Teckniel.
Brazil for render…
Brazil materials (brazil glass/brazil advanced)
everything is simple
correct index of refraction and reflection…
Hdri for the envirement…
Bump, reflection, opacity map for the foam… and subsurface scattering…
don’t forget the bubbles 
caustics from the hdri skylight, no other light sources exept hdri.
First I would like to make an apology here to the one who make this image. My opinion is quite offensive… This pic is nothing special at all and it doesn’t worth a frontpage space.
Is this pic wants to tell us that creativity comes to a limitation or an end, and need to use the 3D tools to recreate photorealism? And someone raise a silly question like is it photo or not. And someone is fooling around with it and say it is a good work. In my opinion yes it is a good rendering, in terms of technology used. But this pics doesn’t lead us to think something deeper and meaningful. It is really just nuts and bolts, that we can do the same by just take a shot using a DC.
OMG, the frontpage gallery is dropping standard in quality!
Is this pic wants to tell us that creativity comes to a limitation or an end
@Dick Ma: This is where you are missing the point I think. Yes, it really is just nuts and bolts. But it prompted 9 pages of discussion with extremely varied opinions… inspired others to go off and try and recreate the same effects, and amazed most of us at how it was done. THAT is why I love art, my friend.
Were the standards of the front page lowered by this image? Hardly… they were just raised.
My .02
I am sorry again… Technicrat…
You mean that nuts and bolts can inspire another people to try and recreate the same thing? Yes, it inspire other people to recreate more cliche things. I advise you that don’t be fooled by this image, it is not art.
Think about what is the Idea behind the nuts and bolts. What is the differences of rendering this in computer and doing this by making photo shoots. The differences is just the technology.
rendering may be takes one or more hours but shoot a photo is just a sec or less.
that can be said for almost all renders… sheesh…
IMO this render goes to show what can be done with so little work.
It inspires me to take a breather while scening, and not indulge myself in details.
Great models doesn’t neccesarily mean great renders.
[B]This work deserves the front page. It is highly detailed, well lit, and overall a very impressive technical feat.
If it was not so, then many of you would not have mistook it as a photograph.
To Arseny, I want to extend my apologies for the way you and your work have been treated. You are a valuable member of our community, and we hope this experience will not restrict you from future postings.
To everyone here who has resorted to name-calling, mud-slinging, and flame posts, consider yourselves warned. This type of speech is not professional, nor in keeping with the spirit of CGTalk.
Please consider your words and actions more thoroughly before posting such comments in the future.
Thank you for your cooperation.[/B]
-Dave Black
Originally posted by Arseny
[B]Teckniel.
Brazil for render…Brazil materials (brazil glass/brazil advanced)
everything is simple
correct index of refraction and reflection…
Hdri for the envirement…
Bump, reflection, opacity map for the foam… and subsurface scattering…don’t forget the bubbles
caustics from the hdri skylight, no other light sources exept hdri. [/B]
Look at the quotes, the rendering quality is offered by the technologies… what he lacks of is CREATIVITY. If he is still would like to do photorealism CG, inspire us with COMPOSITION. It is the only way to make us feel interesting.
Originally posted by Dick Ma
Look at the quotes, the rendering quality is offered by the technologies… what he lacks of is CREATIVITY. If he is still would like to do photorealism CG, inspire us with COMPOSITION. It is the only way to make us feel interesting.
He was refering to a different render on his website.
-Dave
Originally posted by Dave Black
[B][B]This work deserves the front page. It is highly detailed, well lit, and overall a very impressive technical feat.If it was not so, then many of you would not have mistook it as a photograph.
To Arseny, I want to extend my apologies for the way you and your work have been treated. You are a valuable member of our community, and we hope this experience will not restrict you from future postings.
To everyone here who has resorted to name-calling, mud-slinging, and flame posts, consider yourselves warned. This type of speech is not professional, nor in keeping with the spirit of CGTalk.
Please consider your words and actions more thoroughly before posting such comments in the future.
Thank you for your cooperation.[/B]
-Dave Black [/B]
I don’t know is the above post is related to my past critics. My response is simple: it is just critics.
I didn’t mislead everyone… what I quote about the rendering specs is from the beer pics… but I believe that the nuts and bolts render is also technology based.
I think I have used appropriate expressions on my post. What I am talking about is just critical comment of images he posted. And I think as an open forum, of course it accept appreciation, it also accept critics too. And I think my critics is constructive one.
hi all…dont post very often so i hope you wont mind me inserting my 2 pence coin…
it does seem a shame that people actually put a barrier on what should be or what should not be art…its diversity down through the years has prompted many opinions both good and bad, which is the better for the art world in general, making us all think more about what we do…thinking and not reacting is the best thing an artist can do…
anyway, to the piece in question…
i do like the render i must admit, its beautifully done…
but…
im an engineer, have been for many years, and theres not much i dont know about threads..... most threads are cut, with a sharp tool, and create radial lines running down the entire length of the cut....and the form is usually sharply defined, an upsidedown v with the crest topped off would suffice as an example of one cycle of a thread shape.......some massed produced threads are formed by compression like a mold and can look a little like the threads in the render, but usually have a form line running down the length of the thread and either side....and the threads in the picture have neither a line nor are sharply defined and are not sufficiently accurate enough to fool me....so technically it isnt perfect…
but since we`re artists here the overall effect is good, and as i said, looks beautiful…and should be lauded as it has…
sorry to bore everyone with techie stuff…you can wake up now lol
krispee
Originally posted by Dick Ma
I advise you that don’t be fooled by this image, it is not art.
This is art, there are no rules in art…
Just check out this piece of art by Andy Warhol
Arseny:
Great image :buttrock: . But I liked the first one better. (The one without the logo on it.) 
