> I always appreciate, and learn from, your comments, Moose.
>> Funny. I do indeed have 20/10 vision, but I feel it was a different sort
>> of visual acuity at work here. I know what that kind of pottery looks and
>> feels like, and the first versions didn't 'feel' right. Looking more
>> closely/critically, I found that the reason was noise that gave a slightly
>> rough texture to the appearance of the glaze.
And I felt exactly the opposite. I know that that glaze has texture to
it. That's the natural "flaw" to the process and materials. However,
in person, we have two eyes looking at the object and we have a
built-in texture-averaging and noise-reduction mechanism in our visual
system that is based on edge-detect and motion sensing. The rest of
our vision is based on "content aware fill".
Therefore, the first version was much more accurate to the surface
characteristics, but the second version was more representative of how
we would have seen it in person.
Both are great, both are accurate, both are true, but the artistic
intent is different.
AG Schnozz
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|