The basic background is the wonderful Whitechapel Construction Set from RDNA (with Ian Porter's free hansom cab) and I'm trying for a foggy, spooky Jack the Ripper type ambiance. I've calculated the lighting very carefully to parallel real-world luminosity from this kind of flaring gas lamp, but at this point, I can't tell if I'm getting close to that or if this is just a dark opaque mess. (Part of the problem is that I'm worrying about the gamma correction; my monitor is gamma-corrected, but when I've seen this image on other monitors, it looks so dark that the details and colors are mostly gone. So I'm wondering if the problem is the other monitors, or the original image.)

Anyway, before I add any more figures or procede further with this, I was really hoping to get some input. I've looked at so many renders of this scene that I can't judge any more. Comments, suggestions, etc all gratefully welcomed.

It looks pretty good to me, as far as light levels go. One thing which may or may not be an improvement would be a translucent ball prop around the gas lamp, to simulate a corona effect of the light hitting water particles in the air.

If you pushed up the brightness and contrast some it would look more like early evening.

I can see almost nothing in the pic u posted, only a lamp. But if i open it in photoshop and set brightness to +35!! a pretty cool scene show up! Does it mean that my monitor need gamma corection? I dont use to have problems to see dark pics...

This is a successful dark pic. I can see the background buildings emerging from the fog. The top of the cab is enshrouded in mist, but clearly visible. My monitor is up as bright as it will go, and I also notice that other monitors don't go as bright and many details are easily lost in darkness. In order to compensate I always increase brightness contrast between 10-15%. It doesn't look right to me, but I guess it's better to do that than have a bunch of people wondering what is in the picture. So, since I can see your image fine, it's a sure bet that this pic would be almost black on my monitor at work, for example. I notice that this does not carry to print the same way. Something too dark on my monitor at work prints out just like it looks at home. So if you intend to print, you probably won't need to adjust brightness. If you want your work to be a "computer" work, then you might want to raise them so that everyone can see the work. In the darkest case, the picture you intended, in the lightest case, brighter than you'd like, but no harm done. By the way, is there going to be a coachman with a crop on top? That would make a nice silhuoette. I agree with SamTherapy that some kind of illuminated fog effect might be nice around the lamp.

The second picture is much better, I think it looks pretty good. Fog is not always thick.

A semi-opaque plane between the camera and the scene would make a good dense fog effect. You could adjust the transparency till it looks right. I would make it grey, and maybe some kind of noise texture?

I like the original picture actually. It's dark and gloomy without being too dark. Very moody and evocative. I can see the details just fine on my monitor which is set nowhere near max brightness (and in fact is very near the minimum setting). I am on a Mac FYI.

I can see the first picture, but it's dark. I really have to almost strain my eyes to see it. The second one is brighter, easier to see but a little bit TOO much "noise filter" It does give a nice almost painting effect to it though. I'm not sure which I prefer, they're cool in each their own way. Now that Whitechapel set? RDNA you say? runs off to look at it...

PS: Being able to faintly see the text is fine but you shouldn't be able to read either text xlearly from a few feet from your monitor. It isn't always brighness but rather contrast that needs tweaking. If you do not see a even gradient from white to black between the blue steps or if both sets of text are impossible to see ot too visible, then your contrast is off

Well, now I'm at work and I can't see anything on the pics except the lamp and the window. I tried to adjust the monitor here, but it's maxed out on all settings. It's a bit old too. Perhaps it's just this monitor. It's a KDS (Tiger) monitor so I know it wasn't the best. In fact, all the KDS's here are dark or quit working a while ago. Maybe this work monitor is not the best way to judge anything, being the exception rather than the rule.

I've calibrated my monitor with GretagMacbeths' Eye-One for digital photography. Your original pic looks fine to me. Dark and spooky but that's what you intend. Also "dark" is a subjective evaluation.

First way to look at it is physics. Fog absorbs and diffuses light; the fall-off of a point source will be faster, but the shadows will be very diffuse; light will be coming back from the fog itself to light up shadow areas. But other way to look at it is to take some dramatic license. When I light a scene like this in theater I break it up into Practicals, Motivators, and General Area light (which in this case would be mostly Backlight and Fill). The Practical is the lamp itself. On a 40' stage a 60w floor lamp with shade won't cast enough light to notice. Worse yet, that little bright spot of bulb will be very distracting to the audience. So we tend to put these on dimmers and turn them way down. In 3D terms, that means setting a glow channel on the object. The Motivators are theatrical instruments hung and focused to immitate the light that would be coming from that practical. That would be in 3d the lights we stick up near the thing that looks like it lights up. The thing to remember is that they don't HAVE to be in exactly the same position. A little artistic license can go a long way. In my Ninja pic the "moonlight" is coming from a point higher on the sky than the visible moon. In my "shoujo cop" pic here, the light bar didn't quite hit the character right so I re-inforced it with some little spots just a foot away from her body. Fill, wash, base light....depending on how you set it up, these are lights that just generally fill in the scene a little. This is particularly important in Ray Tracing where the real-world effects of radiosity do not take place. Back light is the secret weapon. The use of strong backlight in night scenes has long been a Hollywood cliche. The trouble is, it works. Backlight can seperate and define the figures in the scene, and even seperate and define the image planes making for a better sense of depth. Last, and not mentioned earlier, is a little bit of Specials on the things you really want to see, regardless of where they are in relation to the visible light sources. You can always pretend they are the light from another lamp just out of sight or a bit of moonlight through a thin patch in the fog. Nice image BTW. Just 'cause I tend to go dramatic myself doesn't mean I don't like what you did!

Sorry, couldn't resist. :O)

Fauve your original picture looks good on my screen. But the one Anton posted is perhaps a little better as I can see the building in the background. In yours, I sort of know it is there but can not make it out very well.

Hope that helps, now I am moooooooving along.

:O)