Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2025 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
As if I'd do something as stupid as that *whistle*
Ok, thats exactly what I did, and the hair went grey. Oops. But when I tried to use the image editor with the opacity maps it just says "You must have an image already applied to use this action". I'm confused... and not for the first time.
As if I'd do something as stupid as that *whistle*
Ok, thats exactly what I did, and the hair went grey. Oops. But when I tried to use the image editor with the opacity maps it just says "You must have an image already applied to use this action". I'm confused... and not for the first time.
I'm guessing this means you accidentally removed the opacity map. You can get it back by reapplying the hair color preset, but I think if you have changed the gamma's of textures those will still need to be corrected.
I'm guessing this means you accidentally removed the opacity map. You can get it back by reapplying the hair color preset, but I think if you have changed the gamma's of textures those will still need to be corrected.
Yeah, its ok - after a little hiccup I've recovered it and changed the correct maps now. Seems to all be working fine. Thank you.
Phew! That was a close one. Is everyone ok?
Lol - classic
Why does everyone advise to set the gamma correction to 2.2? I'm finding that it really washes out all my colours. No matter what light I shine on something it just looks far too pale. What is the advantage of GC 2.2 supposed to be, over something like GC 1.8 for instance?
Edit: Ah, answered my own question. Turns out it wasn't the gamma correction that was washing out the images; it was the spotlights. For some reason spotlights seem to bleed colour out of the scene. Back to the drawing board then.
You can get into huge arguments about this, and it is a very confusing subject.
When digital monitors were developed, they were initially using 8 bits of intensity per color per pixel (or less than 8 bits in early times). The 8 bits only give you 256 different intensities. This is a very narrow range of intensities. To widen the range of intensities, they decided to interpret digital values in a non-linear fashion. I believe gamma 2.2 is the non-linear curve specified in the JPEG standard. A digital camera will record linear light intensities using 12-14 bits, then convert them to the gamma 2.2 non-linear intensity scale using 8 bit intensities. Monitors are suppose to accept the 8 bits per pixel per color and convert them back into light reversing the gamma 2.2 non-linear intensity scale. Now most computer monitors are horribly calibrated, so they are not very good at this, but they are trying. (You will frequently find that the same JPEG looks different on different computers).
3D render software is not a digital camera. It does all of its calculations using linear light intensities. If you use gamma 1.0, I think it just straight converts intensities to linear 8 bit values in the JPG/PNG output image. Your monitor then applies the reverse gamma 2.2 correction to the output when it displays on the screen. You would think this would look awful, but it all depends on how the lighting is done and how the material textures are treated. The material textures are JPEG files that have been gamma 2.2 corrected generally, so usually, if you do not to convert them back to linear intensities, then things will mostly work out at gamma 1.0. The problem at gamma 1.0 is light sources that have a r**2 intensity fall off, which is physically realistic, look like they are falling off much more quickly. The work around is to have light sources, like the linear point light, where you can control the rate the intensity falls off.
If you render at gamma 2.2, lights that fall off at r**2 will look natural. It is just much easier to get natural looking lighting at gamma 2.2 with a few simple lights. On the other hand, the material textures will have to be converted property, otherwise everything looks washed out.
Are you turning on "Gamma Correction" when you render at gamma 2.2?
The other problem is that all the material for products in the DAZ store are setup to render at gamma 1.0 (the gamma correction option is very recent feature). I frequently find that the specular is way too strong when rendered at gamma 2.2 on some items, closes, hair, sometiems sets. I frequently turn this down between 4x and 10x. The specular can give a washed out appearance. Velvet is another material setting that can cause strange effects at gamma 2.2 and I usually turn it down. Velvet strength is frequently 15-20%. I turn it down to 3-5%. (DAZ default shader does not have velvet strength).
It is also possible that some products have texture files with the wrong gamma set on them.
I'd have to see an image to speculate further on what is causing the problem you are seeing.
Try turning the spot lights to be diffuse light only to see if it is the specular light that is washing out your scene.
Earlier you posted (now deleted) you asked a question about how to do lighting to get interesting images.
I have attached two versions of an old render I did some time ago. The only difference between these two images is the lighting. The left image has lighting that looks like normal outdoor lighting. The right image is lite to look more like just before sunset.
