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
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Very cool render! As far as lighting goes, I like the overall level of illumination, the shadows, and the way the light falls on the female figure--basically, almost everything about it I like. But something strikes me as a bit odd, and I think it's because the sky outside the window seems so red, and the lighting in the scene is rather green. I'm wondering where the light is coming from (if not from the sun/sky) and what is causing that green hue?
Does the blue light have shadows? What are the shadow settings? Is the table fully opaque (check Opacity on the Surfaces pane)?
Alright, you know I see what you mean. I'm glad now that I put all the effort into getting the material of the statue to match the material of the sacred font, now that we're looking at it.
I have been doing a lot with render layers in gimp this time, I've learned a lot. It came out of necessity since volumetrics, uberenvironment, and distant lights don't get along. I did a little more postwork here in gimp, maybe this reaches a better medium?
Yes, I think that's looking very nice. I like the details on the statue that were missing on the earlier dark version. And I think there's still a nice contrast of light vs. dark.
What about you...do you think that contrast is strong enough with this version, that it's keeping with your vision?
We need a "thumbs-up" emoticon... ;-)
The lighting looks very good, but since there's always room for improvement, I'd recommend focusing your lighting efforts on two small issues:
- the sharp shadow cutting across his throat (maybe increase shadow softness on the light that's casting that shadow)
- the bright "hot spot" on his cheek (try to tone it down a little...I think there's a valid thematic reason for that bright spot being there, but to me it just looks a little too strong)
How did you create the sacred heart? I think it looks fine, but there's some room for improvement there too. But it's hard for me to make suggestions without knowing whether it was added in postwork, or whether it exists in-scene on a primitive plane, for instance, or whether it's actually part of the figure's skin texture, etc.
Since Dollygirl mentioned Surfaces as another area to focus on, here's a link to a mini tutorial by Totte, one of the other Community Volunteers, from a previous New User Contest: http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/21483/P120/#322837 It might help you add some depth and realism to your forest floor.
For anyone: that tutorial (linked above) can come in handy when dealing with a surface that should look bumpy but lacks a bump map (you can experiment with doing something like that for displacement, as well).
Scott-Livingston
:)Thanks Scott for your comments and suggestions. Will be working on this today. The "sacred heart" was created in CorelDraw and Painter and was applied to the skin texture. I actually modified the color of the skin as well. Maybe adding some "bump" to the "sacred heart " would be a good addition. I will experiment.
Lack of texture on the forest floor has also bothered me, thanks for the thread link. I'm also going to work on the lamb as Dollygirl suggested. Again, thanks!:-)
Silly me, yes I forgot to put shadows in for that light. now that seems to be solved. Thanks for that and the other ideas as well Scott
I moved the Dragon a little bit ( hopefully more to the center of attention according to last moth theme), increased the light on him and the lady a bit and gave him a tint of ambitient. Dnd the candles on the table were toned down a bit. But that table is a glossy one and I want it that way for the light from the crystall ball.
I guess there is not much more to be done to it, but I have the impression that I should give it another render (and time :-P)
Yes, I would as well see the second crop as the better one, And for the moment my renders have 1200 x 800 pixel, I don't know if its worth increasing that furhter.
Fiona, I like the progress on your image! The second version, slightly zoomed in, is really beautiful. I had a thought that may or may not be useful to you at this point, but if you still wanted to put more of a moonlit glow on the girl's hair, maybe a rim light behind and slightly above her head with the lights set to pale blue/purple could do the job?
Thank you, everyone, for the suggestions and advice! I have had a lot of fun and made a lot of changes based on your feedback over the past few days, the major ones being:
- adjustments to the lights to lower the intensity of the highlights (just slightly, since I wanted to keep the washed-out look)
- changed the shader I was using on the background plane to get more blue to show through in spite of the reflections caused by the lights
- adjusted the plane to reflect the light less directly, and to put the brightest part behind the figure
- changed the outfit and used a different shader
- added a very narrow spotlight to light her eye a bit
- zoomed in and sacrificed the empty (null) space for what might be a much better portrait composition
All thoughts about the new render are most welcome!
