hello....I was just wondering if anyone could give some helpful hints on how to create more realistic lighting, or point me in the direction of some really good tutorials....thanks!

Well, there is no universal recipe when it comes to lighting. What are you working on?

Attached Link: http://www.alquier.org/linfa-net/cg/archives/2005/05/basic-lighting.html

I also have a few links to good tutorials to get started on my personal website (link attached)

One more thing... the Digital Lighting & Rendering book I reference on my site is available in its second edition. Make sure you get the latest version if you decide to order it.**
**

Oh yes, Jeremy Birn's book is more than worth it, and makes an excellent reference, as the tricks and concepts are fundamental, and are pretty much renderer exclusive (and when they aren't Birn says so).

yes, this book is your lighting bible, you really have to read it.

Birn's site is 3drender.com. He outlines the book there and has tutorials.I grabbed some of the lighting challenges he's posted there, like the haunted stairwell and the bottles.It's worth a look if anyone has time.

just ordered the book for myself - you can never learn too much about lighting :)

You did right, Frank, this really is a must read.

What I found the most impressive about '[digital] Lighting and Renderering' 2nd edition was not so much the golden wisdom, but the gems of attitude. For example: "When someone sees the picture or animation that you have lit, they want to see a complete, believeable picture, not to hear excuses about which program you used." I use that as a sig line, and it should be stapled to the insides of the eyelids of anyone who renders, either stills or animation. But it's also an example of the underlying attitude of the book; cheat, lie, trick, do whatever it takes to do it fast and make it beleiveable.

The book is good, but you still have to have the fundamentals of good art training, or the lighting exercises mean nothing!  And, lies, cheats, and tricks are unnecessary, when you know what you are doing.

One could argue that lie, cheat and trick are especially what people do when they know what they are doing.

For example, few professionals use radiosity or global illumination for an animation. They simulate it with tricks and well controlled lighting. They cheat beacuse they know what they are doing.

It's not about being dishonest - it's about knowing what is the path of least resistance to get a result you can sell in the right amount of time.

photographers cheat all the time :)

Art is not about deception, it is the basic application of the tenets of good artistic style and techniques taught to and used by the artist to convey.  The fundamentals of shape, color, and light are basic to all good artistic composition.   When learned and applied, with the addition of experience, which adds ones ability to the end result, makes for the talented, a poetic expression of ones inner sight.

When I create a work of art, it is about how I see and what I feel, not whether I do not have enough experience that I have to deceive.  Deception will corrupt your perception and give you a false sense of accomplishment. 

It would seem you have different perceptions of art.  I do not cheat because I know what I am doing.  I do what I do quickly because of experience, and all that I have learned in the course of achieving what I do quickly.  I do not need to use tricks when I add an additional light that the software does not use, my experience tells me I can do it in a better fashion and get a better view. 

As an old photographer, I never cheat, I compose, alter to show how I see the world through my perception.  That perception was generated through trial and error while learning good habits of the fundamentals of art, and became my particular style and technique.

But, everyone sees the world differently, which would make for an endless subject.

The way I see it, the 'attitude' in the book (and what brought up the subject) is more about how the resulting image is what counts, not which application was used to create it.

It is a reminder that 3D software are tools - that it is with experience and skill that the author of an image knows what tool to use, what technique and sometimes, what shortcut to take to get the result he/she wants without too much aggravation.

For example, if you want a dramatic sky in a Vue scene, you can either take a photograph of a real dramatic sky and integrate it in the background, or spend time tweaking and rendering a spectral sky that fits the scene in your mind. In the end, viewers if your image will not care what you did - they will only care about the result, the picture.

I suppose from one pov, the use of pointlights as fill in a 3D scene could be thought of as "cheating" - if I was using a camera, I'd probably use a bounce card to do the job but neither Vue nor Poser lights "bounce" so I have to get a bit creative :)

If I want to take a photo of icecream using a big studio strobe with a 250W modelling light, I can't actually *use * icecream 'cos it would melt in seconds so I use mashed potato and you really don't want to know some of the things they do to a good steak to make it look edible :)

It's not so much about not having the experience to pull something off, it's more a case of having the experience to know when you have to "assist" nature a bit.  If you don't do much still life photography then those techniques have only a limited use.

One thing I've said before numerous times and no doubt I'll say it again - lighting is crucial to an image - if you screw the lighting up, you might as well toss the render/photo.  Also, if I'm doing a job for someone else, especially if it's for cash then it's the result that matters, they never get to see the making of it :)

The context of the picture is also important.

If you are talking about commercial work, working on a deadline, anything goes as long as you reach the desired result by the deadline. In that case, only the final image counts - not how it was made.

If you are talking about personal, creative work, time is less of a constraint and the pressure to take shortcuts is less important. In that case, both the resulting image and the creative thinking are important, but not necessarily what tool was used.

good point

Use a strong spot light for the basic color and also use point lights of the needed color at a very low setting of 2 or 3 near the object and carefully mix the lights.  

If you understand the five basic components of light when cast on an object; Highlights, Midtones, Shadows, Reflected, Cast Shadows, and Refracted light, you can get pretty close.

My recomendation:

http://www.amazon.com/Painting-Light-John-Alton/dp/0520089499/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195141404&sr=8-1