prefer the non objective matter of fact steril look to the images in order to reflect a ultra realism to the figures, composition and flesh tones.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

3D CG is the future of what?

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

This is still a photography site, and this is computer generated imagery, not photography.

anderzander

It's better than looking at vagina's!

Rab-Eye Loc: Indiana

anderzander wrote:

It's better than looking at vagina's!

Fascinating! The exact opposite of my motto!

BigDen Loc: Alberta, Canada

JohnSwanda wrote:

This is still a photography site, and this is computer generated imagery, not photography.

So, images from Lightroom, Photoshop, etc. are not photography?

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

BigDen wrote:

So, images from Lightroom, Photoshop, etc. are not photography?

Of course they are, they started out as a photograph, not originally created by a computer graphics program. The OP is posting computer generated images that have nothing to do with photography.

BigDen Loc: Alberta, Canada

Consider that CGI is used extensively in movies and TV programs. Think Game of Thrones for example. We still consider these shows as cinematic.

You may use a camera to generate an image. The OP uses his computer to create an image. The only difference is that you capture an image that has a “real” subject whereas the image captured by the OP is imagined.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

BigDen wrote:

Consider that CGI is used extensively in movies and TV programs. Think Game of Thrones for example. We still consider these shows as cinematic.

You may use a camera to generate an image. The OP uses his computer to create an image. The only difference is that you capture an image that has a “real” subject whereas the image captured by the OP is imagined.

A photograph is an image created by the action of light on a light sensitive material. Images completely created on a computer don't fit the definition. Would it be appropriate to post drawings or paintings in a photography forum? Cinema has always included images not created in a camera, for instance, animation.

anderzander

A lot of the props and clothing are computer generated, the figures are constructed in a 3D CG program, but the skin, flesh, eye color, genitals, nipples are real images of real models that can be applied to the figures, lighting and cameras are the same as in the real world. This is the future and I gurrantee it will be scary in terms of realism!

Thurber Mingus

anderzander wrote:

A lot of the props and clothing are computer generated, the figures are constructed in a 3D CG program, but the skin, flesh, eye color, genitals, nipples are real images of real models that can be applied to the figures, lighting and cameras are the same as in the real world. This is the future and I gurrantee it will be scary in terms of realism!

It may very well BE the future, but it still won't be photography (which is what this forum is supposed to be about). I am interested in seeing how it evolves, but it's NOT photography.

DanielB Loc: San Diego, Ca

JohnSwanda wrote:

A photograph is an image created by the action of light on a light sensitive material. Images completely created on a computer don't fit the definition. Would it be appropriate to post drawings or paintings in a photography forum? Cinema has always included images not created in a camera, for instance, animation.

Thurber Mingus

BigDen wrote:

... The only difference is that you capture an image that has a “real” subject whereas the image captured by the OP is imagined.

That's a pretty big difference, and the basis of the argument!

Rab-Eye Loc: Indiana

BigDen wrote:

So, images from Lightroom, Photoshop, etc. are not photography?

Lightroom requires a photograph to edit. An image created from scratch in Photoshop is definitionaly not a photograph. That’s not a matter of opinion. Call it an image, call it whatever you want, but it won’t make it a photograph.

Rab-Eye Loc: Indiana

BigDen wrote:

Consider that CGI is used extensively in movies and TV programs. Think Game of Thrones for example. We still consider these shows as cinematic.

You may use a camera to generate an image. The OP uses his computer to create an image. The only difference is that you capture an image that has a “real” subject whereas the image captured by the OP is imagined.

Computer generated images are just that: computer generated. There is no capturing of an image.