You didn’t read my post in details. You didn’t answer me about what is the difference between rendering and taking photo.
In your provided example, First, Andy Warhol draws the Campbell’s can of soup with plain color, no light shading at all. Not a photo shooting… please consider why he wasn’t shoot the can in photo?
And he has “Compositions” in illustrating the Campbell’s cans. like enlarging it, display it in rows and columns to create visual impacts. Or like the Marilyn one, using color as his visual points.
And the behind concept of illustrating a quantity number of cans is to express about “clones” “homogeneous” ''consumerism" it’s a typical american symbol.
I am not a good student when having my art history class. But is there anything I can learnt from the nuts and bolts? except the rendering technology?
Originally posted by Dick Ma
… But is there anything I can learnt from the nuts and bolts? except the rendering technology?
I don’t know what you can learn from it, Dick Ma. The best I can tell you is what I appreciate in it. Where you see no creativity here I actually see a great deal. It takes creativity to draw elegance out of something so simple as a pile of bolts. And that is what Arseny has done.
Whether that was done through a photo or a render is secondary. What is much more important is that when I see this image I don’t think to myself, “A pile of bolts… so what… blah…”
Instead, I think, “Damn, that’s a very cool looking pile of bolts. I like it.”
Trying to figure out how the artist did it and what techniques were used is part of the fun too, but doesn’t detract from the initial impressions of the image.
dunno, but why should everything here be art? i think its his aim to create photorealism!
and i think it is easier to make a pic of an mclaren F1 than with a DC… here are the advantages, because you can show things you cant easily take photos of, or which doesnt exist.
Tell me, what am I suppose to learn from drawing a bowl of fruit? Or any still-life project in art class. The bowl of fruit is a classic excersize they do in art classes, using any medium.
What if instead of drawing a bowl of fruit I draw a bowl of nuts and bolts? Is there a difference? No. Same concept, still-life, same excersize.
I’ll tell you what I learned from this image of a nuts and bolts:
I learned that even “artists”, the class of people thought to be “open minded”, can be very closed/narrow minded and unwilling to accept different things, or things they’re not use to, things that is not of their particular style.
Well I cannot bother your appreciation taste, you know that. But I believe what is freedom of speech.
Review my posts. I would like to express that it is a good rendering, in technical terms. Art can be analysed and as a scale to define is it a good art or not. How compositions can improve art and design. And my expression of my personal appreciation taste. And my comment is that it is not an art and it’s standard isn’t worth a frontpage place.
You can provide me other POV about this image, but you cannot bother me to express myself either.
Originally posted by Vertizor
[B]Tell me, what am I suppose to learn from drawing a bowl of fruit? Or any still-life project in art class. The bowl of fruit is a classic excersize they do in art classes, using any medium.What if instead of drawing a bowl of fruit I draw a bowl of nuts and bolts? Is there a difference? No. Same concept, still-life, same excersize.
I’ll tell you what I learned from this image of a nuts and bolts:
I learned that even “artists”, the class of people thought to be “open minded”, can be very closed/narrow minded and unwilling to accept different things, or things they’re not use to, things that is not of their particular style. [/B]
Before drawing a bowl of fruit, the first thing is to learn COMPOSITION, how to place the fruits in aestheic sense. How to create stability. And I believe if ten students draws the same bowl of fruit, ten different drawings is created. Because as you stated before, they use different mediums and styles.
Do my answer satisfied you?
Originally posted by honkie
dunno, but why should everything here be art? i think its his aim to create photorealism!
and i think it is easier to make a pic of an mclaren F1 than with a DC… here are the advantages, because you can show things you cant easily take photos of, or which doesnt exist.
I think it is a good comment I think. or my spirit of my comments. Is it really hard to shoot the nuts and bolts sharp with a DC? The technologies provided to us is that they to create something that looks real, but it doesn’t exist in real world, or hard to achieve it in real world, or hard to do it with a DC.
The original author of nuts and blots is success to create photorealism… but can he push himself further? I am looking forward to his next creation.
I have a little different opinion about some posts here. I think, that unfortunatelly, MANY people on CGTalk Forum and other foruns are loosing their mind, thinking that we need to be like “rockstars” hunting fame and glory.
Many people here in CGTalk is just looking for to do really impressive and technical works, with unbeliaveble complex modeling just to impress some mattes… I don’t really think that’s the real target of the 3DArtists (my opinion).
So i think that some people on the forum is loosing this simple principle, and if some image is just not extremelly impressive in render, modeling, or everything toghether, they don’t deserve any respect. This is a dumb way to look at images.
If an image is nice and beautiful it’s nice and beautiful. Don’t worry about the modeling complexity.
I think the technical skills and tecnical aspects is very important to study, cause we need then to work, but, the image is the result and the most important.
I totally agreed that tne Arseny’s image don’t have nothing so much impressive in modeling or in lightning, cause Brazil renders and shaders helps a lot with a excellent feedback on light and reflections, but THIS IS NOT IMPORTANT. An image is an image. Like an illustration. I prefer images with more creativity, but this image, i guess that’s kind f work to study, like a self improvement study of the artist.
Not an image to be a masterpiece, or to show something more than a good lighting and shading study.
Even If it’s a Photo, it STILLS a very nice photo. It’s easy to do, it’s hard, it’s impressive or not ? Whats matter ?
The image is nice and beautiful (for me).
I am not a big fan of the extremelly technical image with the MAIN target on the hunting for the first page or just to impress people.
Do your job and let your talent to impress people.
I liked your image Arseny. I think its cool. Not because the modeling, the reflections, or the hell shader or render you’ve used. It’s Just nice.
Btw : My english is terrible. Sorry.