try it with an IBL.
 its not so bright in the shadow area with those nodes.

try one spot  light and one IBL. then change it in the shader with the smootstep and blender. you will see how it gets darker.

I know what you're saying - yes, there does seem a big difference. Now, here's the thing. In fact I've kept the 3 shaders (so including the blender) connected to the GC AND I've then connected the math function with the smoothstep into the diff reflectivity control - even darker eh. But I'm still getting results I feel are perfectly acceptible (to my eye at least). It's giving me the softness in the terminator that looks correct to my eye in the lower lighting conditions while still holding up with brighter setups. There may be some difference with how we're using lights here.
I think you just need to play and find what works best for you in whatever lighting conditions you're working with.

but how will this work against other materials? for example like a cloth shader. you will use a low IBL lets say 5 %. you skin will in the shadow already be dark. the cloth will be brighter.

will it not stand out?

if we could use the soft terminator and still get normal colors in the dark parts we would win.

Hopefully bb will have time to do an sRGB skin shader which might help.

i dont this the SRGB will make it softer

no, it wouldn't.  what it would do is correct the shader response in very  light and dark areas.  if you notice, carodan's auto level piece makes the highlights stronger, too.  yellow bloom is in about 1/3 the amateur photos i see. it's possible to wash skin or something else out to white in photos and to our eyes.  but i've found it almost impossible to get that bright in the render with straight GC. 

it would still be nice to have carodan's no. 2 softening technique incorporated into the shader, too.

in terms of matching other shaders, like cloth, it seems to me everything needs sRGB conversion the way everything needed GC.  and, to a certain extent, a termination softener.   but that's just my thought/opinion.

i'd be very curious to see how one would script these conversions.  and i'm wondering, is there any possibility of a function node in Poser 8?  it seems silly to have to chain math nodes together instead of just mathematically define a transforming function.  i bet it would simplify tons of shaders.

thats why we  need blur on the nodes ,

we would blur the diffuse node he he :) 

blur would be great. one of those papers someone linked to (you?) shows how SSS should actually blur micro features (like the bump on skin).  it's one of the reasons even the best SSS fake in Poser shows that it's a colored surface if rendered with any bump on the skin at high res.  i don't know if it's actually possible, though.

This next assumption will probably reveal my lack of understanding of the science and math of both RW and simulated SSS, but here goes anyway (my apologies if this is just reiterating what has already been discussed but I just want to get another angle on this). Can't SSS be described in terms of how far, and with what kind of falloff an objects surface will be illuminated beyond the terminator?
What I mean is this. When I've been looking at my VSS renders in an image editor what I typically want to do is to lighten, soften and (in places) add some orangy richness at and beyond that line, to simulate that light has gone beyond the surface responses and travelled through the skin. Given the .gif example above where I noted how with each image the terminator line was creeping further across the model, what I really want is (in a controllable fashion) for that line to creep in the other direction.

Quote - blur would be great. one of those papers someone linked to (you?) shows how SSS should actually blur micro features (like the bump on skin).  it's one of the reasons even the best SSS fake in Poser shows that it's a colored surface if rendered with any bump on the skin at high res.  i don't know if it's actually possible, though.

thats why i made the bump on the skin shader  lower. 
in close ups it looked to dry. thats why i say to much bump on the skin wont make it better. some people think more detail more realistic. well in poser when it comes to skin it doesnt make it better. it makes it look more fake IMO.

now i dont knwo if its really to sharp or what. or am i using wrong lighting. GC is real or not? 

I meant to raise two other things that I'm sure must have been touched upon at some time or another in this thread.
The first is the diffuse maps. I've found myself forever struggling with this in that I keep wanting to make the Apollo maps a lot lighter, more yellow and less saturated in order to play well with VSS skin shaders. I remember bb refering to "dead skin" as an ideal diffuse colouration and this seems to marry with this response to the system. I know we can adjust colouration using parameters within the materials but sometimes it's good to have a direct reference. Is there a visual example of the kind of diffuse maps that would work best with PR3?
Second is exposure - i.e. with respect to camera terminology. I think it's partly the reason why I still feel the need to apply levels in the image editor because what we're rendering in Poser isn't really accounting for this factor. Am I correct here? We're very familiar with human forms as depicted in photographs so in part our response to whether a render is successful or not is with this knowledge as well as our RW visual experience. I was wondering if this is something that needs more consideration.

