HELP, photoshop or not?
Discussion
I don't know but you can have snow in a desert, if that's the issue.
A quick Google and http://www.crookedbrains.net/2007/07/snow-in-deser...
A quick Google and http://www.crookedbrains.net/2007/07/snow-in-deser...
Real I guess... http://www.crookedbrains.net/2007/07/snow-in-deser...
Edited by Mr Obertshaw on Saturday 21st January 23:16
allnighter said:
no success so far scouring the net.
http://www.crookedbrains.net/2007/07/snow-in-deser...
Can look like this
driver67 said:
-Pete- said:
I'd say NOT, there's an awful lot of shadows under the snow/ice which would take an age to recreate. Why shouldn't it be real?
It could easily be a 3D wireframe rendering (not photoshop but 3D Max etc).My money's on a picture of some old snow thawing over some sand dunes.
-Pete- said:
uh? Can you show me a similar example of this 3D wireframe thing?
My money's on a picture of some old snow thawing over some sand dunes.
I'm not saying whether the pic is real or not, just saying it could easily be recreated using 3DS Max.My money's on a picture of some old snow thawing over some sand dunes.
Landscape wireframe :-
Edited by driver67 on Saturday 21st January 23:30
-Pete- said:
on't tell me what to do, it's your contribution to this thread. You do the googling, show me an example of this 3D thing which can make pictures like the OP's. 
Look above. Any material can be applied, lighting set etc etc. Then rendered.Here's a great selection :-
http://www.zhoog.com/2009/01/50-of-the-most-stunni...
I must admit, my first thought was that it looked rendered. Maybe the focus was a bit too sharp through such a huge range. I remember wasting many many hours in the late 1990s and early 00s rendering stuff with KPT Bryce. The weapon of choice back then for naturalistic terrain generation.
(None of these are mine)
If you want to see what 3DS Max can do, watch pretty much any feature film. As you see from the showreel posted above, the problem is that you won't be able to tell what is fake. With a bit of training, even a klutz like me can produce half decent results. This was on old version of the software, no fancy radiosity, subsurface scattering, focus or whatever. I use it for product mock-ups.
This, for obvious reasons, is the wireframe version that you see on the edit screen. Wireframe is much faster to handle than a fully textured image:
ETA: Talking of sub-surface scattering and similar effects, sand can give some very non-linear scattering, as we see in the original photo. My money is in favour of it being real, but just a bit too "clean". A friend of mine has just come back from a holiday in Africa, and the light does look really clean somehow.
(None of these are mine)
If you want to see what 3DS Max can do, watch pretty much any feature film. As you see from the showreel posted above, the problem is that you won't be able to tell what is fake. With a bit of training, even a klutz like me can produce half decent results. This was on old version of the software, no fancy radiosity, subsurface scattering, focus or whatever. I use it for product mock-ups.
This, for obvious reasons, is the wireframe version that you see on the edit screen. Wireframe is much faster to handle than a fully textured image:
ETA: Talking of sub-surface scattering and similar effects, sand can give some very non-linear scattering, as we see in the original photo. My money is in favour of it being real, but just a bit too "clean". A friend of mine has just come back from a holiday in Africa, and the light does look really clean somehow.
Edited by Zad on Sunday 22 January 05:55
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff