I don’t think it’s a rendering thing, it might be more of a composition thing. Maybe, lower your camera. Also, some contrast in post might go a long way. Are you using real world settings for lights and camera? I find when I use real world settings my image look more real.
Thanks Bobby. I one reason I had the camera shots a little higher is because its such a small space so I was trying to get in as much as possible. But I can certainly try that. Def adding some contrast would help.
Thanks allot
AM
For small spaces they recommend shooting into a corner.
Showing too much ceiling make you feel claustrophobic. Also, a little depth of field might help.
Maybe some more accessories, Coffee maker, glasses, newspaper, food…
I notice it’s missing the ambient occlusion (AO) personally i don’t use the AO included in the Vray global illumination panel (expert) because u cannot control it
i rather render with one or two extra layer (render element)
in vray render element select - Vray extratex and apply in the “TEXTURE” a vray dirt map
(the next step would be to instance the vray dirt map in ur material editor and twick the size of the dirt to create one for detail object (smaller range) and one for ambient (larger range) and then blend them in photoshop)
this will create an extra layer of Ambien occlusion that u can save by itself and apply in photoshop and mask the area where u don’t like the ambient occlusion to show
Ambient occlusion give an extra 3 dimensional feeling to your image
it work more or less like the suggestion of the “extra contrast” the other guy gave you but in a more architectural correct way
first is the layer of AO
second is the image without AO
third is the image with AO merged in photoshop
This is the biggest suggestion with the major impact i can give you on your renders
same comment from your other post.
I am against ao, ao is not correct in interiors especially.
In any case, to me it seems that your textures are too dark and contrasted, you are lacking reflections which is a key component in making things photoreal. For example the floor looks like mostly diffuse and zero reflection. Are you working in linear? you should consider that.
And also more detail, more of what others suggested already.
that’s why u have to use a different layer for the AO and then use a mask to remove it where u feel is wrong and lower the transparency to 50% or less depending on ur taste but saying AO is wrong in interior is not correct
take the picture of any corner in ur home and u will understand what AO is it’s a natural effect of the light it cant be “wrong”
but i agree it is wrong as it is rendered in Vray just clicking the option in the global illumination panel and expecting a realistic result but from there to go to the extend to say AO is wrong there are medium grounds
everybody that play video games know that graphic look much better with AO “on” more realistic and more 3d
Thanks Jeff
I found when I use the AO render element it darkens the space to much, perhaps my AO settings are in correct.
Thanks Dmitry. I will look at the textures and bump up the reflections. I am working in Reinhard not Linear. What is the difference?
Reinhard is between linear and exponential, I think. Exponential will brighten the interior, but might blow out things. Reinhard dulls the hotspots, but does make for a flat image, which can be corrected in PS with a curve.
that why i don’t use the AO automatic inside the light panel but i render the AO as a separate channel and then i apply it in photoshop as a masked layer of which i can control opacity and i can remove the area i want to look brighter it gives you extra control in focusing the scene in what u really want and u can remove it from object like trees that get it excessively dark and channel the bright area in the area u want the people to focus on similar to how u would do a vignette effect (but i don’t like the vignette effect)
if you like it to be soft u can always use a falloff map in the dirt map
but the trick is ALWAYS render it as VreyExtratxt element (as separate channel) and always apply it in Photoshop with a % of transparency
as you can see even in that small example the tree is completely darkened (and ugly) this is why u should use a mask on the photoshop layer of the AO and make sure to remove the AO from certain object that doesn’t work too well with it (object with too many faces close to each other and overlapping)
Unfortunately AO is not a straight “on/off” thing to make it right you need to work with it a little
Thats what I switched to Reinhard due to some blowouts. Yes I am finding my Reinhard images tend to be flatter.
Thanks again
You must also reverse gamma correct your color textures…but really its about finding the balance. I would usually take a render and put a real interior image right next to it, for example a wooden floor of my render with photo and look at whats different, and just try to match.
Regarding the AO, I don’t want to start an argument here. But AO is NOT physical in real world nor it happens in interiors. What you are seeing is a difference in shading. Notice that not all walls receive equal amount of darkening in corners. AO was written before GI was ever plausible to fake the look of GI.
With that said, every one has their own methods of making things look good so nothing wrong with using AO, if that makes you and client happy.
I have never reversed gamma corrected my textures. This, to me, is where it becomes way too confusing. For me, AO is a cheap way to boost the fine details on things. If it doesn’t need it (large flat planes) I don’t use it, but for things with fine details it helps, but do it subtly.
The logic behind the gamma in textures is like this:
Typically your texture is taken by a camera, which already embeds a gamma 2.2 curve (or a curve of sorts) into it.
So by rendering with gamma 2.2 (old way in linear terms) would mean that this texture with 2.2 gets another 2.2 on top of it making it way too bright. So, you must in that case reverse the diffuse or any color texture to 0.4545 so that when it gets rendered it gets its original 2.2 and looks correct.
