Dear community…
I am trying to do my best to follow the forum, but i’ll get not so often with images, which deserve to take place here…So - at the point - I have tried the new RWF and it works good for me…Of course there was some PS afterthat…See by yourself and thanx for the comments in advance.
Best regards: 3dkad 
The interior works well but your sky seems off in the outdoor image, especially the first one, where the sky looks green 
I personally think RWF (1.6 gamma) isn’t a good choice for this exterior(because of the amount of shadow), its much too contrasty, I’d bet putting it back to 2.2 would look a lot better in this case.
Congrats 3dkad! Very nice atmosphere you have achieved!
I really like the internal, its a nice space and the lighting works well. Although the externals arent bad I feel like im in a miniature model for some reason?
great
Hello !
@3dkad:
I am really happy now to see that someone else can use the rieder work flow You are the first one I gues trieng and posting really fantastic results with the rwf. thank you so much.
I had so much stress the last weeks that I couldn’t make more tests.
So really, really great to see now your results, makes me really happy and appreciate that !!
bernhard
Hi all,
Thanks for the replies…
I have added one more interior to the upper post.
Have searched a long time for the good contrast to me and i found a piece of satisfaction in the RWF…The post production in PS is really not much and i like the way it works…
I will keep trying and will let you know
Regards: 3dkad
I’m wondering… what does this RWF stand for? I’ve seen it a few times on the forum but I quess I missed the “birth” of it.
Does it stand for “Random” WorkFlow? 
edit: Last post on this page says all that shouldve been said on the subject.
Apologies for taking up room in your thread, the images are really good - ive just got issues with ‘LWF’ and how nuts people go for the ‘correct’ solution regardless of how it looks.
You know that you are implying that LWF users like us render utter crap, are you
Anyways there is a reason we use LWF. Here’s some reading regarding the utter crap sRGB produces. It doesnt even SCALE images correctly, let alone grading or alike…
And yes using linear software like nuke all the examples presented there work just fine…
Apologies, I didnt intend to - I meant to imply that from hearing about large scale jobs that requre a very strong and tight workflow is making people think it’s a far more important subject than it actually is. I didnt think I made any comments on the quality you could get from it, just the naming and hype.
Theres nothing wrong with it, per se, I just think its a bit excessive for architectural stills and that a lot of the use is still bandwagon based.
well check out the examples on that page. i tested them with CS3 vs nuke myself and can confirm the problems. Now when scaling images already get’s your colours of like that i do think that it IS a way underrated subject
Regards,
Thorsten
You’re vastly misunderstanding me - I get the impression you think i’m saying the entire concept of working like that is overrated.
I’m not - i’m saying that before we knew about lwf, everyone did something similar to varying degrees depending on how much they needed it per image. Then someone came along with a name for it and everyone started using exactly the same method. Yeah I know, ‘if it’s not broke, dont fix it’… this is just an opinion (that appears to be in a vast minority…)
Well that’s what i mean. if you decide to turn away from beeing linear (neither Reinhard, or whatever custom gamma settings, but working completely linear) then all the problems mentioned on that page arise. And that is mostly in post. If you render out and use the 3d rendering straight away then tweaking as needed is fine. If you need to post it aint. It’s seriously unpredictable then. Mind you that almost all post tools out there arent even capable of working in linear space…and that’s just sad if you ask me.
Regards,
Thorsten
There is something really confusing with this “scepticism” against lwf.
By this logic, we could just skip the whole units system when modelling, as it is not strictly necessary. We can model just as well in kilometres as cm. :roll:
Why would anyone even consider a standardisation system that simplifies your work as a hassle?
My guess is they just haven’t had the “eureka” experience, where they fully see the folly of their ways. 
This is another reason why I have issue with it - the superiority complex, the feeling that if youre not using LWF it’s because you dont ‘get it’
Fuck off. Theres a difference between a standardised measure of units a method of lighting a scene. Lighting is free form, and can be done completley by eye. It’s pretty difficult to model an entire scene by eye, and I think some of the most creative exersizes in modeling wouldve been done by eye anyway. No constrains, or rules, you know? Just an idea.
The only time you need a stardardised workflow is when your work will be going through a number of people and needing the same level on control on it every step of the way. This doesnt really happen in architecture, and so I consider the stress put on it’s importance over-inflated.
No need to get insulting i’d say. And once again i am not really talking about lighting. My main concern is post…and there is an objective letdown on the sRGB side. As said above if you’re happy with lighting by eye and not doing post (or doing it by eye) feel free to. Noone forces you to to work linear or 1.8 or whatever. But all the “Since when is this a workflow” and “LWF sucks and noone of you needs it anyway” is getting a bit irritating…
Anyways i’m out of this topic is it’s getting way off…sorry for the hi-jacking 3d-kad
Regards,
Thorsten
“My guess is they just haven’t had the “eureka” experience, where they fully see the folly of their ways.” And this isnt insulting? I hate to bring out he did it first, but I find that more insulting than 2 random directionless words.
And I didnt say anything close to that second quote. I dont get how youve still managed to completley miss my point. I use lwf when I need it.
I was just trying to get a discussion out of it. Instead I got attacked, insulted, and ignored for a comment about lwf that wasnt glowing.
More apologies for the hijack - it’s evident this is going nowhere.
oh come on…first off all i do find “fuck off” pretty darn insulting…and “he did it first”? i mean come on…
And i am just a bit fed up with the “why at all” posts in various lwf related threads…yes i was exxagerating…sorry
P.S. what i mean is posts like these “I dont really see the fuss with LWF anyway, but we’ll leave that.” Maybe just leave it in the first place…
anyways…send me pm’s if you wanna go deeper into that (i sure dont heh) as this thread is not even LWF
Regards,
Thorsten
Well, first off, sorry to inadvertently hijack this thread, and secondly I apologise to Mr.Cubicle. I had hoped my inclusion of the internationally recognized “Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)” emoticon would make it clear that I, by no means, have a superiority complex, and that the reason I wrote that (the last line), was that I too had some healthy scepticism a long time ago.
Once I realised certain facts, I saw I had been very wrong.
The example I (rather cunningly) came up with was meant to exemplify that while one can easily model anything in any unit system, and any scale, putting them together in one scene later on might pose a problem. This was to try to keep it aligned with Thorsten’s explanation on “down the line” problems occurring.
I will now retire from this thread, and continue to speak in a condescending tone to my co-worker.
LOL this thread is full of win. Guys don’t fight, we know you all love each other.
I use LWF and generally don’t pass my files around - as I’ve stated NUMEROUS times for the following reasons:
1) Accurate light/shadow falloff.
2) Accurate colors between bitmaps and diffuse swatches.
3) Accurate bleeding.
4) Cross-program operability.
The more realistic my images get, the more companies demand specific colors from me (especially interior designers.) It’s impossible to get specific swatches with any other method. Tweaking the ‘old fashioned way’ gives you highly unpredictable results that never look as close to reality.
The concept is not simple - there’s a lot of information and a lot of wrong people spreading a lot of incorrect information. But it works mathematically and unless you dig very deep you will just consider this only to be hype. But there’s an actual ‘mechanical’ reason for using this - it’s because of the way different tools and Max interact with one another.
Some people skip the concept and jump directly to ‘how-to.’ I think this is a big mistake but whatever.
The reason why it’s called ‘linear’ is because you’re taking gamma curves and making a ‘straight’ line that can coexist between multiple applications.
‘Rieder’ or RWF - well that’s named after someone’s last name or so I think. From a personal standpoint, I would never name a method after myself. Or I suppose my method could perhaps be called:
CWF (confused workflow.)