Simpler interior
Simpler interior
I've been spending too much time sweating on individual images that weren't really worth the trouble lately. So I'm back to quickies, one-night jobs with this. This was mainly born out of my frustration at not being able to model a simple pillow. I think these ones are the best I've done so far, though I know they're still pretty cardboard-like. The rest was modelled quickly and liberally uses props I'd done earlier (oven, tap, vases, coffee maker, orchid...) The undefined plant on the countertop is a scaled-down Xfrog model from the Dresden public library. The mosaic is a great map from the MXM repositery I've used in the past.
- Attachments
-
- KitchenSmall.jpg (236.46 KiB) Viewed 14478 times
Hi, very clean, you used Violet? render time?
And again really nice...
Before I forget to say it...I really loved your exterior tutorial.
Any chance something similar coming up for an interior shot like this?
And if there is any chance you could share your light settings for the above, I would be very very happy.
But I quess you will get this sort of questions all the time.
Anyway looking forward to the next one!
Before I forget to say it...I really loved your exterior tutorial.
Any chance something similar coming up for an interior shot like this?
And if there is any chance you could share your light settings for the above, I would be very very happy.
But I quess you will get this sort of questions all the time.
Anyway looking forward to the next one!
Last edited by Qwaszt on Thu Feb 07, 2008 8:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
No Meta, no secret at all. Here's the texture. Just apply it to an emitter and it will give you soft reflections instead of the sharp squares you get when using normal emitter planes. It's only useful in those situations where you need these soft highlights, such as studio shots of cars or other reflective stuff.
- Attachments
-
- filllightldr_189.jpg (56.14 KiB) Viewed 14305 times
Hi!! A very nice and clean image, as always..
if i may say my opinion, there's something that could be better:
the light is too uniform, and the contrast too low.. it took 30 seconds for me to discover that there's a step between the sofas and the kitchen. I noticed the same on the other image 'sunny afternoon', where the ouside wall directly lit by the sun has more or less the same exposure as the shadowed part. in real life there would be at least 2 or 3 f-stops (if not more..)of difference between the 2 areas. In photography i always fighted because the film-exposure-range was smaller as the scene i had to shoot, and some parts of the scene were overexposed or burnt.. but a good contrast gives the whole image depth and realism!
is your monitor calibrated? maybe that could be a reason..
hey, this is not a critique, but just my point of view!!
ciao!!
if i may say my opinion, there's something that could be better:
the light is too uniform, and the contrast too low.. it took 30 seconds for me to discover that there's a step between the sofas and the kitchen. I noticed the same on the other image 'sunny afternoon', where the ouside wall directly lit by the sun has more or less the same exposure as the shadowed part. in real life there would be at least 2 or 3 f-stops (if not more..)of difference between the 2 areas. In photography i always fighted because the film-exposure-range was smaller as the scene i had to shoot, and some parts of the scene were overexposed or burnt.. but a good contrast gives the whole image depth and realism!
is your monitor calibrated? maybe that could be a reason..
hey, this is not a critique, but just my point of view!!
ciao!!
Vanessa07
Why not. In a way, it's already a night version since all the artificials lights are on and the scene is only lit by emitters. But yeah, I see what you mean.
Marcofly
Hey Marco. I'm glad you mention this because you're touching on a fascinating philosophical problem that keeps me awake at night. The question here is whether we should go out of our way to simulate the limitations inherent in shooting analog photographs. I guess it all depends on what you're aiming for. If the goal is to create the most perfect illusion of a photograph, then there is an argument for adding imperfections to your renders that are not there in the first place but would be visible in photographs. If you're going for a more stylised look, like a glossy studio shot for instance, you might want to do the opposite and clean-up your render as much as you can.
Because I sell my pics on stock sites, I tend to aim for the second since classic photographic imperfections are guaranteed to get your shots rejected. (Believe it or not, I had shots rejected on some sites because the reviewer thought the meticulously coded Indigo glare was in fact dust on my lens! - they generally don't know they're looking at renders and I generally don't tell them.)
This means I treat an Indigo render like a raw shot, which needs correcting in Pshop for perspective distorsion, noise, and dynamic range.
That's why I would never do a flashlight render, add chromatic aberration or lens distorsion for instance. That's also why I took the sunny afternoon shot through violet and played with the tonemapping settings until I no longer had any "burnt-out" whites where the sun was falling - which resulted in the flatter look you mention.
That's just my way and I can see why someone whose aim was maximum photorealism would spend a lot of time and effort "manufacturing" the kind of photographic imperfections I try to avoid.
In a way, you've described the dilemma yourself by saying you would like to see in a render an effect that you're "fighting" to avoid in your photographs. My personal philosophy - and maybe that's because I do a lot of photography - is that I don't want my renders to show the flaws I struggle and sweat to avoid in my photos. But I admit it's my narrow personal opinion and someone, a VFX guy for instance, would be much more interested in achieving gritty, perhaps even dirty realism, like the horrible grain in Spielberg's War of the World, which is so effective because it makes the film so much more realistic.
Sorry for the over-long digression but I just think it's fascinating stuff.
Why not. In a way, it's already a night version since all the artificials lights are on and the scene is only lit by emitters. But yeah, I see what you mean.
Marcofly
Hey Marco. I'm glad you mention this because you're touching on a fascinating philosophical problem that keeps me awake at night. The question here is whether we should go out of our way to simulate the limitations inherent in shooting analog photographs. I guess it all depends on what you're aiming for. If the goal is to create the most perfect illusion of a photograph, then there is an argument for adding imperfections to your renders that are not there in the first place but would be visible in photographs. If you're going for a more stylised look, like a glossy studio shot for instance, you might want to do the opposite and clean-up your render as much as you can.
Because I sell my pics on stock sites, I tend to aim for the second since classic photographic imperfections are guaranteed to get your shots rejected. (Believe it or not, I had shots rejected on some sites because the reviewer thought the meticulously coded Indigo glare was in fact dust on my lens! - they generally don't know they're looking at renders and I generally don't tell them.)
This means I treat an Indigo render like a raw shot, which needs correcting in Pshop for perspective distorsion, noise, and dynamic range.
That's why I would never do a flashlight render, add chromatic aberration or lens distorsion for instance. That's also why I took the sunny afternoon shot through violet and played with the tonemapping settings until I no longer had any "burnt-out" whites where the sun was falling - which resulted in the flatter look you mention.
That's just my way and I can see why someone whose aim was maximum photorealism would spend a lot of time and effort "manufacturing" the kind of photographic imperfections I try to avoid.
In a way, you've described the dilemma yourself by saying you would like to see in a render an effect that you're "fighting" to avoid in your photographs. My personal philosophy - and maybe that's because I do a lot of photography - is that I don't want my renders to show the flaws I struggle and sweat to avoid in my photos. But I admit it's my narrow personal opinion and someone, a VFX guy for instance, would be much more interested in achieving gritty, perhaps even dirty realism, like the horrible grain in Spielberg's War of the World, which is so effective because it makes the film so much more realistic.
Sorry for the over-long digression but I just think it's fascinating stuff.
-
StompinTom
- Posts: 1828
- Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 3:33 pm
simple, my ass. awesome materials, as usual! great scene.
id just remove the plant on the coutner and the bricks,
id just remove the plant on the coutner and the bricks,
Last edited by StompinTom on Sat Feb 09, 2008 9:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests