Hey so I've been posting this on the question thread but got no reply,so I have trouble understanding the the cause of the purple in the shadow formed in the yellow/afternoon light in pic related, is it introduced as a complementary to yellow or blue in the sky mixing with red?
>>2555075
Fuck man instead of posting something from a fucking cartoon why wont you post something found in life?
>>2555077
Animated CGI movies are actually a far better source to study realistic lighting than photos are. Photos can't even come close of capturinge the vibrance of real life lighting and often times the photographer fucks with color balance of an image to fake it.
Meanwhile color key artists working for Disney and co usually have years, sometimes decades of plein air painting experience and carefully design every shot, using real life reference AND knowledge about how colors are actually seen by the human eye, not a photo camera.
>>2555164
>Animated CGI movies are actually a far better source to study realistic lighting than photos are
holy shit you're fucking retarded
>>2555177
I gave you an explanation as to why exactly I think that which you seem to be unable to refute. you are the retard here.
>>2555164
>Animated CGI movies are actually a far better source to study realistic lighting than photos are
>>2555075
during the production of fantastic mr. fox, they realized that if you only used warm colors, like the yellow/orange/browns that dominate the palette in the film, and placed them next to neutral colors, those colors would naturally look blueish purely based on the strength and contrast of the yellow/orange color scheme, of which blue is a complimentary color.
the lower the sun is in the sky the more of the atmosphere it's light must pass through, causing said sunlight to be tinted yellow (or sometimes red/orange/purple depending on the atmospheric conditions at sunset). because the eye sees by taking in reflected light, the areas in the sunlight are much "stronger" color wise and this contrast between the light and dark areas will cause the darker areas to appear tinted in the complimentary color of yellow, usually purple/blue, tho the end result of those colors "mixing" which often result in that warm red/pink color that's very close to purple
>>2555192
yeah, your explanation was fucking retarded. congrats. I shouldn't have to explain to you why a photo of reality show more realistic lighting than a 3D cartoon.
>>2555231
it's not bad, it just isn't going to be as accurate as a photo of a real-life lighting situation. especially if you avoid the retarded strawman seen here
>>2555164
in which he talks about some retarded high school iphone photgrapher who bumps up the saturation stupid high, as opposed to a professional photographer who has studied how light operates in a given setting for his/her entire life.
>>2555164
But wouldnt a photographer modifying colors to make them more intense be the same as a CG artist grading the color in a film? They're both doing the same thing basically. Granted the CG artist has more control over the image as they can choose what an object or place looks like before it even gets to the color grading stage.
>9 posters
Thank god, for a minute I thought OP was this retarded.
>>2555164
>Animated CGI movies are actually a far better source to study realistic lighting than photos are.
This is the fucking dumbest thing I've ever read on /ic/.
>>2555252
Photos can't even come close of capturinge the vibrance of real life lighting and often times the photographer fucks with color balance of an image to fake it.
Meanwhile color key artists working for Disney and co usually have years, sometimes decades of plein air painting experience and carefully design every shot, using real life reference AND knowledge about how colors are actually seen by the human eye, not a photo camera
>OP derails his own thread
photographers go out of their way to avoid real life artifacts showing in their pictures and give them a more "artistic" illustration look.
3d guys go out of their way to make renderings look like real life by adding fake photography artifacts like grain, chromatic aberration, lens flare, vignetting, etc.
you probably can learn more of real life by studing 3d renders done by pros than your typical photoshopped to death landscape
>>2555412
>3d renders imitates photography, therefore is realistic
weak bait
>>2555077
itt: naive retards actually beileve there's such thing as untouched photographs on the internet
>>2555217
Wow thanks.
>>.2555400
Lol I wasn't even participating in the thread up til now.
>20/5/13/x
>tfw op may be this stupid
>>2555164
Please let this be b8
>The people who make the cartoons study photos and real life so I should study the cartoons
Makes fucking sense
>>2555164
This. also, you can learn MUCH more for a simple 3d render, prefereably done with an unbiased renderer, than from REAL LIFE. in the 3d model you can isolate perfectly ideal cases that are basic for the understanding of lighting, while irl there's always a lot of shit going on that usually won't make sense at all, even if you've got the basics. photographs are just as bad as real life.
real life can only teach you to COPY. 3d can teach you to CREATE.
>>2555075
i'm thinking it's the color of the indirect ambient light from the sky filling in the shadow, making it more blue than it would be under just the light from the sun
>>2555075
You should ask /sci/.
>>2555164
/3/ here. I want to let everyone know for certain that this is absolutely retarded even though I'm sure you non retards already know
