shadows too dark - vray sun & sky??

[pshupe68]

I just started a new rendering and basically started with a vray sun and sky and pretty much default settings for render setup. I'm using Irr map and light cache for GI, and adaptice DMC with Vraylanczos Filter.

I'm wondering why my shadows are so dark? Is there a way to lighten up the shadows? I actually like the amount of light hitting the underside of the canopy but it's just that the shadows are almost completely black?? Please advise.

PS. - I have not enabled Gamma correction in my prefences and have the default settings for gamma under my color mapping in the render settings.

Thanks in advance for any tips. I really want to just lighten the shadows and get these images out to the client. Thanks again.

Regards Peter.

[AJ Jefferies]

How does your scene lighting look with an all white material applied?

Drop a white Vraymat into the override slot & see how bright the shadows are then.

Obviously this isn't a solution to your problem but it could give a pointer as to what's going on.

[Pixelab]

You should try LWF (gamma 2.2)... I know it's not a real answer but in LWF you don't have this kind of problem.

Also, if you have 1.5 RC3 or older, I remember a bug where the sky had only the 1/3 of his strength (and hasn't the right color neither). Then update to 1.5 SP1 asap if you can.

[pshupe68]

Here is the image with all white Vray material. It looks better, probably because there is more light bouncing off of the lighter materials?? Maybe it is just over exposed and the brick material really shouldn't be that dark?? Not sure how to fix it though. I did try playing with my gamma and it just started to wash out.

Any other suggestions??



Regards Peter.

[rivoli]

a bit of colour mapping tweaking should sort the shadow problem, but as pixellab pointed out your scene seems to lack any illumination from the vray sky. I'd check if anything's right there first.

[pshupe68]

pixelab - I would like to try that. Where would I set all of those settings? I have to change under preferences and color mapping, correct?? And also affect material editor? Could someone give a quick run down of which properties to change?? Thanks.

I am already using Vray 1.5 sp1.

Thanks for the speedy replies.

Regards Peter.

[Pixelab]

Obviously, your second image look like a Linear color mapping 1.0

You can found many tutorials aswell as many post about LWF here, but try already :

In Customize/preferences/Gamma : (I still use Max 7.0 so your milage may vary)

- Check Enable gamma corretion
- Display gamma 2.2
- Input Gamma 2.2
- Output Gamma 1.0

In VRray colormapping :

- Linear Multiply
- Dark mult 1.0
- Bright mult 1.0
- Gamma 2.2
- Affect background checked

Your material will be wahed out (but your textures won't) that's normal, adjust until your colors are ok again. (that's why switching during a project in LWF ios not adviced)

You image will be correct in VRay frame buffer but WONT be ok in Max frame buffer (it will be "double gamma" washed)

Be sure you put the vray sky texture in environement mapping, GI Environnment (skylight) override & Reflection/refraction environement override

[Neilg]

Personally I think LWF is over-hyped, overused and actually not even in the slightest bit important for most people. You do not need it at this stage, it's just going to overcomplicate things.

Just go to colour mapping, change type to reinhard and change the burn to .4

You'll need to re-expose your sun, but it should help.

[Pixelab]

Personally I think LWF is over-hyped, overused and actually not even in the slightest bit important for most people. You do not need it at this stage, it's just going to overcomplicate things.

Just go to colour mapping, change type to reinhard and change the burn to .4

That's funny, you advice him instead to change his color mapping. LWF is exactly the same ! Changing is color mapping to Linear 2.2 ... no big deal

[Neilg]

Look how many steps your method takes, and look at the number of threads where people ask for help with it and claim to still not understand it.

It's the same intention, just LWF is needlessly complicated and people seem to think it's this magic thing you need to do before you can make a good render, which is wrong and pointless.

[Brian Bradley]

It's the same intention, just LWF is needlessly complicated and people seem to think it's this magic thing you need to do before you can make a good render, which is wrong and pointless.

Hi,

LWF is definately not a 'magic' workflow that produces cool renders
by itself, in fact I have seen some distinctly average renders done
using LWF! BUT, once you learn it (and the working principles behind
it) you have a very predictable and easy to use workflow that can
give you faster and better lighting solutions than you may have
previously acheived.

I definately agree that it is not the ONLY workflow that can/should
be used, that depends on the type of project you are on. As an artist
that call can be made at the start of the project.

To be honest LWF at its simplest is not a complicated subject, what
does make it complicated is that many times the term LWF is applied
to a workflow that isn't, it is just Gamma Corrected at some point
in the render process, and then everyone (me included )
starts to get really confused.

In this instance the problems Peter highlights are among those that
are often helped by adopting either of these workflows. IMHO

Regards
Bri

[Neilg]

BUT, once you learn it (and the working principles behind
it) you have a very predictable and easy to use workflow that can
give you faster and better lighting solutions than you may have
previously acheived.

The only reason it gives you better results is because you suddenly start paying more attention to your lighting and materials.

Ive used it, and I still think it's overrated. - Not in what it does, but the way people are like 'oh, youre not using LWF? thats why your renders are bad' and the automatic assumption that every good render is done with it.
I'm not saying it's bad, just that for the stage this guy is at it's a completley unessessary extra process when something much simpler will achieve exactly the same thing.

[m_hinks]

Look how many steps your method takes, and look at the number of threads where people ask for help with it and claim to still not understand it.

It's the same intention, just LWF is needlessly complicated and people seem to think it's this magic thing you need to do before you can make a good render, which is wrong and pointless.

Id also disagree. Understanding the principle is the most important thing. Once you know what and why you are doing it, you'll not go back. I use LWF for every job, and have no problems. There are like 3 steps to convert an old scene, no time at all.

But its everyones personal view, and if you get good images one or anyther way, use it. No point in debating it, its not a case of right or wrong. Just give help to people trying it, not tell them they are wrong to do it.

[Neilg]

I never told anyone they were wrong to do it, just that it wasnt needed at that stage.

I understand LWF, and I dont understand the need for label or a method to it. Or a rabid 'it's better than everything else, why aren't you using it yet' mentality. Which youve shown there with - 'once you know why youre doing it, you'll not go back'

It doesnt matter.

[Pixelab]

The only reason it gives you better results is because you suddenly start paying more attention to your lighting and materials.

Ive used it, and I still think it's overrated. - Not in what it does, but the way people are like 'oh, youre not using LWF? thats why your renders are bad' and the automatic assumption that every good render is done with it.
I'm not saying it's bad, just that for the stage this guy is at it's a completley unessessary extra process when something much simpler will achieve exactly the same thing.

You're right. It's not a magic workflow. The day I began to use a 2.2 gamma (LWF or not) I began to produce slightly better (and slightly faster) raw images than I did with my previous exponential workflow. But in both case i'm not happy with RAW render (not contrasted enough) and it still need levels and curve correction in post. I prefer to burn myself "artificially' the highlight/shadows from a 16bit "washed out" clamped render than having the right lighting range directly baked in your render (or working with heavy full float formats)

I consider RAW render being data like you've got from a digital SLR. Those are made to be developped in lightroom (or other software)

It's maybe an advanced method and shouldn't maybe applied in this case, but I tought it was worth a try...

What's overrated is to say that everyone should use LWF. I think what is not overrated is the quick result it gives for some checkboxes to check (we don't seem to agree on that then you see if you feel if you are comfortable or not with this technique...