Interview with POV-RAY artist Gilles Tran

There’s a cool new interview online with one of the most well-known POV-RAY artists, Gilles Tran. So it talks about the process of creating quality images “for fun” with free 3D software, although with a different package than Blender. It includes many of his most famous images. As of now, the interview is on the front page of
CG Channel - and it’s in good company, right next to an interview with the director of CGI for Studio Ghibli!

Great artist. When I first saw his Bird picture I couldn’t believe it was done with POVray.

He is indeed an excellant artist. Very good for POV-ray

Gilles Tran is one of the best known POV artist. One of his images even did it to the International Space Station.

Imho not the best, my favorite is Norbert Kern warm-up, but certainly one in the 5 ones.

Problem with Gilles work, you can recognize an image by him at first glance due to the clichés and use of bad poser models in a very good background. “The Wet bird” (NY street image) is the single exception to this trend.

Also must add he is a very nice guy (on the internet at least).

As far as I remember, the wet bird is in fact a 2D plane within a 3D scene. Gilles put a Making-Of on his website: http://www.oyonale.com (english version available). He also put many Making-Of’s for many of his pictures, BTW. Veeeeeery inspiring, even with different packages, a must-see, all-in-one :slight_smile:

Oh, I have to tell you, the guy’s part sick to his head to with some of his pictures containing nudity.

The site is now M-rated.

Such a good artist falling to the depths of corruption %|
His good pictures and his efforts are canceled completely and I now consider another corrupt artist yet to see the light.

Are you kidding ?

So Michael-Angelo, Da Vinci, Renoir, Ingres to name a few are valueless ?
All art forms have since centuries contained nudity.

Nudity in art is never porn, even in “l’origine du monde” by Courbet.

If you are offended by it, just dont look at it, but you are not entitled to judge based on some of its pictures containing nudity, and that concern very few of them.

So those famous European artists also are corrupt or were sometime?

Once regarded as good artists how foolish they were.

Kansas. For your own good - shut up! :-?

You’re jsut a little kid that only listen to what daddy and mommy say…and I’ll tell you something that no one probably did before:

YOUR PARENTS ARE WRONG! nudity, not porn, is beautiful in it’s way. If you ban nudity, you ban art, if you ban art, let’s rather ban humanity from using its knowledge.

You’re just a kid that will always stays in his little kansas and will never see what the world is really like. You’re just a kid that will never open his mind to other culture. You’re juste a kid that will never understand what a true human is. A true human isn’t a man following blindly a religion…a true human is a man that will try to understand, that will learn from other, that will open his mind.

This last statement from you just confirmed what I told you back then before your ban…You got absolutly no future as an Artist…

and if we even follow your statement…god itself, if he does exist, would be corrupt because of the creation of the Male and Female

God is not corrupt in anyway possible, i’m talking art, not man and women themselves, sure man and women started naked but then before the fruit was eaten they weren’t aware and ashamed of that. And though babies are born without clothing they don’t really call that nudity until they get older. Besides, look at the all the good art that doesn’t have nude figures. You’re insulting a lot of artists if you say anything without nudity is art. Even some of the great figures here like @ndy and Robertt.
I am not afraid to speak out my faith in christ and what I know is right and wrong. I am not afraid to tell people how they can turn their lives around and throw all bad stuff behind them and if their not christian gain a place in christ’s kingdom.
This man can turn this around if he decides to shed his nude images and realize they were wrong. (or for starters put a warning label on the front page of his site)

Okay I went out of my way to post this

I was wrong to call him corrupt, it’s wrong to call anyone corrupt. But what he did putting nudity in his art is wrong and I hope he realizes that. He’s still a good artist but some of his images contain bad content. The reason why I said cancelling out all the good in his work and such is that I learned in church, you do one wrong thing and it’s like doing everything wrong, the good you did is worthless. Luckily for christians there’s christ who takes it away from us.

