LWF 2.2 Poll ! Yes or No !

[Candelero]

Hi guys and gals !

I had a little conversation with a friend of mine, whom I was trying to convince in the use of LWF ! My position was that LWF is always more photorealistic and real rather than working in Gamma 1.0.

So after a small fight and a bottle of Coca Cola, we decided to ask ALL of You and raise a poll for it. BTW, he claimed that working in Gamma 2.2 is FAKE !


PLEASE State your Vote !



Best regards,
nikki Candelero

[timmatron]

Can you put in a "sometimes" option?

[ene.xis]

it changed my life!

[instinct]

Always and forever! Vray -> linear and float exr -> nuke = heaven

Regards,
Thorsten

[rivoli]

yep, working linear it's a real pleasure.

[kalografik]

I am the other side

I know LWF is useful and is easy way fighting overburns when working interior scenes.
But is it photorealistic? I think LWF at Gamma 2.2 change the light falloff curve incorectly and flatten the image. So it's close to the use of "Shadow and Highlight" in photoshop and produce flat and washed images.

please vote whether LWF is PHOTOREALISTIC* or not, and not how much you use it.

*Photorealistic = camera device production and is NOT what human eye can see.

[instinct]

Well, you do get washed out pictures if you use gamma 1.0 scenes with LWF. When you set up your scenes as LWF scenes you should be all fine.

Regards,
Thorsten

[crazy homeless guy]

....are you working with LWF, gamma 2.2, and saving in a floating point (HDR or EXR format)?

[Morbid Angel]

I chose - I prefere a different gamma, but actually I would say Yes.
That is after many tests, I found that gamma of 2.2 was a bit overbright. And a gamma balance of 1.8 or 0.555 would actually make a much better balance for blacks vs highlites. But defenently use gamma.

[suurland]

I'm not using LWF.. I don't think I've seen an image yet that couldn't be done with gamma 1.

/Thomas

[percydaman]

Ive lagged behind the LWF for alot of the same reasons as suurland. But Ive been intrigued by promise of needing less lights, less samples and quicker render times. So Ive jumped on board... for now

[Pixelab]

I've switched to LWF this week. I find it efficient. It replaces well the exponential that I was used to use, with reduced render times...

[kalografik]

I'll try to explain my stand, despite my poor english.

human eye - has ability to accommodate fast
video camera - has auto exposure on the move
photo camera - need soft boxes, fill lights, AEB, RAW etc to reach needed balance to shoot.

but they do not sacrifice "picture" dinamics as LWF did, just to see some hidden in the dark details, or to see the furnished kitchen of the neighbour building through heavy greened branches accros the well trimmed yard. This happen only in archiviz and is far from realism or photorealism

I have to say my works are archiviz like too and I do not resist all that stuff with LWF. I just want to say that it's not fotorealistic as Cadelero tried convince me.

Also I'm bored of all that soft lighted, slightly shadowed, texture sharpened, oily floored, heavenly looked vray style modern art interior renderings that is supposed to admire because of hard light setups in our current top GI MAX engines

[Candelero]

@ kalografik

That was a nice shot my friend....
Ring the Bell ??? Any dogs arround ?


Best regards,
nikki Candelero

[studioDIM]

Kalo, try the tutorial on sun and sky.
Of all things, that ain't far from a picture (in fact, it may even help to have a 32bpc image saved and post-processed), with its contrast and brightness ranges.
It still has a 2.2 gamma applied, which someone referred to as LWF (not me, mind you).

Lele

p.s.: bark! bark!