Although the posing, expression and set are the same, the two images feel different to me. IMHO the right image is more interesting. Rim lighting like this usually looks dramatic.
Another thing going on in the right image is the eye is drawn to the most brightly lite part of the image. In the right image this draws us to the character's face.
Now getting the lighting to fall just like that on the side of her face is no accident. I had to carefully position the distant light at just the right angle to get that lighting.
If you create normal outdoor or indoor lighting, it will not look special or interesting. It is ordinary lighting and at best you get ordinary images. If you want an image in that kind of lighting to look extraordinary, it will not be the lighting that makes it special. It needs to be something else (characters, posing, action,...) that make it special.
For the lighting to make the image interesting, it has to be special or dramatic lighting.
Yeah, sorry about that. I was having a bit of a mini tantrum partly born out of struggling with lights in DS and partly from the constant pain & breathing difficulties I suffer through every day :) I posted that request and then after a little while I decided it was an unreasonable request to make of people, so I removed it and replaced it with something more 'base'. Thank you for your explanation of dynamic lighting though!
I think what the whole problem boiled down to is this colour bleed issue I'm having anyway. I can't work out whats causing it. It must be something to do with the lighting because the Parisa promo images look really good. But then again no matter what lighting I try she just ends up looking so pastel; like someone has rubbed a stick of chalk all over her. Plus no amount of specular light shining on her will produce a shine - the surface just nulifies all specular.
Take the inside of the left leg (her left), for example. Pre-rendering that inside edge is darker than the middle of the thigh, as you'd expect. But upon rendering it makes it light grey, which looks completely wrong. That should not be grey - it should either be the same colour as the rest of the leg, or else dark like the outside edge of the right leg.
I've tried changing the colour of the lights, the diffuse/specular setting, the intensity, spread angle, shadow softness - nothing seems to make it go away.
I was a bit nervous about messing with the specular and velvet content of the skin materials because they're all set to 'multiple' rather than a number.
I think what you are seeing with Parisa is the way the skin texture is. I have attached a comparison of Parisa's legs with her skin texture and a couple of other skin textures. It is not unusual for the lower leg to be a little lighter than the thighs, but usually the knee cap area is darker. On Parisa the knee cap is lighter and maybe slightly blue/grey.
You can see this on the diffusion texture. On the surface pane, expands out the individual surfaces and select the 'Legs'. Find the diffusion setting and click on the small map icon. This brings up a menu. Near the top select the "Layered Image Editor...". When this opens, click on the 'Zoom To Fit' button on the lower right corner of the image. This UV map zone has the textures for both the arms and legs. The legs are at the bottom left and right with one of the arm textures in the middle. You can see the unusual coloring on the knee here.
These skin textures are frequently made from photographs of actual skin. Notice that on the arms the skin is darker on the top of the arm than on the bottom of the arm. This indicates a skin that is probably based on actual photographs. This color on the knee could just be how that person's skin looked that day, it could be an artifact of the lighting used to photograph the skin, or is could be something the PA added in a graphic editor.
Unfortunately, the only way to fix this would be to edit the texture in photoshop, but I would never attempt that. You would have to be a photoshop wizard to make it look good. If it bothers you, I guess you have to use a different skin texture or use Parisa with pants so you don't see it.
Thanks Mark; I was afraid of that. Its good to see from your image that its not just me experiencing it then. It really is an odd, chalky skin texture when rendered. The promo images for it are a little misleading I think. I'd love to know what lighting they used to get it to look like that.
Its a real shame because I really love the Parisa model and skins in all aspects except for the grey tone - I've been experimenting with it all day (must have run over 50 renders of it) and the only way I can make it look even half decent is to use bright lights with very strong colours (like yellows or oranges) that disguise the grey. Sadly its not just the legs and arms, but also in places on the torso as well.
So I guess I'll either have to shoot very dynamically coloured scenes with her, or go right back to the drawing board and start completely afresh with a new character and skin. Damn.
Although.... can I ask what lights setup you used for that image please? Because the Parisa skin doesn't look 'quite' so bad under those lights :)
I just used a single distant light at 100%, ray traced shadows at 1% softness, and the advanced ambient light at 40% intensity.