EDIT: Kansas, thank you for clearing up and posting that. however, still read what i wrote… just disregard what i said about the “corrupt” part. furthermore, i would like to ask you what is “wrong” with what he displayed on his site.

hmmm…

kansas…

i think you are reading way too much into what X-WARRIOR said…

all that he said is that you cannotregard all things that contain nudty as porn, and that nudity in art most certainly not porn.

hey, im Christian… and i have since i was six.

and… i dont think that you can call nudity as anti-Christ. however, you can certainly call all pornography as anti-Christ

but, you cant claim that what he did put up on his site as wrong, or worse, pornographic, because what Gilles Tran displayed on his site was NOT PORNOGRAPHIC.
(if need be, just check out what webster calls pornography.)

furthermore, X-warrior never said that all art that doesnt contain nudity isnt art…

it would be a good idea to read his post before you start attacking him, kansas

and, by the way you are labeling him as corrupt really doesnt seem to be the way to make him “see the light.”
(whatever that light may be, because in the way you posted, i seriously doubt that that light would be Christ)

you seem to have formed your own opinion here, and i respect the fact that you have, Kansas. however, you have to think about your actions beforeyou open your mouth, or you might find yourself in some serious trouble someday

Regards,
~Delta

Kansas:

The reason why I said cancelling out all the good in his work and such is that I learned in church, you do one wrong thing and it’s like doing everything wrong, the good you did is worthless

It’s not the art that’s sinful, but your wicked, sinful thoughts.

I guess if you judge art on how much feeling it provokes then the artist you are dissing has succeeded in creating good art; in part, thanks to you.
Don’t you just love it when a plan comes together.

%<

It isn’t a good idea to discuss religion here, but it is (apparently) only a sin if you look at others in a sexually desiring manner, which is termed adultery.

You can still commit adultery without looking at a nude person, you only need to have the sexual desire, or something like that.

Portraying nudity, in itself, is not wrong, the way you portray it is.

And Gilles nude images have been portrayed in an acceptable manner, it is not suggestive, nor does it intend to incite any sexual thoughts (which both mean basically the same thing).

You have a lot to learn Kansas, I suggest you don’t lash out like this agian.

Darn, kansas, if that’s right it looks like I’m going to hell. Oh well. Do you shower with a blindfold on, too?

I have to admit nudity is not all offensive in all cultures, here in america we got the idea that nudity was wrong from the puritans who settled here a few centuries ago. A lot of america’s belief’s and what’s right and wrong came from them.

Of course an Omnipresent, Omniscient and Omnipotent ‘god’ cannot be corrupt because he is not bound by any rules one way or the other. Calvin rightfully recognized the paradox of attributing good ‘behavior’ to god when it is in fact god who defines good and evil. The logical conclusion that must be drawn from this however is that ‘god’ uses both ‘good’ and ‘evil’ for his own purposes.

Even if ‘god’ were to act in a way that every human being on the planet found disgusting and despicable it would not matter since they would be powerless to pass judgment on him. If god decides to act completley arbitrarily and use people in whatever fashion he desires we cannot stop him.

As someone who is (if I may say so myself) quite competent at rendering the human form in chalk, charcoal and various other media I can pretty much gaurentee you that it is highly unlikely that you will learn anything signifigant about the complexities of the human form from a clothed model. I am not alone in this thinking, just ask any person who teaches art professionaly. Your loss I guess.

Capital ‘C’ there son, and I think such confidence is admirable albeit a bit misguided in your case.

Another fallacy that I think both Luther and Calvin recognized. The only way that you can ‘know’ that ‘god’ exists is if you had a complete knowledge of the whole universe which would require an almost infinite capacity for holding information which in turn would require an almost infinite amount of power to encode said information, thus effectivley making you ‘god himself’ (or close enough that further distinction didnt really matter).

Faith is not about knowing, it is about believing. This is why Luther called reason ‘the devils whore’.

You ignore the very real fact Christianity has no monopoly on good people. Indeed there are many people of other religions who have lived much healthier and sacrificial lives than anyone you will ever meet on this forum. If the ability of Christ to supposedly transform your life so that you stop doing self destructive things and sacrifice for others is the only persuasive argument you have for becoming a Christian it is severly undermined by the existance of people like Ghandi.

I don’t think you have a full appreciation of the Christian faith and what it does and dosn’t entail.

Tolstoy got it. Calvin and Luther got it. Flannery O’Connor got it. Hopefully one day you will ‘get it’, but it may be that once you do you wont want it.

You have failed to explain why nudity is intrinsicly wrong. To do this however you would be burdened with the task of defending what is effectivley an arbitrary choice on ‘god’s’ part. Thats a trap I think you should avoid. Instead I would like to hear why you feel nudity is wrong.

Cheers,
Zarf

If christians don’t feel that nudity is wrong what about the public outcry that happened during last year’s superbowl halftime show. They thought it was wrong then and it was nudity. And all what i’ve heard about it in real life is stuff about it being wrong.

But do you believe that it is wrong? If so, what is your reasoning behind this. One thing you learn as you get older is that while most people are right most of the time, sometimes people get things wrong.