Please let me see your most photorealistic render using only the sun-sky system or default hdri

Ninefold

Sven Dullah said:

Just wondering why I see so much blur being used? I understand the concept of artistic freedom etc. but it has very little to do with actual photorealism, no?

Blur is a major hallmark of photorealism, as a matter of fact. With a few specialized exceptions, all camera lenses produce depth of field blur. That's just how focus works. A CG render that's sharp at every depth is less photoreal than one with DOF blur, not more.

Llola Lane

Protozoon said:

Outdoor hdri that comes with DS with intensity bumped to 2.

THANK YOU... it's nice to see someone else using DOF!  My eyes go right to his eyes.. purrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrfect!  Well done.  Thanks for sharing.

Llola Lane

David R said:

Llola Lane said:

99 percent of my renders just use the default HDRI... if you check out my gallery you can see more of my artwork.  It is soooooooooooooooo easy to use... I just turn the ENVIRONMENT... DOME ROTATION... where I want the light to shine and waalaaa done...

 

if I want a more realisitic lighting I will bump up the LUMINANCE in the lightbulbs as in this image.  Super easy peasy.  ;)

 

These are marvelous! 

Thank you kindly David R

Llola Lane

Ninefold said:

Sven Dullah said:

Just wondering why I see so much blur being used? I understand the concept of artistic freedom etc. but it has very little to do with actual photorealism, no?

Blur is a major hallmark of photorealism, as a matter of fact. With a few specialized exceptions, all camera lenses produce depth of field blur. That's just how focus works. A CG render that's sharp at every depth is less photoreal than one with DOF blur, not more.

Nicely explained and totally agree.  Artwork without DOF becomes flat to me... What do you focus on???  Especially a busy piece of art.  DOF takes the guess work out... With DOF you are 'forced' to see the item the artist wanted you to see :)  It is soooooooo easy to do in Daz too.  No reason more peeps shouldn't use it!  (my opinion)

csaa

Ninefold said:

Sven Dullah said:

Just wondering why I see so much blur being used? I understand the concept of artistic freedom etc. but it has very little to do with actual photorealism, no?

Blur is a major hallmark of photorealism, as a matter of fact. With a few specialized exceptions, all camera lenses produce depth of field blur. That's just how focus works. A CG render that's sharp at every depth is less photoreal than one with DOF blur, not more.

When Sven Dullah digresses, I follow. Somehow the tangent discussion turns out to be pretty interesting!

To "blur" or "not to blur" it helps to look into the divergent styles among early photographers:

• Group f/64 - " ... In part, they formed in opposition to the pictorialist photographic style that had dominated much of the early 20th century, but moreover, they wanted to promote a new modernist aesthetic that was based on precisely exposed images of natural forms and found objects."
• Pictorialists - " ... Typically, a pictorial photograph appears to lack a sharp focus (some more so than others), is printed in one or more colors other than black-and-white (ranging from warm brown to deep blue) and may have visible brush strokes or other manipulation of the surface. For the pictorialist, a photograph, like a painting, drawing or engraving, was a way of projecting an emotional intent into the viewer's realm of imagination."

 It sort of reminds me of Gulliver's Travels and war between big endians vs little endians ... and early computer engineers!

Cheers!

richardandtracy

DavidR, your story's character is just amazing, as usual.

Regards,

Richard.

Sven Dullah

Tks, folks, for your views on blur! I agree there has to be a degree of camera blur, I use it always. If you get it right it adds to realism, although in DS you have to kind of approximate the effect;) Maybe I was talking about postwork blur, which most of the times is added, not for realism, but for something else?

For example, richardandtracy's beautiful render works well as is, but put an unblurred object or character very close to the camera and the illusion is lost...obvious, I know, just sharing some of my thoughts here, heh:)

Llola Lane, tks for sharing  some of your background, and your views, happy rendering!

richardandtracy

Sven - I removed my render because I re-read what was asked for and it was as far as you can get from a portrait so I couldn't let it remain. Regards, Richard.

