[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Notes on scientifically comparative paleoposes
Sorry, it is eihter my or your reading comprehension that is seriously
David wrote that various things "are fla"t - you say NO, you're WRONG
- I did this for the flat look.
Gee, sounds like you AGREE they are flat!
Also, how do you translate
" the background (lit much too brightly)"
" the sun is not "too" bright"
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 4:09 PM, <GSP1954@aol.com> wrote:
> In a message dated 3/18/11 6:57:18 AM, email@example.com writes:
> << The tree trunks around the *Omeisaurus* (p. 65, again after the first
> page of a chapter) are _all
> completely flat_, one of the poor animals has a head but all the rest of
> it is just brown color on the background (lit much too brightly),
> another had head and neck visible but the neck isn't shaded even though
> its front side is lit by the sun, the legs in caudal view are all
> completely flat, and the distance between the little ones and the bush
> in front of them is just impossible to judge. >>
> The above comments are incorrect because the commentator did not send me a
> message asking for an explanation. The painting was based closely on a photo
> I took of the sun shining through conifers from behind. The trunks are of
> course flat in the photo because there is no differential shading from one
> side (likewise, a photograph taken when the sun is on the horizon, with the
> the sun directly behind the camera so that their are no shadows in the
> resulting image, everything from behind being fully lit by the sun, look
> flat). The dinosaurs etc are the same. One reason I did the scene this why
> was for that peculiar flat look. I also did much the same in reverse with the
> resting pair of Yangchuanosaurus oil lit by the setting sun almost directly
> behind the viewer.
> And the sun is not "too" bright because that is exactly the way it was at
> the scene and is in the photo.
> G Paul