Post Your Renders - #5: Yet More Hope

1404143454650

Comments

  • evilproducerevilproducer Posts: 9,050
    edited December 1969

    I like the idea of the selfie.

  • DartanbeckDartanbeck Posts: 21,537
    edited December 1969

    I like the idea of the selfie.
    That's just your ego talking :ahhh:
  • evilproducerevilproducer Posts: 9,050
    edited December 1969

    I like the idea of the selfie.
    That's just your ego talking :ahhh:

    I would do a selfie of my full moon just for you if the forum TOS would allow! :P

  • DartanbeckDartanbeck Posts: 21,537
    edited December 1969

    Paaaaaaaaammmm... Heeeeeeeeeeeeelp! :ahhh:

  • TangoAlphaTangoAlpha Posts: 4,584
    edited December 1969

    Here's the final render: "Portrait of a Selfie"

    V5, Onyx dress & necklace, West Park hair, own build camera, Ken's Mandarin duck (Hivewire), Streets of Asia.

    Portrait_of_a_Selfie-1.jpg
    1350 x 900 - 525K
  • TangoAlphaTangoAlpha Posts: 4,584
    edited December 1969

    Lighting gurus: Referring to the picture above, any suggestions for getting deeper shadows? Particularly under the bridge? Lighting is provided by 1x sun, at an oblique angle - so the near side of the arch is in sunlight, but the back part and just beyond should definitely be in shadow. You can see the shadow is there, but it's nothing like as deep as I'd expect.

    Global illumination is set to sky light.

    Thx. :)

  • DUDUDUDU Posts: 1,945
    edited December 1969

    Do not use the global illumination, but place some bulbs without shadow catcher, to emerge the shades.
    I think it's much easier to manage the shadows like that.

  • evilproducerevilproducer Posts: 9,050
    edited May 2014

    Tim_A said:
    Lighting gurus: Referring to the picture above, any suggestions for getting deeper shadows? Particularly under the bridge? Lighting is provided by 1x sun, at an oblique angle - so the near side of the arch is in sunlight, but the back part and just beyond should definitely be in shadow. You can see the shadow is there, but it's nothing like as deep as I'd expect.

    Global illumination is set to sky light.

    Thx. :)

    Do you have ambient light turned on? If you're using GI. the ambient light should be set to 0%. If that makes the shadows to dark, you could use some spotlights to simulate reflected light.

    Post edited by evilproducer on
  • DartanbeckDartanbeck Posts: 21,537
    edited December 1969

    Do you have ambient light turned on? If you're using GI. the ambient light should be set to 0%. If that makes the shadows to dark, you could use some spotlights to simulate reflected light.

    That would be my first guess too. Above the Atmosphere in the scene settings, check to see if the Ambient setting has a slider that is set to anything other than 0 (zero).
    The GI is looking great to me. I also like the shadows being very subtle as well... but you're right... perhaps a bit too subtle. It's been a while since I've opened a new scene from the menu. I usually open my 1280 x 720 file, which is a blank scene with Ambient turned to 0. So when I did my Painting with Shadows tutorial, I practiced using my own scene, but captured the tut with a default blank scene from the File menu, and forgot that Ambient is turned on by default :|
  • TangoAlphaTangoAlpha Posts: 4,584
    edited December 1969

    Thanks EP, Dartan - that made a big difference (I remember the setting now from Phil's tutorial, but I'd forgotten about it, since it's in a completely different place than anything else to do with lighting!)

    Anyhow, it's a 3 hour render, so I left it running overnight, and this is the result:

    Portrait_of_a_Selfie.jpg
    1400 x 1050 - 662K
  • Philemo_CarraraPhilemo_Carrara Posts: 1,175
    edited December 1969

    Tim_A said:
    Lighting gurus: Referring to the picture above, any suggestions for getting deeper shadows? Particularly under the bridge? Lighting is provided by 1x sun, at an oblique angle - so the near side of the arch is in sunlight, but the back part and just beyond should definitely be in shadow. You can see the shadow is there, but it's nothing like as deep as I'd expect.

    Global illumination is set to sky light.

    Thx. :)

    The duck has vivid colours, so I don't believe it's a matter of ambient light, but one never knows.
    I also have a problem with the wood, which looks flat compared with the stone and plaster. It could be a matter of shading (not enough bump or incorrect highlight settings) or that the it's drowned by white light.

    I think either the sky light or GI setting is set too high.
    You could start with rendering with sky light and no GI.
    If the shadow is still not dark enough, you could decrease the sky light setting (down to 50% then up if necessary).

    An other clue is the gamma setting. Assuming a gamma correction of 2.2, I've got better shadows when I ungamma the picture (see below)

    Portrait_of_a_Selfie-1.jpg
    1350 x 900 - 508K
  • bighbigh Posts: 8,147
    edited December 1969

    water needs work too .

