Terragen scores Highly in the realism department!! PROOF!

[Renegade26]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/30418909@N06/3426774567/

The comment left on my flickr page was from somebody who thought my T2 picture was 'real life' and did not realise it was computer generated. I checked this was the case by emailing him.

Congratulations Planetside.

Anybody else managed to 'fool' someone unintentionaly?

PS: I've tried to introduce the chap who wrote the comment to T2 so he might become a new face.

[rcallicotte]

Good job.  Your lighting in this image is spot-on.

[PorcupineFloyd]

There are plenty of people who have nothing to do with CG, who think that some of my works are photos. It's not a big deal if you're making a whole procedural planet - that's very natural approach (considering the fractal theory or chaos theory).

Fun part starts if you're including some vegetation or making a mix of short and long range (POV) renders.

[Mohawk20]

Actually, TG was doing pretty good in realism some 5 years ago...

I remember printing some TG 0.9 renders as photographs (had to go to a store to do that back then). Everyone who saw them thought they were photo's. Though if you see those renders now everyone would see they are clearly CG.

[neuspadrin]

No offense but the image looks cg to me... but thats also because I've become so aware of what TG renders look like I can very easily spot the little things.  as said earlier by calico, the lighting is very good, and helps with the realism a lot.  only thing that kinda gives it away and feels iffy to me is the nearby vegetation. rocks and landscape is great though.

But it is always fun when people ask how u got such a great picture etc.

[PorcupineFloyd]

I once gave some of my printed TG2 renders as a gift for someone and that person asked me, while looking at one of the pictures, if it was taken somewhere in our Czech / Polish mountains. Considering that she had grown up in the area which she mentioned and apparently - had some memories and feelings linked with it, I consider it as a really funny situation.

It kinda made me think about existing phases (levels) of perception.

1. If you're happy with your render and you feel that it's impressive and convincing enough for you.
2. If someone else, who has nothing to do with CG feels that your work is convincing and points out that it's a photo.
3. If someone else, who is also doing CG tells you that you've made a good photo, while watching your CG.

I've also found that it can be a hidden pursue of all landscapers into mastering their workshop.

Mimesis into photorealism or mixed creativity leading to hyperrealism... I guess it's late in the night if I'm writing such things ;-)

[normhol]

From a newbies point of view...cudos to PorkupineFloyd. Let not one's "EGO" conflict with another's "EGO", but enjoy what you have created. If it is pleasing to you and others have enjoyed it as well...GREAT!.
Now..if you are asking for opinions of the "learned" on this forum, then that is different.
To the "learned" ones, perhaps it would be more helpful, rather than telling WHAT could be done to improve the render, but tell HOW it can be to accomplished.
I believe some of the critiques could be greatly improved and not seem so "critical".
Cheers,
Norm.

[Tangled-Universe]

Actually, TG was doing pretty good in realism some 5 years ago...

I remember printing some TG 0.9 renders as photographs (had to go to a store to do that back then). Everyone who saw them thought they were photo's. Though if you see those renders now everyone would see they are clearly CG.

Yes indeed. Although...I left some prints at my parents place and they are at the wall in the visitor's room and all of them still think it are photographs. To me/us they would look very CG'ish

From a newbies point of view...cudos to PorkupineFloyd. Let not one's "EGO" conflict with another's "EGO", but enjoy what you have created. If it is pleasing to you and others have enjoyed it as well...GREAT!.
Now..if you are asking for opinions of the "learned" on this forum, then that is different.
To the "learned" ones, perhaps it would be more helpful, rather than telling WHAT could be done to improve the render, but tell HOW it can be to accomplished.
I believe some of the critiques could be greatly improved and not seem so "critical".
Cheers,
Norm.

I agree, fun is at first place and as I also enjoy creating images I also enjoy sharing them to receive critiques for improvements.

Which brings me to the second part of your post, because I think many of you consider me to be one of the "learned" ones and honestly I do consider it a bit myself as well lol

I do not really feel addressed by your feelings, because I think I can say with a clear sense of honesty I always try to give as much advice as possible how to actually achieve the suggestions for improvement I make. So I do not feel being "attacked" in any sense, but I certainly understand your feelings.
When I was a beginner and still had much to learn I sometimes also received suggestions for improvements but not for an approach to achieve it and also found that a bit annoying from time to time.
What I do miss sometimes though is the initiative of the user to ask straight away how to do it.

I realize the importance of good feedback because it improved my work and also therefore increased my joy in creating images I wouldn't dream of creating them some time ago.
So for everyone: if you feel like you need more explanation on critiques and especially on how to get it look better, just ask

Martin

[Renegade26]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/30418909@N06/3426774567/

The comment left on my flickr page was from somebody who thought my T2 picture was 'real life' and did not realise it was computer generated. I checked this was the case by emailing him.

Congratulations Planetside.

Anybody else managed to 'fool' someone unintentionaly?

PS: I've tried to introduce the chap who wrote the comment to T2 so he might become a new face.

I wasn't giving myself a pat on the back here - I was congratulating Planetside on the power of their software.

[rcallicotte]

@Renegade - It doesn't matter.  It's still a great complement and I'm glad you heard it.

@Martin - Your assistance has always been close to stellar and is appreciated by many here.  That reminds me about a certain tutorial or release of some vertical rocks...     Has that bug been fixed yet so you can continue someday?  Absolutely no rush, but a good example of what you've done here.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/30418909@N06/3426774567/

The comment left on my flickr page was from somebody who thought my T2 picture was 'real life' and did not realise it was computer generated. I checked this was the case by emailing him.

Congratulations Planetside.

Anybody else managed to 'fool' someone unintentionaly?

PS: I've tried to introduce the chap who wrote the comment to T2 so he might become a new face.

I wasn't giving myself a pat on the back here - I was congratulating Planetside on the power of their software.

[Tangled-Universe]

You're right Calico.
I haven't tried it yet with the newest version but I expect to be able to catch up with the project again without too much troubles.

Martin

[kevnar]

In order for TG renders to look more real, Planetside would have to find a way to insert artificial imperfections into the render. 

[Henry Blewer]

 I have posted my images on Flickr. Many people mistake them for photos. (even the ones which are not that good) Bu then that's the idea of this software. Terragen 2 really does this well.

[Tangled-Universe]

I have posted my images on Flickr. Many people mistake them for photos. (even the ones which are not that good) Bu then that's the idea of this software. Terragen 2 really does this well.

I have never seen any of your work I think, can you post us a link to (some of) it?
Thanks

Martin

[Seth]

I have never seen any of your work I think, can you post us a link to (some of) it?
Thanks

Martin

http://www.flickr.com/photos/njeneb/