Thanks for the feedback...I think I will go with the crop! But I will render it full size and actually crop as postwork because I think I need the larger version for a storyboard and I dont want to do two 15 (of more) hour renders! My computer gets maxed out since I am working on a laptop. Meh... but it lets me do this so hey, right? Next question. Odd one to be asking this late in the game but I am still not in love with that face. At all. It is the most disappointing part of the whole image. I have looked at several kid images I like and some that I like seem to be using Belle but unfortunately that is not an option for my pocketbook. The other version I was looking at uses Bree skin. Changing out the skin at this point is going to cause me a lot of headache because the bree skin is very white and bright compared to the Wildfire skin I am using and it is going to be hard to get it to match. Which version of the skin do you like better and do you think its worth the headache? (Dont look at the lighting of the face just the difference the skin makes.. the shape of the face is identical, the pose from a slightly different angle but I would keep the current angle...)
Making kid faces is so hard. I had no idea.
Also work on the lantern is coming along but I want to save making a full render for after I fix a few other things too . Will probably have a render to show for that soon while I see if anyone thinks the face ought to change.
Once again, thanks for the help.
First off, I am glad you had fun. Whenever I write someone a book full of suggestions and then they dont come around for a bit, I fear I scared them away. So I am very glad to see you! Whew! ;-) The new render is AMAZBALLS. Seriously, wow. The color and light are just gorgeous. All the changes you made are spot on. Her hand still looks long to me... and I want her earring to be snazzy like her shirt. Any chance of duplicating the maps and settings from that? Or maybe making the earing look crystally and glass/like by changing refract/reflect settings? Or maybe facetted mirror? There's a product out there, fairly cheap, called "useful mirrors" that will make any surface a mirror, but of course you can do that yourself with the settings.
The background is workng so much better now. And the composition is indeed doing the portrait the justice it deserves. One thing that would continue to add subtle interest to it is if there was variation in the color/intensity of the blue of the background. Right now in the hair and shirt you have everything from almost grey, and purple, to very bright aqua. The background shouldnt try to do all of that, or it would be too busy, but picking and choosing where you put more and less saturated color as well as warmer or cooler blue will make the image really look finished. Particularly if you give it ever slight bit of a fish bowl darker and greyer edge/corners. You maybe could even cheat a tiny bit of the skin tone in there... not directly next to the hair behind the head, but between the lightest area and the blue. And the light on the eye is a good addition...if you want that typical "dot" of highlight on the pupil, I recently found directional pointlights to be my friend as opposed to spots... the roundness of the falloff makes the dot nice and crisp and bright as opposed to a little duller light created with a spot. A teeny tiny one just for that eye with the falloff carefully controlled so it hits not much else but that tiny spot.
This is so pretty. Very nice. So fun to see your changes! Watching everyones images develope has been so inspirational, even the ones I havent said anything about, and I wanted to thank everyone for that.
Marykb, this has become an wonderful picture. It has gained a lot by the new crop and the glittery dress. I agree with fionathegood on the earring though. During the christmas freebies there were some glittery earrings maybe you had a chance to pick them up.
I am however of a different oppinion on the background. What fionathegood suggests is surely a good way to go and would result in a beautiful portrait.
But I liked the whitewashed effect on your second render (with the white space but without the shadow) very much. It was a completely different approach in handling lights and I liked, that the contrast to the background was almost gone. It made your render stand out. I feel that you have gone to far into the blue with you background here for that effect. Her skin is turned white by the rim lights, but the background behind is blue.
But its up to you to decide where you ant to go with your girl.
I would definitly go with the skin in the right picture. To me the left picture the skin ist to waxy (do you say that in english?) and I believe you want your girl not to look dead yet (:bug:). I don't actually see what bothers you about her skin. do you want it lighter? If its the skin at all that bothers you, have you ever tried to change the ambient colour on a skin? I don#t know if that helps you
I would definitly go with the skin in the right picture. To me the left picture the skin ist to waxy (do you say that in english?) and I believe you want your girl not to look dead yet (:bug:). I don't actually see what bothers you about her skin. do you want it lighter? If its the skin at all that bothers you, have you ever tried to change the ambient colour on a skin? I don#t know if that helps you
Agreed. The skin on the right is much more plausible, and looks less like plastic. If you'd like it lighter, you could throw a subsurface shader at it.
WOW...nicely done. My eye is drawn right to her face which is exactly where you want it.
Like Linwelly I also miss the "null" space you had created in an earlier version. However, this one is wonderful the way it is.
As for the earring, IIRC there is a crystal version of the blue. I have those earrings (I think) but I am at work so cannot check to be sure. It is up to you to decide though if changing the earrings to something a little more sparkly will enhance the image or detract from it. The same goes with the background.
A very nice image. Well done.
I vote for the image on the left as well. The skin tone is much more realistic.
