Vray pros, how did you get it real?

[Reaversword]

How did you get it more real?.

I used all tricks I know, but still I can't feel me "cheated" for the image.

http://www.mediafire.com/view/?p71frxf7rukgmmn


Apologize for watermarks

[vlado]

It's too shiny and perfect...

Best regards,
Vlado

[super gnu]

plus its too contrasty, dark and the textures are quite heavy and oversaturated.. subtlety is the key.

[glorybound]

These guys, in this forum, have groomed me pretty good. First thing that I would say is, it's not the software. Now, having said that, VRAY is the best software for this, but it's about art theory. The same thing that makes a painting good is what makes a rendering good. After thinking about this very thing the other day, I wrote a blog post. I wrote that a good image happens when the form, subject, and content come together.

[Reaversword]

So, Vlado, your point is break continuous reflections of the floor, do some scratchs on balusters, get some dust in some places... yeah, you're on right, thank you.

Super gnu, raise exposition for gain some light and put an eye on saturated textures, like the smokestack wood one, shelves at right.. this typical kitchen tables of plastic and crystal, are oversaturated for you too?. Any other oversaturated texture?. Thank you for your advices.

Hi Glorybound, I've been reading your blog (Organic Unity = Art?), and yes, I'm agree with you, this render doesn't haves and idea to convey or a subject at which look, not a background, not a foreground. Content, well, are, but nonsense itself. Maybe this render don't talk to the viewer, it haves nothing to say. Maybe I should find another perspective, or some element to center the look, with a little bit of depth of field blur. But first I would like to get a "simple" real photo. I see your point. Lots of thanks.


More critiques are welcome. Thank you for your time and wisdom guys.

[Sawyer]

It looks to me that in your image you could spend some more time with UV mapping and details like displacement at the fireplace would help. Overall realism can still produce a crappy space. I think a lot of times the cg people will go for "photo" realism and dont know the tricks photographers use to make space attractive. Light your space better for one. I cant say I understand what the flooring is. Pull back the camera so you get more of the stairs in. Move the furniture so it directs the eye. Put a frame on the picture on the wall - or take it off its odd. Again an architectural photographer will spend hours getting lighting right and redecorating (some even bring in their own furn). Your image is really busy. Dont think of it as an illustrator does think of it as a designer would. But another thing that will really help is softening the hard edges of your models. Capturing the highlights off the corners is a great detail. Most people can tell what the material is by the highlights.

Years back we did a challenge here for crappy photos with bright flashes. That was fun. It provided a different way of creating photo real images - bad ones. Just because its photo real doesnt mean its a good image.

[Reaversword]

Hi Sawyer, Do you refer to the stones in the upside of the fireplace, right?. Ok, I'll do a revision of that. Yes, as Vlado says, all is too perfect, I must break the reflects and work a little bit the gaps between pieces of the floor (and the wall between kitchen and livingroom). Well, the edges are softened, this is a thing I take into account.

Respect the shot and furniture, I think my next step is create an image that anyone could see among a six or seven real photographys (more or less crappy) and doesn't stop saying -eh!, that one is not real-.

I really appreciate the point of work in perspective, frame and composition, and you are on right, but first, I would like to be able to "cheat", if finally I can reach that quality, next step would be try to do as better as I can like "artist". Maybe I'm wrong and the way of first be "technician" and later "artist" is not correct... I don't know.

For other side, there is always a question that intrigues to me. The "absorb" component of a material. When we set a material, we control light reflected, refracted, refracted and diffused, reflected and diffused and pure diffused, but the amount of energy that materials absorb (and this light energy warm the object), this energy that "dissapears" inside the object, is achieved lowering "diffuse amount" of vrayMtl, right?

[snivlem]

Treat it like a photograph, for a start I think the image is pretty underexposed for an interior shot.