Is it just me or do these images look "dead"? I cant put my finger on it, something just looks wrong. Maybe I'v looked at them to long. Any suggestions?
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Lobby
Collapse
X
-
I prefer the 'percied' version myself.Kind Regards,
Richard Birket
----------------------------------->
http://www.blinkimage.com
----------------------------------->
Comment
-
It's pretty much the effect where if you have a light source and the environment around it is either dusty or misty, the lgiht will catch particles of dust or water floating in the air and give your lights a soft glow around them. You can do this in photoshop quite a few ways. Mainly you duplicate your render in photoshop, colour correct it so that only the bright areas of the render are left, blur it and use a blending mode to lay it over the original.
Here's a tut from neil blevins that shows a few ways to do it:
http://www.neilblevins.com/cg_educat...ular_bloom.htm
Comment
-
cristoforo-
I would like to say I used a material to pull off correct lighting under the desk, but I cheated. The desk is using a Vray material with a Refraction of .65 and Subdiv=6. This makes a nice frosted material, but the subdivs are so low that the glass comes across very rough with a light behind it. Increasing the Subs only makes the render time go higher. So....I cheated by putting a plane inside of the desk with the opacity map below. It looks like diffused lights, and I still get the appeance of frosted glass.
I hate cheating, but it works.
flavrsaver-
I like the contrast you managed to achieve in that image.
Comment
-
Originally posted by yeeha68I hate cheating, but it works.
What it comes down to, is that whatever works and appears correct, works. It may not be an accurate representation of a physical phenomenom. But we aren't modeling the physics of photons here
Comment
Comment