Silly me, yes I forgot to put shadows in for that light. now that seems to be solved. Thanks for that and the other ideas as well Scott
I moved the Dragon a little bit ( hopefully more to the center of attention according to last moth theme), increased the light on him and the lady a bit and gave him a tint of ambitient. Dnd the candles on the table were toned down a bit. But that table is a glossy one and I want it that way for the light from the crystall ball.
I guess there is not much more to be done to it, but I have the impression that I should give it another render (and time :-P)
Nice changes to this image Linwelly.
The really frustrating part of lightng a render is the differences in monitors. I have three I try to use to verify the lighting. my home desktop and laptop and the desktop at work. Of the three the desktop at work is the one on which all images look the darkest. I will try to describe how your image looks on this monitor.
The light from your fire is throwing a very nice glow and is lighting that are quite well. It looks very natural to me.
The candles on your table with the crystal ball are improved but still seem a little strong to me. The candle to the right ( from what can be seen in the image ) seems to be throwing just the right amount of light and looks realistic.
Your crystal ball looks very nice. I can see the lightening bolts inside and the reflections on the surface.
At first I thought your dragon was in a little too much shadow but upon closer inspection I realize the shadows are appropriate based on his location in relation to the table and light sources.
I like the lighting on your figure but her face is in a little too much shadow on this particular monitor. This is the part I always struggle with. I try to make the lighting look as realistic as possible based on the light sources but sometimes you just have to ignore that and add a light where it may not belong. I had to do that with my render in this month's contest. I have 3 spotlights I am using to help light the figures from the front. Adjusting the lighting on these spotlights so they illuminated the figures without looking too out of place was the tricky part.
Is it possible to simulate a light source off camera that would light up the front of your figure? Especially her face? Perhaps a tent flap or door that is slightly ajar?
These are just suggestions and observations based on the darkest monitor I have access to. As Dollygirl has said many times it is your render and ultimately the decision is yours.
I hope this helps.
I'm afraid there is some misunderstanding about the word "skin" and for that I apologize. Guys, guys, guys. Of course the light on the right is better, I would hope so I like worked on it for forever, and the one on the left is from before I knew what the settings should be, thats why I said dont pay attention to th color and the light but the "skin" which is I guess one of those words... When I say "skin" I mean the product, the literal stuff you slide over the shape. I dont mean the lighting, or the contrast, or the "waxiness" as those are all settings and results of the lighting. I mean the actual freckles, eyebrow, eyelash styling. The things you cant change without changing to a different "character". The skin is half of what you buy a new character for and I bought Giselle and I want to like it more than I think I do. I bought josie, and FWSA Siblings - Jaina and Jessi and those didnt work either because even though they are supposed to be for Gen2, they use regular Gen UV maps, so buyer beware. The shape settings for the one on the right and the left are the same, too, they have the same settings and UV maps, its just the skin that makes them LOOK differently shaped. The one one on the right comes from the product "wildfire for giselle" and she looks kind of elven, with long flat eyebrows with the hairs going horizontal , very defined lip edges, light colored eyelashes, and though it is hard to see in this light, freckles. Maybe you can see what I mean in the product description:
http://www.daz3d.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/0/1/01-wildfire-for-giselle-6-daz3d.jpg
The skin on the left comes with victoria 6 and is the basic character out of the box called "Bree" Her eyebrows are more rounded and the hairs are a little more vertical and messy, her upper eyelashes thicker and darker, her lower lashes less pronounced, and her lips have a softer line that make them look more fleshy and less hard. You cant really see her pores and whatnot, but she has less freckles.
The basic lighting and coloring of the skin I can make the same for each based on the ambient, diffuse, SSS settings etc. thats why I said I wasnt asking about those things. But the way the eyebrows eyelashes and lips work is something you cant change without changing all the maps, and that takes effort and I was trying to get a lazy answer! ;-) Without looking at the lighting but just focussing on what makes the character different, the eyebrows and stuff, the one on the left seems younger and prettier to me? Maybe I will just have to make both so people know what I am talking about and then people can tell me what they think is better. I was just trying to avoid going through all that by sticking a version with the old bad lights over top of the new one and hoping people could see past it but maybe it wont be so bad...
@ Fiona. Too much innocence lost with the bree skin. It is a hard skin to light as well.
Not much time left. Thank you for the suggestions. I lightened up the whole image by adding several lights, changed camera position (may again for final) changed and re-textured several objects and added some objects.
@Fiona, it would be better if you could do an apples-to-apples comparison, with the same lighting conditions. Otherwise it's hard to even have an opinion.
