just trying to get a idea of what this community can do…
Toss-up between my animation and texturing skills. Not saying Mad Skillz or anything, but…
from the work ive seen lately,i would say im lacking.
however,i think my strong suits are two,texturing,complex curves
that the option of lighting is missing is somthing I think is very representative of what this community thinks of 3d art.
Some day I hope people will realise that lighting is 70% of an image.
I would say that lighting and textures are 90% of a good image.
This comment by you is very representative of where the arrogance in this community lies.
I’m pretty sure that lighting + textures amounts to 90% of the quality of an image… Problem is that geometry is the other90%… This is why mathematical skills such as operating on imaginary numbers is a desirable quality in any decent 3D-artist.
good lighting can make any crappy model look good.
bad lighting wont help even the best model.
Lighting and texturing make any crappy model look good. Has no one seen a basic sphere look amazing with the right texture and lights?
Anyway, I am by no means the best, but I woulkd think that modelling comes easiest for me. Still working on texturing and lighting.
"I would say that lighting and textures are 90% of a good image. "
[opinion based on trials and heresay]
no way no way no way… you can have an awesome picture with just one plain spotlight in the scene… id say lighting is 40-50 percent tops! with good models and awesome detail and texturing, lighting is less and less needed… if your great with texturing and detail, try it out i say… good models and textures make the scene, and even with bad lights, wont look perfect, but will still look good…
i like complex modeling mostly, and think its one of my strong points, and depending on the type of scene, i can be strong with texturing… its the painting my own textures that can get hard and frustrating sometimes… =)
I would say it is a combo of everything (not just good lighting). At least if your speaking photoreal or believeable. Like with cars, for best perfomance you must tweak the whole thing.
On the movie Final Fantasy, some parts looked really good, but it would only take one faky looking thing (like a wrist watch) to screw up the whole scene.
I agree to the importance of lighting, however- you can dress up a turd so much, and in the end, it will still look like a turd; just a well lit one. A sphere is not a crappy model. It’s just a simple one- and one that is available in almost any package with the press of a button. The more ambitious a model is the more skill in making it is required. If you light a scene really well that has some or all crappy models, it will never be a ‘great’ image. It’ll be one with good lighting but really crappy models, and most people looking at it will say something like ‘great lighting - too bad the rest sucks’
Two reasons ppl often say lighting is everything or texturing, etc. is that, one:these areas are most often neglected by beginners, who tend to focus on modelling and animation (two highly time consuming and very marketable skills), and two: what people actually see of geometry is its surface, i.e. the play of light and shadow across the surface texture of the model.
Some render ‘tricks’ that help a render: depth of field, motion blur, antialiasing, glows and bloom, grain, lens flares (used sparingly) fog, atomosphere and volume effects, etc. cannot be said to be either modelling, lighting or texturing as such, yet they can make or break an image.
And when you go to animation its the motion people see- poor lighting and texturing (and modelling too) can be ‘hidden’. If the animation is great, it will tend to overshadow (hehe) the defects.
But I do agree lighting should be in there.
I better shut up now.
Green: I’m just curious about something…
You mentioned that “the option of lighting is missing…”
I’m curious what you mean by that… aside from the obvious (raytracing) - what in your opinion does Blender’s lighting system lack?
I’ve always thought the lighting system was great in terms of its simplicity and the capability to do assemble apparently complex-looking light set-ups…
in the poll offcourse
Should’ve guessed that one…
I’m just getting paranoid hearing so many people lately talk about how blender can’t do this or that…
I’m not bad at mesh modeling, but I couldn’t make anything using curves.
Textures and light is important, but a good image always starts with a good model. No matter how you light it, a sphere on a plane will always look like a sphere on a plane (possibly a sphere on a plain). (don’t get me wrong, I even collect good sphereonaplane images)
I can not say right off the bat what part I am best at. I depends on what I’m doing. I can make a pretty good cube or sphere…lol!
Really it depends on the inspiration at the moment. I think it is that way for most people. Most of us do excellent work when we know what we want and can see it in our minds. However, if they were to say “you have 10 minutes to make something” few of us would probably do wonderful. If you don’t know what your trying to get at, you don’t know what to pursue (new techniques). If you know what your trying to get at, even if your don’t know how to do it, you can pretty much pick it up in a few minutes.
I totally agree…lighting can make or break an otherwise good piece of work.
I want to check ALL of them off
A combination of factors makes a good scene. It is best to even it out. Having really good _____ but crappy _____ does not mean you have a good scene. It is only when you make all of the elements work together, THEN you have the good stuff!