Getting that airy, light look for interiors

[Neilg]

I wasn't meaning to say that there is a way around tonemapping . But the approach that the room doesn't matter sounds off to me as light would travel differently in every room. A cathedral will look differently and maybe not as "nice" as a small room with huge windows. Or the other way around. Know what I mean?

I understand what you're getting at - but turning the lights up until everything is blown out and then pulling back until it looks good really is the same approach no matter the space you're working in.

That bright airy look comes from key lights flooding the space - be it the outside environment, sun/sky, or some cove lighting in a bathroom. Every other light is flavor, you need one main set to do the heavy lifting which you set your white balance to. Adding some artificial light over there, a different set of lights over here, then adding the environment light will leave it unfocused. Decide what is going to be the most important light and push it as hard as you can with nothing else on. Once that looks good and is giving you the right mood you can turn some lamps on and start adding the rest of the lights. It's the same approach no matter if it's an office, cathedral or bathroom.

[MANUEL_MOUSIOL]

Thanks for the input and sorry for the late reply. Have been busy myself lately.

3- use LUT while working not at the end :
the LUT I've mentioned above is not just like an Instagram filter that we add to make the image looks photorealistic out of the box. you will need to build the image while seeing the final result so your color will look as expected.

This is an interesting and very good workflow. I have never used LUTs because I think I am good enough at color grading. But on the other hand, using LUTs sounds like a faster workflow than going through every image I have to produce and color grade it.
What kind of LUTs are you using? Since most LUTs are not made for a linear workflow but for rec709 or log or so.
Would be interesting to hear.
EDIT: Sorry, just realised you have a link to some LUTs beforehand. Any other ones that would be interesting?

6- be creative with lights (softbox \ black blockers)
you can add extra lights to enhance the lighting only when necessary..you can render them on separate passes so you can mask/paint them later too if you like, but personally I like to render all the lights together with a bit lower intensity and push them later in post with mask (this might add some noise for dark areas so be careful )
in this scene there it extra softbox light on the right pointing toward the middle table and lighting the back of the sofa and another one outside the window on the left lighting the sofa ..in these case their effect is minimal like only 10 % and the 90% comes from the HDRI that's I'm using to light the scene .
Best regards,

This is an interesting point. I am now mainly doing archviz not for the sake of archviz but for furniture ads. And the product has to stand out and look good but at the same time natural. What they do at the studio is that they photograph a bunch of different light setups for the furniture and then comp them together afterwards - just like any other product photography. It seems a bit tedious to do that and the final look will not be as natural. Of course with vraylightselect I could easily do it, or the way you described.
That is also why I was asking about architecture of the room itself. Furniture has to look good and the interior has to fit the style, but I am very free in modelling the room as I see fit, so I thought that I would get some tips about how the room modelling could improve my overall look in terms of lighting.

Anyway, nice image you posted! I will give an update when I checked and tested all those good tips on here!

[MANUEL_MOUSIOL]

I understand what you're getting at - but turning the lights up until everything is blown out and then pulling back until it looks good really is the same approach no matter the space you're working in.

That bright airy look comes from key lights flooding the space - be it the outside environment, sun/sky, or some cove lighting in a bathroom. Every other light is flavor, you need one main set to do the heavy lifting which you set your white balance to. Adding some artificial light over there, a different set of lights over here, then adding the environment light will leave it unfocused. Decide what is going to be the most important light and push it as hard as you can with nothing else on. Once that looks good and is giving you the right mood you can turn some lamps on and start adding the rest of the lights. It's the same approach no matter if it's an office, cathedral or bathroom.

Oops, didnt see your answer until now.
Yeah, I totally agree and that is what I am aiming at - not lighting additionally but getting the overall look from just one environment light.
As stated above, I am free to model the room as I like - more or less. So that is what I meant when talking about cathedrals or smaller rooms. If an architect would aim for the most beautiful look and would only think about light and not form, so to speak, what would he do? Just bigger window fronts? A skylight? If too much light comes in, you lose shadows and form on the other hand....

[MANUEL_MOUSIOL]

Just wanted to post an update of the final and client approved version.
what do you guys think?

[M.Max]

it looks nice .. a few materials to work on more, but overall it is good.
Personally, I would tune down the light on the right of the camera but it is just personal preferences and as your client like it then I think it is done now : )

[MANUEL_MOUSIOL]

thanks.
I love working on materials, shaders, getting things to look more realistic. But there is also the time limit.
I have to work on a library with perfectly realistic materials to work from, then things get more smooth. Right now, buying/modelling and importing all the stuff that is needed and then working on the materials means days and days for just one image.

The light on the right.... You mean that makes the reflection on the side of the product brighter?
Yeah...I put a window in there actually...to get that airy look hahaha.
But I guess a more directionaly approach and less windows makes things more interesting.

thanks for the feedback!

[MANUEL_MOUSIOL]

I think I'm getting the hang out of it step by step.
check out my newest piece:
https://forums.chaosgroup.com/forum/...to-live-in-wip
I turned the burn value down to 0.2 and sometimes additionally have to dial in curves to raise the shadows and bring down highlights even more.
I wish there was a way to bring full dynamic range to Capture One, so I can easily adjust highlights and shadows and do more postprocessing there..

[piotrus3333]

have you tried doing the whole tonemapping with curves only? (without highlight burn)

[MANUEL_MOUSIOL]

have you tried doing the whole tonemapping with curves only? (without highlight burn)

I love curves - in Photoshop. I can add points and do it very specific. But the curves in the VFB have only two points (unless I missed something), which makes it difficult for me.

[Ihno]

But the curves in the VFB have only two points (unless I missed something).

Ctrl+Left Klick
but the vfb curves have no RGB mode you can only edit the brightness not the colors

Have you tryed a proper comp tool like nuke, fusion or natron? Those photo ediors arend really made for editing 3d stuff. (natron is free)

[MANUEL_MOUSIOL]

ah cool, thanks!
I always did comping in Photoshop or After Effects.
I have to say though that I am trying to have a complete rendering and just do some general touchups in the VFB and Capture One. I like the clarity slider. Havent found anything similar elsewhere that looks so nice and is so easy to use.
I will check out Natron, but as I said, my workflow would be: highlight burn and LUT in VFB, save out with those applied, then do some corrections and contrast/clarity in Capture One. Finished. If there are changes, I will do another render or comp it in Photoshop and everything I have done will be automatically applied in C1.
I like the photographic approach, but obviously dynamic range is an issue here.

[Ihno]

I wouldn't touch an image editor that processes in 8 bit... Its stone age.
Even if the source data (photo) is coming in 8 bit, it should work in 32bit internally. Just for the sake of precise mathematical calculations.
Unfortunately not even PS made that step. Which is why I edit everything in fusion. (Nuke is awesome but it costs an arm and a leg)
Hopefully this will all be over for stills when CG releases the vfb 2.0. which might be soon.

[MANUEL_MOUSIOL]

yeah, totally agree. I posted on the forums, asking how I could output something like a RAW file, so C1 can get more dynamic range out of my renders. But no answer and I guess it is not possible.
I have my fingers crossed for vfb 2.0!

[piotrus3333]

so far (considering photo/painting apps) I think Krita is pretty much on top in 32 bit colour editing. not perfect though. also used ArionFX for years and liked it a lot.
now I’m just trying to get as far as possible in VFB.

[MANUEL_MOUSIOL]

What exactly do you do with krita?