Sven Dullah

richardandtracy said:

Sven - I removed my render because I re-read what was asked for and it was as far as you can get from a portrait so I couldn't let it remain. Regards, Richard.

No worries, nice one all the same:)  Let's instead compare two portraits from this thread, and how differently they are blurred...

The main difference, as I see it is the preservance of detail right there in the focal point. Not saying one is better or more preferrable than the other, just wanted to hear some opinions from you all, and the various approaches are fascinating to watch

(and, as to not derail this thread further, I'll slowly see myself out through the backdoor...)

 

David R

Blurring, or DOF, is an intregal part of photorealism, since photorealism is an attempt to represent realism as seen in a photograph.  In the first portrait DOF would not affect the image much since it is a medium shot that lacks background detail.  The second portrait is a great example of a closeup photo.  In Richard's now deleted image (you should really re-post it as it has become part of the conversation) DOF would be entirely inappropriate because it is a very long shot.  

David R

richardandtracy said:

DavidR, your story's character is just amazing, as usual.

Regards,

Richard.

Thanks Richard.  Hope you enjoyed Chapter 11. 

dtrscbrutal

 

I find the default HDRI to be good, but not great, for lighting. The default HDRI does respond well to tone mapping layers in GIMP, if set up correctly. I prefer emissive primitives, or when working with PBR skin very large reflectors for lighting.

This image uses only the default HDRI as lighting with some rotation, and a single Retinex tone map layer layer at 25% opacity set to Addition mode added in GIMP. 

@Sven_Dullah I used DOF in this image purely as an artistic choice. It is an attempt at adding depth and space in a fairly close cropped image while simultaneously trying to convey closeness and intimacy with the character. In the image one can see to the actual horizon, but the focus, I hope, is on the character.

There are some really wonderful images in this tread, well done!

Llola Lane

Maybe we need to start a tread on DOF... Lots of pros and cons and everyone has their own opinion.  I myself will never stop using it (it took me too long to figure out HOW to do it in the first place LOL)  I looked long and hard at my wedding photographs and noticed that almost all portraits have fuzzy background... I would set my camera to 5.6 f-stop and focus on the main subject.  People don't like portraits of themselves if you can't see their face/expression.. etc.  Far away shots have much less DOF cause I wanted to show the 'scene'... the bride and groom were added parts of the scene. 

I am not sure if CHWT... uses DOF but I would say that light... dof... background... composition all add to the more realistic a portrait. 

richardandtracy

I re-worked a bridge freebie promo model to turn it into a portrait & appear as if there is a point to the image. As it happens, the model is floating about 30 metres above the water as shown in the second image... Oh the joys of not having gravity if you don't want it.

Just uses sun-sky, 6.15am, 6 june. lattitude 40 degrees, longitude 1 degree. Sun disk intensity 3, scale 0.5. Uses haze, horizon blur etc. I didn't tweak it much from the USXT values.

Regards,

Richard

CHWT

Thanks for the sun disk scale inspiration guys. Maxed the sun disk scale and now I can have soft lighting by the sun-sky system alone. Moved the horizon up by 2.8, no backdrop used (used the default ground as 'backdrop')

David R

CHWT said:

Thanks for the sun disk scale inspiration guys. Maxed the sun disk scale and now I can have soft lighting by the sun-sky system alone. Moved the horizon up by 2.8, no backdrop used (used the default ground as 'backdrop')

 

Llola Lane

CHWT said:

Thanks for the sun disk scale inspiration guys. Maxed the sun disk scale and now I can have soft lighting by the sun-sky system alone. Moved the horizon up by 2.8, no backdrop used (used the default ground as 'backdrop')

I am not sure if you want critiquing or not... I can give you MY opinion... That lighting is too flat for MY liking.. That's why I use the default HDRI... it gives a nice soft shadows... you can still turn off the background... also... Guy has something weird happening on his back neck collar... some shadows would help hide that... and the poor guy has red eyes :(  Think he needs more sleep.. LOL.  Another reason for more shadows... Adding some DOF would zoom the viewer into his eyes.  Just my opinion...  I usually sit on my fingers with my opinions cause they come back to haunt me... but I figure you are looking to improve your artwork or else you wouldn't have started this thread.  Again... sorry if I overstepped my opinion.  Keep going.. I love seeing what peeps create!

