sniper vampire


#1

My image didn’t make it to the gallery.
I was told in the email that I could post it here and get some help fixing what’s wrong.
Thanks!


#2

Higher res version here:
https://www.cgsociety.org/cgsarchive/newgallerycrits/g96/30696/30696_1347647918_large.jpg


#3

nice lighting man…
i think that because its bit lack of details
bit boring komposition too.
looks more like film style post production, not a still


#4

i like the idea :smiley: tops man :beer:


#5

I think it’s an awesome image. No idea why it wasnt accepted. Love the dusty feel.


#6

I think the compostion is ok. The main reason I think is the lack of details & it seems a lot of postwork.

I think the general impression from maybe the judge is there is not lot of work to make this image.
the clock, the head, the rifle, & the rock he stand on. Not to mention none looks high detail from the image anyway.

Not to say you did not spend time on these. the problem with 3D is the size of the object is not a reflection of the work you put in. In 2D art, the size of the object is more or less determine the amount of details you can put into it.

Sometimes, its very hard to explain to people, not in the 3D visual art industry how much time it takes to make a workpiece in 3D.

I have a friend when I show her the current project I am working on, she said it must be hard work, must have taken several hours. I told her, more like months (but of course spread over few hours a day).


#7

hmm, i really like it. the only thing i would probably do is some translucency on the cloth material, to get a feeling of light passing through it a little bit


#8

Thanks for your help guys, but I think this is all BS.
The image was top row on CGHub witch have much higher submission quality.
not sure who’s judging on cg talk but anyway…

What’s wrong with postwork? I’ve been in the industry for more than a decade, everything is heavily post worked.

I don’t think you should judge an image by the amount of details, that make no sense to me.
There is plenty of details where it’s needed.


#9

Only the judges know what is the criteria to be honest. but I am guessing its very subjective, & varies from judges to judges. I have seen some very good work being rejected, while some of average quality making the gallery.

There is no need to get so worked out, & I have told many people to try to post their work somewhere else, and/or try to improve on certain areas, or just moved on.

If I am honest, I think this image can look better if the details from the head & weapon can be more vivid. Also, the rifle looks like its tug under the cloak, rather then held by his hand. I think this image would looks a little better if he have his hand shown holding the weapon.

I am not critizing this image, but give possible suggestions how it can be improved.


#10

Thank dude, those are great comments!
I’m not worked out, I was just looking at the pictures that made it to the gallery and I didn’t get it…
some are really bad even by 10 years ago standards but well…moving on.


#11

Yeah hmm I really like it and I would have approved it.
Would be interesting to hear what was “wrong” with it.
It can’t be something like level of detail as far less detailed stuff can be found in the today’s gallery.

I’m curious.
Cheers
Andre


#12

I also wonder sometimes of criteria of pass/fail for the gallery. I think too much emphasis is being put on amount of details and technical aspects of the image. The art side is ignored. It’s a shame, because I find this piece to be full of style and character. Why add details if what artist wants to describe is already perfectly described by the art? It’s like reprimanding an impressionism style painter for the fact that he is not following the renaissance art style in my opinion…


#13

I agree that it is a very high quality image, although I think there have been some good and valid suggestions for improvement also. I certainly would have approved it for display in the Stills gallery. However, all that aside, I think it is important not to insult everyone else while trying to defend your own work. Making comments about how bad the work of fellow artists is does not help the discussion or give a good impression of yourself.


#14

csalexan,You’re totally right, I didn’t mean to insult anybody.
I’ll try harder next time.

cheers


#15

Not following basic submission instructions gets work rejected as well. When submitting work you have to meet the basic requirements of disclosing a full name and description of the work. I did not down-vote this work, but I’m guessing the main reason it was rejected is you failed to add the required info in the software field, at least describing what was used to produce the image.

I find it odd that you have a crystal clear moon shining through a densily thick and hazy atmosphere. I don’t think ‘artistic license’ is holding up under the circumstance here.

I’d like to see the Francisco Ruiz Velasco concept that inspired this piece., out of curiosity.


#16

Hey
I thought I did put the softwares in…my bad.
Here’s the concept that was used as inspiration and a close up I did previously.


#17

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.