Agreed.....just because someones scenery is nice doesnt mean that they take good screenshots. And that is what this studio is for....looking beyond the plane and scenery and seeing how people put effort into their shots

.Mic

Quote:


Well it's fine to say "nice shots" to any set of screenshots, because after all, it's never nice to have your threads seemingly ignored! But some people do tend to go a little over the top in what they say. If you ask me, no screenshot I have ever seen has warranted " "!

I think that a photoreal tail or something can help complete a shot.  Yes it is annoying when its a picture of a tail on a blue backdrop and people go WOW, but lets say its a sunset pic or something where a tail that isn't photoreal might ruin it.

Quote:


You've proved my point then. It would otherwise be a bad shot, and so why is it all of a sudden transformed when photoreal is introduced? It's just the graphics over substance, really. (Yes, I think my graphics are fine! )

Difficult subject here, gents!   

I think there are more aspects to taking a good screnshot than one might think. And I certainly think that a good combination of all those factors will give you a beautiful shot. I mean, if you have a shot and the composition and colours are excellent, but the grapics suck, it is not a good shot. And if you have a shot with really beautiful graphics, but lacks the other things, you don't have a good shot either.

I think we should look at the importance of the different aspects. For me, it's somewhat in this order:

Originality
Composition
Colours (mood / feel)
Graphics
Time put into the shot

I'm sure I can think of a lot more factors that contribute to a shot, but these I have now. A shot, any shot, can't be good if it lacks one of these things. I also think that, sometimes, the graphics add a ot more to the shot than just a good look. I pay great respect to someone who spends a lot of time searching for better textures and tweeking the sim. I agree on the fact that the makers of these add-ons should get part of the credit though.

Graphics are also important in another way. For example: if you are ready to take your shot in FS and you have paused the game. Let's say you take two shots. One with everything maxed out and one with every slider set to 'low' or '0'. I think that everybody will prefer the 'maxed' shot.

Just my 2 cents...

It depends what the shot is for and why it was taken.

Don't forget not every one only posts finely crafted and posed shots to impress. I only post stuff I think is quite good and worthy of the forum, but not every one has to be a masterpiece. Often each shot is just part of a set recording a flight, and then there's nothing wrong with a photoreal tail against a blue sky, if it looks nice. I like shots like that because they make me feel like a passenger or mechanic on the apron, looking up at the mammoth plane I'm about to board or service.

If it's part of a contest shot, like Vavavoom's (which I voted for), such a simple shot wouldn't be good - but Vavavoom's had a lot more going on in it than just tail plus sky.... other planes, great lighting and composition, originality, etc.

FS doesn't come with much, if any photoreal stuff. Finding the photoreal stuff counts as effort put in, and taking it from the right height or angle so it looks truly realistic takes a degree of skill. So IMHO there's nothing 'below standard' about shots featuring photoreal add-ons.

Prejudice against photoreal stuff is similar as that against payware environment packages, scenery or planes - some people seem to think it's payware so it's 'easy' or 'cheating' in some way. Yet they go mad over FSX with its reflective water which comes with the package, and for which you need to spend a ton of money to get a comp that can run the sim fluidly, far more than a few payware purchases cost that improve FS9 no end, like Flight and Ground Environment. Maybe I'm wrong about this 'anti-payware prejudice', but there must be some reason why people hardly go in there....

Just my two cents...

Krigl

Quote:


Thank you very much, Tweek!!!! I'm honoured! It is one of my all time favourites too...

I often have the feeling that people don't like my stuff, because it's too unrealistic or something. Like the VOZtour set I'm linking to in my sig, which I really liked but no one commented on, or in fact even looked at. It's great to hear that somebody appreciates my
favourite style of shot - lots of action, clouds and colour.... reality be damned   I like 'realistic' shots too, of course, I'm just not good at making them

Cheers

Krigl

ps. I'd appreciate any comments on that set 'Voztour 15 pt1'. I'm asking for CRITICISM - rip them if you like. I'd love to know what I'm 'doing wrong'. I'm going on holiday now, but I'll check back in a week.

Alonso wrote on Jan 6^th, 2007 at 5:22pm:


I'm not quite sure what you mean. I have no problem with these types of shots (after all, who am I to say who should post what?), it's just that I'm wondering why people make such a big deal out of them. It just seems a little shallow, to me.

personaly i find that if someone posts shots and say comments welcome, if it negative its stilla comment, to give someone a negative comment + some tips is kinder than not replying.

Sgt Donut... I agree...  its better to have the things pointed out that should be changed, effects improved, or such... then someone not to point those things out. If the poster of the image takes that advice positivly then it will improve the type of shots they produce. Improving not only their personal skills but insuring that in the future, they recieve acknolagment for there creativity and work.

I dont think though... that phototextures or scenery is a negative in this case though.... real photgraphers use all sorts of tricks to "pose" the best shots... lens, lighting, and such... so it cant be taken away from the posters here to use the best tools available to them to create the best shot.

the shot may not be the best out there.... but the wow factor is not really the scenery or the paint job... but the "realness" of the shot... does it give you the sense that you are seeing it real time... is this what it would look like if you were there....

waspiflab wrote on Jan 16^th, 2007 at 11:18am:



It seems you didn't carefully read what I was saying. So I'll try to cover the main points I was aiming to get across.

I haven't got any problems with photoreal textures. I haven't got any problems with people taking screenshots of photoreal textures as they can really enhance a screenshot (and your Flight Sim alike). Nor did I criticise the shots that I posted (from your thread). In fact, for one I said:

"This shot, from the same thread, I feel is far better, as it combines more elements to make it a good shot:

http://www.simviation.com/yabbuploads/erngerngr.jpg "


Anyway...


Photoreal textures can enhance a screenshot, as Dave says. However, a bad screenshot is a bad screenshot, and no amount of fantastic photoreal texturing can change that. Perhaps it can make it look a little better, but if it's not a good screenshot in the first place, it won't be after sticking a photo in it. It's the fact that I don't understand why people seem to think that's the case.

One of my favourite aircraft at the minute is Warwick Carter's P-51 and believe it or not, I'm only fly it in a photoreal paint, because it does make the aircraft look better.

To demonstrate my main point, I've just gone and taken this handful of shots. Seeing as I've taken them, I can rip them all I like without people threatening to leave because everyone's being too nasty.


     


These first two shots, in my eyes, are crap. Simple as that. I've not put any effort into making them look good. No imagination whatsoever, I just took off an hit the print screen key a couple of times. The only thing nice about these shots is the photoreal paint on the Mustang, but that doesn't save them from being bland, boring and unimaginitive.

Yet I've seen screenshots similar to these (I use the term 'similar' in the loosest sense) hailed with highly flattering comments, when if you really think about it, they're not particularly good shots at all.

This next shot I feel is much better. For one I'm securing in the knowledge that I used my head when taking the shot. I tried out different lighting, weather, scenery, angles. And when you compare it to the two shots above, it shows.



Even then, I don't feel that this shot is worthy of overly enthusiastic appraisal. I could do better. But I know for sure that it's more deserving of praise than the other two, even if you don't think it's any good yourself.


And although it's all down to the individual, I just hope that people think a little harder about what constitutes a good, great, or downright awful screenshot!

waspiflab wrote on Jan 16^th, 2007 at 4:56pm:


My scenery isn't default. I've got it as good as I want, without having to fork out on payware at least.

waspiflab wrote on Jan 16^th, 2007 at 4:56pm:


As do I. Who doesn't?

waspiflab wrote on Jan 16^th, 2007 at 4:56pm:


I can't see how age comes into it.

waspiflab wrote on Jan 16^th, 2007 at 4:56pm:


I have absolutely no idea what you're on about!

Want to have my two (euro)cents? No? Have them as well 
If I happen to read others' comments to screenshots (which I admittedly not always do), that never changes what I think about a shot: if I like it, I like it (and more often than not, I post to let the author know I liked it), if I don't like it I just walk on by. In one way or the other, I could never possibly be upset by someone giving enthusiastic comments about a shot I didn't like, or vice versa trashing a shot I liked. It just doesn't affect me, and I'm bothered 0% by it. Although I *do* get touchy if the screenshot is mine, that goes w/o saying 
After all, are we flight simmers or sim artists? I could guess both, but as for me, I feel I'm 99% the former and 1% the latter... the most important thing is taking that baby up in the blue sky (and hopefully down again), coming back with a good photoreportage is a plus.

Short version: it's not important at the point of arguing about it, let's take it easy. 

Believe me, I don't get upset about things like this, but isn't this the whole purpose of the Studio? To express your thoughts and improve upon your 'screenart'?