JoshB

Interesting observation Jamagica. There is a couple of reasons I did that. One: the leaf wasn't sitting still so it was difficult to frame. There are about 8 or 9 shots that--well let's just say didn't make the cut. Two: I wanted it to be more of a serene image not off balance, and I felt that moving it to the left or right would have done this--also, adding a large space of nothing to the left or right isn't a good idea (at least I don't think so). If there would have been something of interest to the right or left I would've tried to frame it differently. Try to think of it as a close-up of a leaf. Did that makes sense? I hope I don't sound like I'm avoiding your critique or trying to say "yeah--well... " I'm just trying to have a dialogue so you can get my perspective. Please, feel free to critique any of the other pieces, and/or continue thoughts on this one. Anyway, thanks again for the thoughts. J edit: don't know how the angry face ended up in the subject line--wasn't supposed to be there--sorry.

Thanks for the feedback. Either everyone else felt the same--or it just wasn't that impressive. Ce'ste le vie I suppose ::le sigh::. Thanks, I wish I had more time, and less procrastination to do more. I would actually like to revamp the entire site--but, I will have to save that for another day I think. If you wouldn't mind as tedious as it is--what are your "favorite" images? The reason I ask is because when I move this from the school's server I may not be given as much room or bandwidth for the price I can afford so I may have to cut it down. Thanks. I did have that at one point but, I thought it detracted too much from the matted image in a gallery space feel I was going for. Function-wise I'm right there with ya' aesthetic wise I just couldn't quote get there. And, to be honest the "back to" button gets on my nerves a little--at least the menu button is like a signature on a print. Hope that made sense. And, I pose the same question to anyone who sees the work which do you appreciate the most? Thanks again. J

I updated the images on my portfolio site and thought I would get some feedback. I am still waiting to post anything I've made from AM though--just because nothing I have done yet is up to my standards yet. Let me know what you think. http://studentpages.scad.edu/~jbruce20/ Thanks everyone. J

I'm not sure agree with the blue. The film hole area is so dark it might fade into the blue background. Unless you could give the film some sort of radiance in that area or change the surface texture to a more grey like color. Also, unless I'm mistaken, film is clear in those areas--at least the negatives from a 35mm camera are. Also, it doesn't seem playful enough to me. I hope you can handle a critique. Where I come from we have this thing--it's called Dayton Cheese. We the artistic community work for these business owners who tell us what they want--then through hours and hours of tweaking we end up with something very cheesy (not playful--just cheesy). Right now this image is hovering on a borderline between cheese done on purpose (the "let's all go to the lobby" animation) and an attempt to be "serious"--this is what makes Dayton Cheese. I don't want to corrupt your vision too much with suggestions right now. The way to make the ripples more apparent is to change the angle at which your lights hit the curtain (you may want to make these model specific). The effect that causes frabic to look rippled are the gradiant changes from light to dark--if light is hitting from the fron there is less/no gradiant. The way to light specific objects is to go into the modeling windows for the background right-click add new light. Position the light so you get the effect you want. There is an option under the lights properties which says light all models--turn that off. Do the same for the film strip. If you decide to do something with DOF look at the contest entries for this month. Particularly this one in the clouds (can't remember whose it was). You may want to consider changing the way the film is lying though to give the image more depth. Good start--just needs to be pushed--as my professors would say. J

This looks like a cropped negative...in other words there was more on the negative than just the girl. When you enlarge a photo from a negative you increase your grain--it is VERY difficult not to. For instance--if you get bored--have a photo lab enlarge a photo from a 35mm negative (preferrably of a high ISO 800+ for demonstration purposes)--and if they can have them crop out part of the photo and put it on 11X14 paper--interesting effect but usually not done on purpose. Look at some of these images: http://sechtl-vosecek.ucw.cz/en/ What I would recommend you do to duplicate this look in photoshop. Use the add noise filter--but fade it a little so it's not as abrupt. Also, the black point should not be at 0 lighten a little bit. Now this may not happen on the "real" film because the faded black you see in the photo could be due, in part, to the age of the photo which would be exposed to light, and various other fading elements--which may not happen to film. As wrong as this may be to suggest watch old propaganda films. This element has almost become cliche (actually it has) if you decide to do this be VERY careful as there is a fine line between good--and cheesy. Hope that helps--and good work so far--looking forward to it. J EDIT**Something I thought of while at school you might also try the bloom post-effect in AM I'm not sure if it will give you the blown out highlights that I hope it will but hey, could hurt.

