yeah, I don’t know if I missed out when this was on the front page, (maybe no-one cares anymore) but I figure I need to answer some of the questions:
MY STYLE vs ASH’S STYLE
First, let me say I love Ash’s stlye. I am a big bill sienkiewicz fan, and Ash’s is a great extension of that style.
I really didn’t want to mimic Ash’s style, plain and simple. I don’t want to do “photo-real” 3D either. I like more of a painterly 3D style, and since it’s Pop-bot, I wanted to go to more of a pop art style. Flat color, not tons of texture, but let the light shine through. Mondrian squares of color, etc. My take on Pop3D art.
I know some of you wanted more detail, more textures, but I like that the focus is the robot and the cat, then the room around them. The robot is a great example of this tension. He’s mechanical with a slight nod towards organic (his guts) The room is simple in color and texture, but the lighting shows what I feel is subtle complexity. The “jittering” of the lights adds “noise” to some, but to me it adds the kind of detail I want.
Here are some studies (not really “art”) that reflect my a part of my progress toward this style…3D figures with flat colored environments. You may notice these have inking on top of them and aren’t radiosity rendered. These were just early studies of my traditional techniques mixed with a flat color background before I decided to mix the Radiosity and Cornell box idea.


I don’t want to sound “artsy” and I don’t mean to sound elitist in any way, but I’d thought I’d share my reasons for making an image look the way [i]I[/i] wanted it to look.
Enjoy, and I have a list of questions I will go through and answer later tonight.