  • TangoAlphaTangoAlpha Posts: 4,584
    edited December 1969

    I had a problem early on with way too much bump on the wood & stone, as imported (see earlier in this thread), so it's quite possible that I turned it down too much. I see what you're getting at with your GI and un-gamma, but I think your result goes too far the other way. I agree it's worth playing with though.

  • TangoAlphaTangoAlpha Posts: 4,584
    edited December 1969

    bigh said:
    water needs work too .

    Care to elaborate?

  • Philemo_CarraraPhilemo_Carrara Posts: 1,175
    edited December 1969

    Tim_A said:
    I had a problem early on with way too much bump on the wood & stone, as imported (see earlier in this thread), so it's quite possible that I turned it down too much. I see what you're getting at with your GI and un-gamma, but I think your result goes too far the other way. I agree it's worth playing with though.

    I see you posted the solution while I was writing my answer.
    So, it was the ambient setting after all...

    The wood is much better now.

    Increasing the bump setting would improve the horizontal surfaces, but would degrade the vertical ones.

  • bighbigh Posts: 8,147
    edited December 1969

    Tim_A said:
    bigh said:
    water needs work too .

    Care to elaborate?

    to bumpy

  • stu sutcliffestu sutcliffe Posts: 274
    edited December 1969

    A scientist.

    Scientist60.png
    900 x 1200 - 2M
  • DartanbeckDartanbeck Posts: 21,537
    edited December 1969

    Oh Man... he's so freaking cool, Stu!!!
    Fantastic!

  • TangoAlphaTangoAlpha Posts: 4,584
    edited December 1969

    Looks like me in the mornings before coffee...

  • wetcircuitwetcircuit Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Hair looks great!

    Is this still 3D Coat or have you jumped to Zbrush as you were threatening earlier?

  • bighbigh Posts: 8,147
    edited December 1969

    A scientist.

    I'm going to cry !
    Wonderful

  • DartanbeckDartanbeck Posts: 21,537
    edited December 1969

    bigh said:
    Tim_A said:
    bigh said:
    water needs work too .

    Care to elaborate?

    to bumpy Morning breezes can do that to water.

  • DartanbeckDartanbeck Posts: 21,537
    edited December 1969

    bigh said:
    A scientist.

    I'm going to cry !
    WonderfulMe too. I already am! :shut:

  • stu sutcliffestu sutcliffe Posts: 274
    edited December 1969

    Thanks guys!,
    Yes Holly, I did get Zbrush, but did not use it much for this apart from a tiny bit of retopology which I did to compare it to what I had already done in 3dcoat. Zbrush did it in a fraction of the time and the result was basically perfect ,even without using it to its full capacity. Just hit the zremesh button ...done in 20 seconds!! Hair is still Carrara, . and he was sculpted in 3DCoat.
    I dont think zbrush will be my ultimate tool unless I can grow some more braincells.

  • evilproducerevilproducer Posts: 9,050
    edited December 1969

    Awesome job Stu!

  • TangoAlphaTangoAlpha Posts: 4,584
    edited December 1969

    bigh said:
    Tim_A said:
    bigh said:
    water needs work too .

    Care to elaborate?

    to bumpy Morning breezes can do that to water.

    There's plenty of photos on google showing water as choppy as that - quite typical really for a reasonably large or active flowing waterway. If anything, I'd say the water is too shiny for that amount of chop. Real ripples seem to have their own tiny "micro" ripples, especially if there's wind involved. Gives water a more silky sheen.

  • bighbigh Posts: 8,147
    edited December 1969

    Tim_A said:
    bigh said:
    Tim_A said:
    bigh said:
    water needs work too .

    Care to elaborate?

    to bumpy

    Morning breezes can do that to water.

    There's plenty of photos on google showing water as choppy as that - quite typical really for a reasonably large or active flowing waterway. If anything, I'd say the water is too shiny for that amount of chop. Real ripples seem to have their own tiny "micro" ripples, especially if there's wind involved. Gives water a more silky sheen.

    too shiny for that amount of chop - guess that's it then
    just didn't look right

  • evilproducerevilproducer Posts: 9,050
    edited December 1969

    That may have to do with the other common Poser shader tweak that needs to be done in Carrara, and that would be adjusting the Highlight and Shininess channels to something a bit more reasonable.

  • DUDUDUDU Posts: 1,945
    edited December 1969

    A little caustics in the shaded part of the bridge would make even more realistic (reflection of water)…

  • TangoAlphaTangoAlpha Posts: 4,584
    edited December 1969

    How do you apply caustics to part of the bridge? I thought it was a global on/off setting...

Sign In or Register to comment.