Quote - I meant to raise two other things that I'm sure must have been touched upon at some time or another in this thread.
The first is the diffuse maps. I've found myself forever struggling with this in that I keep wanting to make the Apollo maps a lot lighter, more yellow and less saturated in order to play well with VSS skin shaders. I remember bb refering to "dead skin" as an ideal diffuse colouration and this seems to marry with this response to the system. I know we can adjust colouration using parameters within the materials but sometimes it's good to have a direct reference. Is there a visual example of the kind of diffuse maps that would work best with PR3?
Second is exposure - i.e. with respect to camera terminology. I think it's partly the reason why I still feel the need to apply levels in the image editor because what we're rendering in Poser isn't really accounting for this factor. Am I correct here? We're very familiar with human forms as depicted in photographs so in part our response to whether a render is successful or not is with this knowledge as well as our RW visual experience. I was wondering if this is something that needs more consideration.

i will make now some test renders. i think we think the same. 

just a bit to say: but lessening the bump isn't really the answer.  it's not that the bump needs to be less, but that it needs to be less defined.  there's a big difference.  again, it's in one of the linked documents.  it also shows the blurred edges (like the nostril, edge of the lips, etc.), and it's lack really keeps Poser items looking worlds less realistic than anything else that has true SSS.  at least when you render at the resolutions i do (2400px+).

as for exposure, etc., i'd say if you're talking about adjusting curves, gamma, or levels then you're talking about the transform (GC, sRGB, or whatever).  i suspect that just about any adjustment you could make to the color space in Photoshop you could do with nodes because it's basically a mathematical transform.  you might show screen shots of the adjustments you're making, because bagginsbill might be interested in building that kind of adjustable power into the shader.

adjustments are always different. you are basicly playing in photoshop to get the look you want.
if you would do this in poser you would have to whait for the render. if you are using 4-5 lights with AO you would whait a long for a small change in color.

Quote - just a bit to say: but lessening the bump isn't really the answer.  it's not that the bump needs to be less, but that it needs to be less defined.  there's a big difference.  again, it's in one of the linked documents.  it also shows the blurred edges (like the nostril, edge of the lips, etc.), and it's lack really keeps Poser items looking worlds less realistic than anything else that has true SSS.  at least when you render at the resolutions i do (2400px+).

as for exposure, etc., i'd say if you're talking about adjusting curves, gamma, or levels then you're talking about the transform (GC, sRGB, or whatever).  i suspect that just about any adjustment you could make to the color space in Photoshop you could do with nodes because it's basically a mathematical transform.  you might show screen shots of the adjustments you're making, because bagginsbill might be interested in building that kind of adjustable power into the shader.

so more soft? should i blur the bump map a little? 

BB could we have extra specular with an reflection map connected to the shader? 
here i a soft map of blue sky. could we somehow connect thsi in the skin shader to give it some extra specular from thesky? it would e very low.
i was thinking in using specularnode as a matte for the shadows .

we could also paint a window and then use it .

could this work? 

A Specular node would not work - it only first when the surface is aimed correctly at a light. This would make your environmental specular only show up where a real light also is. That's not the right way.

What you want is to set this up just like any reflection map. Connect a Sphere_Map node to the Image. Then you have to add that into the shader somewhere. I suggest just before the gamma correcting Pow node. Insert a Color_Math:Add(white, white). Move what goes into the GC node into Value_1. Connect your Sphere_Map into Value_2. Then connect this Add node to the GC node.

If you want to be more correct, you'd run the Sphere_Map into an Edge_Blend (both inputs) and make the Inner_Color be darker than the outer color. Experiment with the falloff.