Note that you do not need to start over with a different character. You can just change the skin on the character you already have. Just apply the skin material preset for some other G2F character.
Sorry been really busy and I still am but I would add if you aren't bothered about realism than forget Gamma Correction. Long and short is that when Gamma Correction is On at 2,20 then surfaces will react to certain realistic light that follow the "inverse law" (google it) more realistically.
If you want to know more just shout as I have some heavy reading for you. LOL
Thats ok, you're entitled to have your own life (now and again!) :) lol
I'm not sure I could take more heavy reading right now, but the idea of turning off gamma correction is an interesting one. I've tried different levels of GC but not actually turning it off. I might try it and see if it helps, thanks.
I looked at the Parisa promo renders.
None of the promo renders shows her knees or lower legs where this is most obvious. Only the very last promo render says it is a DAZ Studio render. This is the one where she is wearing a floor length black dress, some weird makeup, wings and horns. Since the other promos don't say they are DAZ Studio renders, I assume they are Poser renders. The Poser material would use the same diffusion textures, so it would have the same problem, but the skin tone could be different.
It is not unusual for promo images to make skin look lighter tonne. I think they do this with very bright lights and by adding a small amount of blue to the light. They may also be boosting the specular lighting.
Skin usually looks slighting lighter when rendered at gamma 2.2. I am not sure why.
One thing I have learnt over the years that contradicts a lot of people is that Lighting and Surfaces go hand in hand. One light rig will not suit all surfaces so understanding surfaces is part of lighting
Hmmm, interesting... Just tried a couple of renders, one with very bright outdoor lights and another with grey/blue coloured lights. Both seemed to help a little bit bizarrely.
But the winner is.... Gamma Correction. I turned it off and suddenly the skin didn't look pastel anymore and had lots of specular shine and no grey edges. Makes the world of difference! Horray! I'm so happy! :)
Its late here, so I'm off to start my pre-sleep routine of pain pills and meditation. Thank you for your help again today guys. Good team effort!
A Photoshop wizard I am not. How difficult would it be though in Photoshop (or GIMP, because I don't have Photoshop) to take the torso texture map and copy a section of the right side of the hip over to the left side so that they match? That'd be fairly straightforward wouldn't it? I've noticed a glaring (to me now anyway) colour shift at the base of the left glute that is not present on the right glute. To the untrained eye its probably barely perceptible, but to someone who's been staring at the model constantly for the last few weeks it might as well be a huge 'Error!' sticker.
I realise I could just put her in trousers (pants) but that would mean having to buy some from the DAZ store and I'm a little reluctant to spend any more money on this project until I know how to correct all the product errors I keep coming across. Its surprising how revealing most of the default clothing you get is (I'm using the Sci-Fi warrior clothing).
A persons body isn't symmetrical which is why you will always have this issue in the texture. When editing text6ures be sure not to do anything on the edges of the mesh/map. It will cause you to get a seam on the final base. WHen editing a figure texture it's always best to use a paint app to paint the texture on. You will remove the possibility of getting that seam.
Thanks for the suggestion. Its not a symmetry issue - the problem is that her texture shifts from a rose-coloured area to a more base skin colour very suddenly on one glute, causing a very visible line where the colour changes. On the other glute the colour change is blended more seamlessly. I've done a mock-up image to illustrate what I mean - I'm aware theres shadow on the inside of the left glute, but thats not whats causing the sudden colour change.
This could just be my inexperience talking, but I don't think I'll be able to paint the texture on because its a very complex texture. Thats why I was considering copying a cut-out area from the good glute over to the same area on the other, so this wouldn't be on the edge of the map. Is that feasible?
If its not feasible doing it with the texture map then I guess I'll have to post-work it instead, but that could be equally tricky given the texture.
If its a single hard edge then you can just clone over it with a soft brush. You can do the same with the rest of the texture just make sure its not so soft that it starts to blur the texture. You should use a hardness of 50-75%. That is the easiest way to do it without going into having to do multiple steps. Just make sure you duplicate the texture and shut t off just in case you mess up and wanna try again
Edit: deleted