Paasche Vjr Airbrush
Blender + Cycles
wow! i like it very much
There’s something weird in the focus of the paint on the table… I feel like it should be as focused as the airbrush! Other than that, I’m loving this piece.
I also think that the blurryines son the table looks very weird… Makes it look as if the brush if floating…
Perhaps the metal is a bit to perfect? If you actually look at, let’s say a metal pen, you will not see it as a perfect mirror, lots of tiny scratches is what you’ll see. You can achieve that using bump mapping. Also - finger smudges, i think that can be done by a texture affecting reflectivity.
But overall, the images look great.
Anyway, I will comment on your choice of words just because i felt like it, don’t take it seriously: “Blender + Cycles”, cycles is not something extra to blender, it’s a part of blender. That’s like saying “I use a microphone + It’s membrane”. “Blender cycles” sounds more appropriate.
No freemind. A rendering engine is very much it’s own entity. Don’t take this seriously, but you are definitely wrong. Wait until someone gets an export script and people will use Maya with Cycles too. Oh wait they can already do that with .obj imports. Anyway… don’t take this seriously, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong. But don’t take that seriously.
Sooo… Do you also say “Blender + BI”?
As far as I understand, since cycles is a part of blender, but still can be used with other apps, then saying “Maya + Cycles” or more precisely “Mayba + Blenders Cycles render engine” would be correct.
wonderful work.
Awesome render. I have this airbrush and it looks just like that 
I would have to agree with FreeMind on this one. Most of the time when speaking of internal rendering engines there is no separation between the renderer and modelling portion. I see things like “modeled and rendered in LightWave” or “Modeled and rendered in Maya’s native renderer.” or “Sculpted and rendered in Zbrush.” but in using 3rd party software, where the integration of rendering engine is not a seamless integrated part of the package such as in 3DS Max and Vray, or LightWave and Kray, or before the times when Mental Ray was shipped with the various Autodesk Packages, then there should be a clear designation between the two separate entities. Merely being able to export a scene in obj and import it into another package to be rendered is not enough to say that the renderer is indeed not a part of its host package, which it is.
You are correct, however to point out that the rendering engine is a different creature, but so is sculpting, dynamics, nodes and so on, but they don’t have separate names other than a label of what they do, in which case you could also argue that dynamics are separate since you could load an obj the same way you did with the rendering engine and add dynamics to it.
But this is all semantics…