From the promo images I'd say Wildfire looks like a good choice; you might need to tweak the surface settings though. Bree is a very popular skin texture, as it's the default one that comes with both Victoria 5 and Genesis 2 Base Female, and I consider it a high-quality and versatile skin. She's supposed to represent an adult woman, but I've used the skin on a child character before and I think it turned out pretty well. No idea which would be better, but I'd say either is a valid option.
OK now I see where you were trying to make us look. I can't really say which one I prefer on this scale as the difference in the light make it hard to tell. And hard light cuts tend to let people look older, so that might explain.
I dont know hat options you have with Giselle as I am really not into character buying but usually you can adapt things like lipform, browwidth and even reduce the amount of eyelashes, the curl and the length. (well those are the things I spend hours on to have my char look the way I want). Maybe you can tweak ab little there so that you can keep your skin but adapt to the fors she ist supposed to have.
Hope that is of more help than my last post :red:
Nice changes to this image Linwelly.
The really frustrating part of lightng a render is the differences in monitors. I have three I try to use to verify the lighting. my home desktop and laptop and the desktop at work. Of the three the desktop at work is the one on which all images look the darkest. I will try to describe how your image looks on this monitor.
The light from your fire is throwing a very nice glow and is lighting that are quite well. It looks very natural to me.
The candles on your table with the crystal ball are improved but still seem a little strong to me. The candle to the right ( from what can be seen in the image ) seems to be throwing just the right amount of light and looks realistic.
Your crystal ball looks very nice. I can see the lightening bolts inside and the reflections on the surface.
At first I thought your dragon was in a little too much shadow but upon closer inspection I realize the shadows are appropriate based on his location in relation to the table and light sources.
I like the lighting on your figure but her face is in a little too much shadow on this particular monitor. This is the part I always struggle with. I try to make the lighting look as realistic as possible based on the light sources but sometimes you just have to ignore that and add a light where it may not belong. I had to do that with my render in this month's contest. I have 3 spotlights I am using to help light the figures from the front. Adjusting the lighting on these spotlights so they illuminated the figures without looking too out of place was the tricky part.
Is it possible to simulate a light source off camera that would light up the front of your figure? Especially her face? Perhaps a tent flap or door that is slightly ajar?
These are just suggestions and observations based on the darkest monitor I have access to. As Dollygirl has said many times it is your render and ultimately the decision is yours.
I hope this helps.
Thanks for your feedback Kismet, yes that pretty much hits the nail. I had hoped I had solved the issue as from all sreens that are available to me (two of mine ond one of my hubby) the light in her face seem suffcient, but obvieoulsly that not true in general.
I had tried increasing the light from the outside but that hits too much of the table and the dragon for my liking. I will try to trick the thing by putting the two candle pointlights higher, so that the light hit less on the table and maybe more to her face.
Silly me, yes I forgot to put shadows in for that light. now that seems to be solved. Thanks for that and the other ideas as well Scott
I moved the Dragon a little bit ( hopefully more to the center of attention according to last moth theme), increased the light on him and the lady a bit and gave him a tint of ambitient. Dnd the candles on the table were toned down a bit. But that table is a glossy one and I want it that way for the light from the crystall ball.
I guess there is not much more to be done to it, but I have the impression that I should give it another render (and time :-P)
Looking much better to me, though I agree somewhat with Kismet about the overall brightness, especially with regards to the face (things look dark on my work monitor too; I try not to do much judging or reviewing from work though).
Looking very nice, although--and this might just be personal preference--for me the cyan color is a bit too intense. I think it might look better with the light color closer to white or gray. A softer or more subtle color might fit better with the mood of the character and image.
In terms of orientation, while I liked the stark landscape layout you had before, I think you're right that the new version is more suitable for a portrait...nice composition!
Thanks everyone for chiming in so quickly, I know it is getting down to the wire and everyone is working on their own stuff too. As Scott Livingston and Linwelly said, it probably is a matter of comparing apples to apples and it being hard to look past the garish lighting. Teofa might be right about Bree... or Scott, it is hard to say. The one thing I can say is I never thought it would be this hard. :-) I am not into buying characters either, I am not into buying anything for that matter lol, Some day soon it will be my own creations! Ha! The biggest thing I think that is bothering me is the shape of the eyebrows and on some characters you can use a no eyebrow option so you can pull in eyebrows from a different character, but I dont see that here. I might be able to try it though, still learning all the options for using skin! I have a few things to do that are higher on the priority list for me than changing the skin so I will try to get a second version done in time, but I want one at least DONE before I work on it... like getting the right light behind the shoulder. Its not like I cant live with the skin I have on her, I just have a hard time with considering anything done when I dont feel they have come up to where I think I ought to be. And sometimes you want the $$ you spend to work so badly that you ignore what you see, which is what might be going on here and now I finally looking at it and sighing. SO much to learn, and as buyers, new people like me can be so unaware of the caveats. Like the whole "HD" thing. I will never again buy a non HD skin. Note... if you want to be able to see pores and freckles on G2 characters, you need HD skin. And the business of v6 not coming with displacement maps and having to buy those separate. Carpe, carpe carpe.