Elor

I didn't knew what all these sun-sky system settings did (I didn't even knew some of them even existed in the first place), so, thank to everyone who shared their settings and explanations about them 

I don't have a lot of renders satisfying the criterias (sun-sky only or default HDRI), but among the ones I have, this one is the one I like the best.

Let's say that it was supposed to be a portrait, but Victoria was so immersed in her book that she decided to spend an afternoon at the park reading it

(Well, not really  but it's a nice story ?)

The only source of light is the sun, and it's the default setting: at the time, I only knew how to play with the date and hour (I tried to play with the lattitude and longtitude setting, but didn't succeed) but in the end, the default date and hour was what provided the more pleasing result to my eyes 

CHWT

Llola Lane said:

CHWT said:

Thanks for the sun disk scale inspiration guys. Maxed the sun disk scale and now I can have soft lighting by the sun-sky system alone. Moved the horizon up by 2.8, no backdrop used (used the default ground as 'backdrop')

I am not sure if you want critiquing or not... I can give you MY opinion... That lighting is too flat for MY liking.. That's why I use the default HDRI... it gives a nice soft shadows... you can still turn off the background... also... Guy has something weird happening on his back neck collar... some shadows would help hide that... and the poor guy has red eyes :(  Think he needs more sleep.. LOL.  Another reason for more shadows... Adding some DOF would zoom the viewer into his eyes.  Just my opinion...  I usually sit on my fingers with my opinions cause they come back to haunt me... but I figure you are looking to improve your artwork or else you wouldn't have started this thread.  Again... sorry if I overstepped my opinion.  Keep going.. I love seeing what peeps create!

No problem, thanks!

lilweep

I wouldn't put much stock in their observations, since they are either plainly obvious or debatable/personal preference.

Diffuse lighting isn't inherently more unrealistic than side-lighting/intense shadows.  There is nothing unrealistic with diffuse "flat" lighting. That is artistic preference, not a question of realistic/unrealistic. Maybe you can argue that having indirect shadows makes it easier to fake photorealism from a practical standpoint, because it emphasises a good quality spec map, and good quality normal/HD details, but as a mandate it's kind of debatable.

Also there is nothing unrealistic with red eyes.  The sclera should have redness at the corners because there are more blood vessels there, especially when they are looking sideways. Redness makes eyes look more realistic, not less. 

I dont want to make this another Iray Photorealism thread, but if we are weighing in or critiquring, in your case, the issue is more with the quality of the sclera texture for the eyes, in the sense that the redness is too blurry. The redness isnt colocalised to the blood vessels as you would expect.  Additionally, the carbuncle area needs to have a pinker texture as currently too pale, and should have high specular/glossy quality that blends almost contiguously with the sclera/eye moisture of the eyeball, which also needs to be more moist-looking.

Gen 8.1 and Gen 9 have the fitted Tear figure for the eyes, which is important because the refraction of the tear line helps to break up/blend some of the harsh interface around eyes, e.g., the whole interface around the eye between eyeball and eyelid.  I think in general, the eye textures you are using are not the best.  Chevybabe has some good ones (at least i think so, from memory).  Also fixing the gap between eyeball and eye would help if the tear doesnt help with that.

Lips could benefit from HD morph/normal map that is cognate with the wrinkles on the base color texture. In general, looks like the diffuse/base color map is doing all the heavy lifting and there is not enough HD detail (from either HD morph or Normal map).

Could also use vellus.

CHWT

lilweep said:

I wouldn't put much stock in their observations, since they are either plainly obvious or debatable/personal preference.