hmmmmm...1911...could you show one of the other images that you are comparing it to please? You should probably cut the grain amount down though. When you take a picture on film there is grain caused by these light sensitive flecks on the film and emulsion. Now, when you expose the film onto paper you add to the grain because the paper also has little light sensitive flecks. Therefore, you will tend to get blurry grain from the negative and then the grain from the paper. Technology of course has advanced to the point where it is possible to make this grain almost unnoticeable even when enlarging photos dramatically in comparison to the size of the negative. However, you won't notice this as much on a film because you are not putting grain on grain. Is it intensifying the grain effect? Because, it doesn't look bad it's just too grainy. If it isn't intensifying the grain effect then what is the "negative affect" you speak of? Also, in 1911 they used hand cranked cameras (if memory serves) which caused minor camera roll from left to right even if mounted on a tripod--possibly unnoticeable--but, may add to the feel. I mean fractions of an inch movement. http://members.lycos.nl/cinemat/schneidercam.jpg circa 1912 The second effect you will get from this is an inconsistent exposure time per frame. Though subtle it may be (it's why old films flicker). It won't be to the point of stop motion but it will be there some frames will be lighter than others--and the lighters frames should be less grainy. Because, to make white on a projected film means there is no emulsion for the light to penetrate--no emulsion = no grain. Also, some frames may actually last for 1/36 of a second, while others are 1/26 of a second. It would be interesting to see how/if you can solve that one. J

Zaryin--I don't think it is that the boat is necessarily moving too fast it's that the water isn't unjulating (sp?) fast enough. The water seems to be in slow-mo but the boat is moving smoothly. What compressor are you using? And, could you post the negative affects the compressor is having on this effect? How old of a newsreel do you want this to be? Further, the speed that the boat is traveling should cause a bit of splash out from the front of the boat cutting through the water. Is this something you are going to attempt to add later? There should also be bounced light hitting the bottom of the boat where it meets the water--this should get rid of the cut and paste feel it has to me right. Doesn't have to be caustic like or anything just enough to give you a gradiant. J

Nice. I know that this is for a radiosity thing--so the shadows won't be as harsh as they are right now?? Right? J

I think if they glass were thick enough and given the grooves it should work similar to the shrapnel grenade--breaking fast enough to avoid complete obliteration. Similar to this time a car window shattered from being off it's track. The glass just cracked and exploded outward in tiny pebble sized shards. To make it look believable will definitely be the hard part. J

Looks good to me. Nothing really jumped out and I watched 3 or 4 times. J

If it's a shrapnel grenade it divides those little square waffle shapes into shrapnel--flying pieces of sharp metal. Which looks to be the inspiration for the design. It is definitely an interesting concept--but, I want to see it work. J

Very nice. The models seem solid--not clay like which is nice considering what they are. You might want to work on the bullets a little right now they seem too reflective shiny and new--in other words like glass or plastic. The same for the clips/magazines. From a compositional standpoint you may want to consider increasing the size of the blocks (specifically for the one on the right) because with the postion of the camera in comparison to the blocks the right gun seems to be floating which is effecting the realism of the image. Also, I hope you don't mind me asking, can you remove the starry things floating across the screen? I keep looking at your images--but then I turn into Dory--oooh something shiny, it just went over the image. Good job. J

I do apologize I should've specified. Red's twitch at the end. He falls--then we wait almost an entire second before he twitches--this is what I think should be cut back 9 or 10 frames. A full second is too much of a calm for the action that happened before. Basically the first time he fell--a couple of frames passed and he twitched. Now he falls and there is a hold (which is good) but it is too long. Also, in the final render I would turn the glow off after the fall. He falls--glow fades--twitch; that sort of action. If you want a c&c and that particular sequence (should you choose to take it) just render a final on those frames--shouldn't take too long--hopefully. J

Dear Tom, No really. The sequence for the link is as follows. Original russian and toys decals, Red is till red--orange is white again. No twitch. No spread eagle. The matrix walkoff of white is back once again. The cloud is not a solid mesh. The hills in the background are gone. No afterglow. No spreadeagle. The point still doesn't clinch. The eyes no longer roll. The lights are off--nobody's home. And, the sequence is only 1045 frames. No shadows. If this is a new render may I refer to the following--reread my post on page 4. Now if it is supposed to point to rr54 not rr24 let me say the following: Love the twitch on orange while he's sleeping--good secondary movement to keep the viewer interested. Red's walkup is more solid and stern--good job. There is a weird jump in orange's arms around frame 390 that jumps out at me. Red's left arm is now floating back to his hip. It seems like you are wanting the arms to reach the hips at the same time--but this is causing the left arm to seem to drift for too long. You may want to substitute this concept for something like the left hand get on hip first then the right. When red looks at the camera (609) it should be a couple of frames longer to truly break the camera dimnension. The left hand on red floats again when he is pointing. The startled jump is better seems faster. Cut the twitch back--9-10 frames. Right now it's almost an entire second of wait time which IMO is too long. J

That better not be an update of a new render...?? This looks too close to the original post decaling version to be new. J