Waiting for a long-ish test render and hope to find some useful things to say about other folks' stuff as we get down to the final three days. Thanks again everyone for the help
Thank you Dollygirl. Here is my latest version, not a great deal of shadow though.
Looking better, though the lighting on the face is still a little too even in my opinion. Portraits usually look more dramatic and attractive when the light is coming from an angle, leaving one side of the face brighter and the other more shadowy. Sometimes this is obvious, sometimes more subtle. (more on that in the next post!)
I think the lighting of her body (below the neck) is very effective. I particularly like the rim light effect along her right arm, and the way the lighting brings out the detail in her outfit.
Curious how she would look against either a darker background, or in an actual environment (like in a room or standing in front of a building).
Much better Xangth. More dramatic and the colors just pop.
I thought this might be useful, especially for those of you working on portrait renders.
I'm not a formally-trained artist so I'll try giving you a layperson's lesson, which is the way I was taught.
I always like to think about where my key light is...what direction is the primary light coming from, and what source is casting the light (and how might that affect the appearance). For outdoor renders, the sun or moon will often take the role of key light, though other times it could be a backlight. Ultimately, though, whether your scene takes place outside or inside, day or night, the light setup is entirely within your control.
What is a "key light?" It may not be the brightest light in the scene (backlights are often brighter), but it's the light that provides the most important illumination, the illumination the viewer will notice most. Don't go looking in DS (or your software of choice) for something called "Key Light"--it's not a specific kind of light, but just a term to identify this most important light source. Your key light could be a distant light, a spotlight, a point light, or something else like an UberArea light. What type of light to use depends on the scene and on the visual effect you want.
You've probably heard of "three-point lighting," an important part of many artists' (and photographers') tool kits. Usually that consists of a key light, a rim light (or backlight) and a fill light. For an example, I give you this render by Jaderail. Here's his explanation of how he did it...it's just a basic three-point light setup.
Here's another example, a recent addition to the DAZ Gallery by anonymous_87f7c805a8. The lighting is subtler here but you can still see how the left side of her face (the viewer's right) is illuminated more strongly than her right side.
You can see the same thing in portrait paintings and photographs too. When there's a spot of light around or under the eye on the darker side of the face, that is called Rembrandt lighting, which is something I've been trying to learn myself...the render below I did in DS with just one light source (an Advanced Spotlight used as a point light; I could have just used a regular point light or linear point light instead and gotten similar results) and no postwork. It's still a WIP but obviously not intended for the contest.
For more information, check out the links in the first post of this thread, especially those under the "Theory" section. If you read them already at the start of the month, give them another look now that the contest is nearing its end. You may find that you learn more the second time, because you're able to absorb more of the theory thanks to the skills you've gained over the course of the month.
I did, thank you. You ever thought about rendering a 3D frame you like? I know in Studio that you can render out as a .tif file. There is an alpha channel created so as long as you leave the inside and outside of the frame empty you would get something like what I did with this frame in the attached image. Then pull it into gimp. Pesto you have a customized frame. I know that I can parent the frame to the camera that I am using to create the render and render the whole image all at once too. Just something to think about.
One other thing, I really like the eye being a part of the image. It kind of tied the two images together. It was the first thing I noticed when I was looking at the images. In your new ones you only have it the center and I miss it. :down:
Hey, sorry I didn't answer you earlier, but I had a couple of things going on that I had to take care of at first. Actually rendering a 3D frame was the first thing that came to my mind - however it turned out I had none in my library so I had to improvise... Also I wasn't sure how to realize the transitions between the images if I had used a normal frame that doesn't naturally divide the image in three parts.
Maybe I will give it another try and see how I can further improve the current frame or entirely replace it with something else. If I do I will give integrating the eye-sphere-picture into it another try, since as I said in the previous post I felt like if left to much unfilled space. Not sure yet however when that might happen ;)