CompuServe Messages

John – I guess you or the Anne noticed our threads tend to get off-track, and LONG – didn't the last one start with extraterrestrial life a discussion of gamma? You are loquacious … you must be a touch-typist. <<Haystacks>> Yup, haystacks … and waterlilies (not in the same painting). One solid wall of haystacks, (or maybe they were thatched-roof huts?). Same color schemes as the waterlilies, but really lovely lighting, all 8 or 9 versions. <<Vermeer and Degas>> I like Degas more – "photorealism isn't everything" <g> (more heresy). But Vermeer and light was amazin <<Pooh>> One and the same. You did well to stay out of that one! I think you may find James Murphy willing to answer MAX questions, and also to deal long-distance; Pooh Paul no longer has a sense of humor about the MAX. <<3d artists and tactile deprivation>> It is a frequent problem, in feeling satisfied with the work I'm doing. No matter how pleased I am with a piece, I don't get the same sense of satisfaction as from modelling a clay figurine, and despite all the wonderful paper textures in Painter … it's not quite the same as touching a sheet of really heavy, high quality watercolor paper. I was drawn to CG for science illustration because of my love of things seen through the light microscope … I wanted to try to reproduce the "stained glass" quality produced by light projected through jewel-like colors in well-stained tissue; actually I did first think of trying it with stained glass … but the "painting" with light offered by CG actually reproduces the effect quite well. I think the ideal medium for showing CG work is probably lighted tranparencies a la Char Davies (one of the very few CG artists whose work I really like). <<pushing this drive>> I'm not driven anymore <g>.. I'm a "happy family person who is very enthusiastic about her work"… "driven" is too hard on the family <g>. Gayle