As seen before, but slightly refined. A half build saucer is a hideous thing to have to model.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Can you light it up alittle? All I see is an outline.
Posted by Prismatic EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
i have no problems seeing details. looks great.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
I mean all I can see is some of the ship and the 'claw dock'.
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
I'm not sure I get what you mean. What did you expect to see?
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Maybe the ship perhaps or what's under construction perhaps? What I mean is that I can see a faint outline of the saucer, and a little of 'patches' where the ship is under construction, and the 'claw' dock.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Perhaps its time to adjust the brightness on your monitor or your gamma settings.
You must have great fun in Quake. "What monster? All I see is dark and darker..."
Posted by Magnus Pym Eye (Member # 239) on :
I'm lying in wait for Liam to come in and berate you for playing a game six years old.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Well, it is quite dark.
Time for a favorite rant of mine, not really directed at this fine picture.
Dear Star Trek Magazine and associates: I appreciate that you take the time to find lovely ship models on occasion and give us nice big five-view pictures. This is Good. I approve.
However, could you please NOT ATTEMPT TO GUSSY THEM UP WITH DIRECTIONAL LIGHTING!!? This is Bad. I am not in the market for beauty shots of starships at this time. I purchase your magazine on occasion so I can do very sad things like count windows and phaser arrays and point at very tiny markings and say "Aha!" and nod my head knowingly while e-mailing fifty people who are all as sad as I am. This is difficult to do when half the ship is completely shrouded in darkness. Please stop doing this.
Thank you.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Every picture I see besides from this one I see fine. The picture itself is dark.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
At the risk of sounding obvious, you do know that space is well......dark right? Despite what you see in popular culture, space isn't exactly littered with nebuli, plasma storms, or whatnot. Its very big (see the Hitchhiker's Guide) and very dark. Why would Starfleet waste energy making a shipyard glow like a roman candle?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Frankly, I couldn't give a toss about what's in space. I want to see the ship somebody drew! Realism can bite me. Right here. No, not there, on the heel, where I can't feel it much.
I've got nothing against beauty shots. They are with the beauty. But if you want me to judge the quality of a piece of art, it helps slightly if I can actually see it, without lots of Fun Lighting and Neat Effects in the way, which turn out almost always to be neither Fun nor Neat.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
I agree. Otherwise just post a black pic and say there's a ship somewhere in there.
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
Ooh, this is getting a bit touchy. I deliberately made the lighting stronger (I thought), because the older version was too dark.
When I post a picture with high lighting and ambience -no beauty shot, just to show the model, people complain and say- 'the lighting's way off, it's too bright, turn the ambience down, where are the shadows, where's the realism..? etc. I can't win. I give up.
I will be later posting a new image with high lighting and ambience so you can see it better. Ok?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Sir, I am no artist, only a humble day laborer, but it seems to me that there are two kinds of starship picture. One, the ship in its dramatic environment. These are pretty. Two, the ship presented for inspection. These are also pretty, or so I think, but this is not their primary intention.
Take the above picture. It looks really cool. However, if someone were to ask me my opinion on, say, the relative quality of the under-construction ship, I would be unable to respond, because I cannot actually see it.
But I did not think that that was the point of this particular image, and thus my criticisms are not directed at it, but rather at other issues.
Posted by Prismatic EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
i had no problem seeing the picture.
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
Thank you Sol System, and PE, I agree, and I prefer the type of picture where you can actually see the object in some detail, rather then nebulaic beauty shots all the time. It's why I use standard no thrills backgrounds a lot of the time - I'm more interested in seeing the ship.
I honestly thought that the Yard picture in question was adequately lit. But some disagree, possibly due to faulty monitors, so here's a lighter version. I hope you now find this adequate...
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Posted by Magnus Pym Eye (Member # 239) on :
Ack! It's too bright! It's washed out!
Although, in seriousness, now that more of the detail is visible, it's a nice Saucer.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
I agree, I didn't even know it was a Galaxy type saucer, I thought it was a Akira type.
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)