Interiors work

[nate]

Well, I feel like I've reached a plateau - I still have a lot to learn but I'm not sure where to direct my efforts at the moment, as mentioned by others, I'm having a woods for the trees scenario :S
Having viewed other peoples amazing work here I can see there's defintely room for improvement in my own renders, I'm just not sure where to start.
Here's a round up of my better work in the last year which I find a bit flat (is it the materials? Not enough contrast?).
I use LWF although I tend to use Reinhard colour mapping to avoid overexposed areas, vray physical camera and normally build the lighting from a vray sun base with additional vray lights just under the ceiling. I render with irradiance map and light cache.
Postwork in photoshop normally consists adjustment layers for curves, brightness/contrast, levels and colour balance.

Any comments/crits much appreciated!

[glorybound]

your work looks really good. In my opinion, to reach the next level, you'll need to get good at post production. Most of the amazing work you see here is accomplished, for the most part, in post.

Well, I feel like I've reached a plateau - I still have a lot to learn but I'm not sure where to direct my efforts at the moment, as mentioned by others, I'm having a woods for the trees scenario :S
Having viewed other peoples amazing work here I can see there's defintely room for improvement in my own renders, I'm just not sure where to start.
Here's a round up of my better work in the last year which I find a bit flat (is it the materials? Not enough contrast?).
I use LWF although I tend to use Reinhard colour mapping to avoid overexposed areas, vray physical camera and normally build the lighting from a vray sun base with additional vray lights just under the ceiling. I render with irradiance map and light cache.
Postwork in photoshop normally consists adjustment layers for curves, brightness/contrast, levels and colour balance.

Any comments/crits much appreciated!

[ATTACH=CONFIG]9640[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]9641[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]9642[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]9644[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]9643[/ATTACH]

[nate]

Thanks Glorybound. It's a fair point - I give very little time to post-production, normally by the time the render's finished I need it out the door I should probably look at allocating more time to this part of the process along with developing my skills .

[ipo]

Great render,
and i totally agree with the need of post-production ! May be add humans too ?

I noticed one thing in your renders : there is no real direct or "sharp" shadows. By the way I found there is not enough contrast between lights and dark area. It looks sometimes a little too flat.

[nate]

Thanks for your input ipo. I see what you mean with the shadows, especially underneath the furniture, I guess that's coming from relying on vray lights above. Also, agreed, I think I could afford to up the contrast generally - the flatness is not helping to achieve realism.

[savio alvares]

Hi nate,
I have studied from "Stanislav Orekhov". His teaching are very simple to follow.
The best place to start learning.......

http://d-e-s-i-g-n.ru/?lang=en

Thanks regards
savio alvares

[deflix]

keep an eye on light colour and levels; no light is pure white, generally they are cool (cyan/blue) or warm (Yellow/red). learn to perform a step-by-step lighting setup; start with all your lights turned off and do test renders with each group turned on and adjusted in turn, so you can get an idea of distribution. You should do this with a mid-white material in your override material slot, so that textures/shaders dont confuse the process. Also turn off glossies and reflections in the globals - dont even think about adding this stuff until your lighting and textured materials are in place.

for anything larger than a football lighting is one of the most important things in a rendering - it imparts a sense of scale, mood and depth, and must be delivered correctly before you get into detailed material setup or you will end up chasing shadows (excuse the pun). Finally you should always add some ambient occlusion to your images - it is a basic requirement nowadays and provides the fine detailed shadowing that Gi cannot deliver on its own. Simply add it as a pass and comp in photoshop at the end

Good luck!

[Kr0no]

Hi there, I agree with all the comments above, but not only the light is not pure white the mat too, there s nothing pure white 255,255,255, or pure black 0,0,0 in a materials, I tend to go 220-230 max for my whites or it get completly flat as theres no information other that the max it can display (255,255,255) I disagree with the ambiant occlusion pass in every renders, imo it should be use for certain situation\environements, Is nt why we calculate gi?

Another point about irmpa+lc Its the most reliable\fastest way to calculate, but irr maps tends to average too much sometimes and you loose a lot of detail but you dont know it unless you have someting to compare, so what I do when i test render at lower res with a materiel overide like deflix mentioned above render with BF+LC, brute force is more precise and then you can compare with irr map where you loose shadows and details, it get easier to tweak irr maps after.

Post-production is a plus if you can afford it, true you can add a lot with it but not if you render is missing info, by missing info I mean:lac of shadow or missing shadow, bad material, lots of noise, burn area in the image (255,255,255,) or completely black unless you save in 32bits and recalibrate everything in the renders but it can get tedious.

Only my 2 cents, hope it helps!

[deflix]

but irr maps tends to average too much sometimes and you loose a lot of detail but you dont know it unless you have someting to compare, so what I do when i test render at lower res with a materiel overide like deflix mentioned above render with BF+LC, brute force is more precise and then you can compare with irr map where you loose shadows and details, it get easier to tweak irr maps after.

....an ambient Occlusion pass is almost free and you can create a few passes at different 'sizes' to help increase detail where required - just remember to have min 32 subdivs in the Vray dirt panel for smooth ao. This is better practice then trying to get the same effect baked into your render with higher rendertimes especially given that you can control the effect in post.

The two primary problems with your images are

1. a lack of AO
2. too much white light.

[rivoli]

Finally you should always add some ambient occlusion to your images - it is a basic requirement nowadays and provides the fine detailed shadowing that Gi cannot deliver on its own. Simply add it as a pass and comp in photoshop at the end

not sure about this, I'd say that if it ever was a requirement, it was quite a few years ago... apart from that, I think it produces very poor results that don't really translate, visually, into what light distribution actually look like. but I guess it's a matter of personal taste, so it may be just me.

[Kr0no]

Im not a fan of AO too, seems fake most of the time, thats why I said to use it for certain situation\environements, but certainly not at large in every scene. But at the end it s a matter of taste.

[deflix]

Im not a fan of AO too, seems fake most of the time, thats why I said to use it for certain situation\environements, but certainly not at large in every scene. But at the end it s a matter of taste.

Sure thing but for a new user I believe it is good practice to get used to faking and controlling things. In both vfx and games development AO is as standard as texturing a model, although like anything should not be used everywhere. Without an intro to ao a beginner will be unfairly compromised imho.

[deflix]

not sure about this, I'd say that if it ever was a requirement, it was quite a few years ago... apart from that, I think it produces very poor results that don't really translate, visually, into what light distribution actually look like. but I guess it's a matter of personal taste, so it may be just me.

It doesnt translate light transit at all, but instead the acretion of dirt in occluded corners. Such acretion is common where fine details are present, which is why these details are missed entirely with gi alone. AO can look crap obviously, but is essential in most scenes as a pass when used appropriately imo.

[duke2]

...and you don't have to use it the obvious way (multiply in photoshop). Instead you can output the GI element, set that to multiply, invert your AO and use it as a mask for the GI element.

[simmsimaging]

I agree with Deflix - AO is pretty useful, but it is very easy to misuse it. Often it is set too wide, and too strong and creates that obvious AO look, rather than subtly enhancing detail.

Nate: Overall good work, but I agree with the general feedback for you. Adding some more contrasty *lighting* (not just bumping contrast in Photoshop, which won't work well IMO) will add a lot to your images. I feel like they might also lack a bit of visual focus, which can be helped with adjusted lighting and also some post work. Deflix's advice about varying up the light colour will also bring out some depth and add focus.