Diffuse lighting isn't inherently more unrealistic than side-lighting/intense shadows.  There is nothing unrealistic with diffuse "flat" lighting. That is artistic preference, not a question of realistic/unrealistic. Maybe you can argue that having indirect shadows makes it easier to fake photorealism from a practical standpoint, because it emphasises a good quality spec map, and good quality normal/HD details, but as a mandate it's kind of debatable.

Also there is nothing unrealistic with red eyes.  The sclera should have redness at the corners because there are more blood vessels there, especially when they are looking sideways. Redness makes eyes look more realistic, not less. 

I dont want to make this another Iray Photorealism thread, but if we are weighing in or critiquring, in your case, the issue is more with the quality of the sclera texture for the eyes, in the sense that the redness is too blurry. The redness isnt colocalised to the blood vessels as you would expect.  Additionally, the carbuncle area needs to have a pinker texture as currently too pale, and should have high specular/glossy quality that blends almost contiguously with the sclera/eye moisture of the eyeball, which also needs to be more moist-looking.

Gen 8.1 and Gen 9 have the fitted Tear figure for the eyes, which is important because the refraction of the tear line helps to break up/blend some of the harsh interface around eyes, e.g., the whole interface around the eye between eyeball and eyelid.  I think in general, the eye textures you are using are not the best.  Chevybabe has some good ones (at least i think so, from memory).  Also fixing the gap between eyeball and eye would help if the tear doesnt help with that.

Lips could benefit from HD morph/normal map that is cognate with the wrinkles on the base color texture. In general, looks like the diffuse/base color map is doing all the heavy lifting and there is not enough HD detail (from either HD morph or Normal map).

Could also use vellus.

Thanks lilweep!

Rafael_4557471

Here are two tests using a default HDRI and Sun-Sky only.

Hdri


Sky


And here is the original setup I made for Internal lights only.


But also I made a thread comparing different textures on the same model and light setup. https://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/665511/skin-texture-tests

A conclusion is that "realism" is not defined by the light, but mainly by the textures you use. So I would invite you to post your specific case you feel your render is not "realistic" enough and we could give you some insights.

CHWT

Rafael said:

Here are two tests using a default HDRI and Sun-Sky only.

Hdri


Sky


And here is the original setup I made for Internal lights only.


But also I made a thread comparing different textures on the same model and light setup. https://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/665511/skin-texture-tests

A conclusion is that "realism" is not defined by the light, but mainly by the textures you use. So I would invite you to post your specific case you feel your render is not "realistic" enough and we could give you some insights.

Thanks Rafael, I am actually happy with what I got from the sun-sky system. Guys feel free to post your renders with the default hdri or sun-sky system with DS built in lights or lights converted from primitives. It is interesting to see you all's renders.

bohemian3

Personally I've found that for sun-sky only a subsurface scattering shader still works best for skin.  The Gen 8.1 and 9 Transpency only is quicker with decent results using HDRIs.  Here's a quick 10 minute test sun-sky only default settings.  Image on right has a bit of post color correction and removal of the heavy shadow under the eye which you sometimes get with SSS, alas.  Everything is a trade-off.

CHWT

bohemian3 said:

Personally I've found that for sun-sky only a subsurface scattering shader still works best for skin.  The Gen 8.1 and 9 Transpency only is quicker with decent results using HDRIs.  Here's a quick 10 minute test sun-sky only default settings.  Image on right has a bit of post color correction and removal of the heavy shadow under the eye which you sometimes get with SSS, alas.  Everything is a trade-off.

Nice render! Sun-sky does seem to be less likely to make skin looks rubbery in renders, but sometimes the shadow under the eyes is indeed terrifying LOL. Did you change the ground colour by the way?

FirstBastion

I did a test trying different textures on Genesis8Female,  but keeping the same default lighting.

https://youtube.com/shorts/pBoypmuFps8?feature=share

CHWT

FirstBastion said:

I did a test trying different textures on Genesis8Female,  but keeping the same default lighting.

https://youtube.com/shorts/pBoypmuFps8?feature=share

Wow there are 12 textures in total, some of them really do not react to the default lighting too well.