I did this in another thread long ago:

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?message_id=3089289&ebot_calc_page#message_3089289

But it wasn't convincing. I know why now - I didn't have GC.

Quote - A Specular node would not work - it only first when the surface is aimed correctly at a light. This would make your environmental specular only show up where a real light also is. That's not the right way.

What you want is to set this up just like any reflection map. Connect a Sphere_Map node to the Image. Then you have to add that into the shader somewhere. I suggest just before the gamma correcting Pow node. Insert a Color_Math:Add(white, white). Move what goes into the GC node into Value_1. Connect your Sphere_Map into Value_2. Then connect this Add node to the GC node.

If you want to be more correct, you'd run the Sphere_Map into an Edge_Blend (both inputs) and make the Inner_Color be darker than the outer color. Experiment with the falloff.

I did this in another thread long ago:

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?message_id=3089289&ebot_calc_page#message_3089289

But it wasn't convincing. I know why now - I didn't have GC.

i was thinking in matching the lights with the specular from the environment image. 

i was thinking in using the specular node because it doesnt react with IBL and because i would get shadows from the arms,head,.....
like how you did the material AO remember? 

OK I see where you're going. You plan to place some specular-only lights in key places that correspond with bright areas of the environment. You use a blurred copy of the environment image to generate soft specular reflections, but you don't want them to trigger if something is in the way. That makes sense.

The way you did it has problems, though. First you have no respect in there for the Fresnel effect. The amount of reflection should be modulated by the viewing angle. Use a Blinn node instead, because it will do the right thing.

Second, this seems to be a GC shader, but you did not include the soft specular in the GC, which will make its relative intensity completely dependent on the color of the object. Instead, you should take the Sum of (Diffuse + Blinn + SoftBlinn(Sphere_Map)) into your final GC Pow node. That means inserting another Color_Math:Add and connecting the existing Diffuse+Blinn to the SoftBlinn(Sphere_Map).

By SoftBlinn, I mean another Blinn node with very soft and wide specular effect. You don't need to set up a separate multiply to combine this with the Sphere_Map. Just plug the Sphere_Map into the Specular_Color of this Blinn node. That is multiplying the input with the specular effect.

we could alos use an AO as a matte right? 

lets say that i am using a blury panorama for specular. that means that the specular is blury wich means that a sharp shadow should not be inftont of it. maybe an AO would be better since it is like  super soft shadow? 

Not really. Imagine a sphere with your soft specular effect on it. As you look at the top of the sphere, you see the sky behind it, but blurred. Now imagine placing a wall between the sphere and sky, several feet away. AO will not detect this wall, but the wall should block the specular reflection (soft or not) of the sky behind the wall.

Quote - Not really. Imagine a sphere with your soft specular effect on it. As you look at the top of the sphere, you see the sky behind it, but blurred. Now imagine placing a wall between the sphere and sky, several feet away. AO will not detect this wall, but the wall should block the specular reflection (soft or not) of the sky behind the wall.

you are correct.

so would a wide blinn be good enough? or do you have any ideas?

thanks

Quote - how about this? 

i did this wrong. but i dont know why is it wrong. the panorama gets gamma corrected. 

You need to anti-gamma the image first, just like in my VSS shaders.

Send the image through a Color_Math:Pow.Value_1, and connect Value_2 to the number 2.2.

aha that was missing.

I was wondering what to do about the inner mouth with VSS PR3 shader. Should I just use Template skin with higher PM:Shine? Something tells me it's not that easy though.

GeneralNutt,

I included a dumb shader for Template InnerMouth because I'm just not sure how to handle it. I've been unclear on what's the best way to deal with this area. I've not had good success with AO and haven't spent any time on working out what to do.

The problem is with IBL - if you're using a lot of IBL, the inner mouth lights up big time. AO should take care of it, but it behaves strangely - you end up with serious darkening between the teeth, or not enough darkening inside.

I think you should try the skin shader on it and see what happens, just as you said, boosting PM:Shine for the wet look. Let us know how it works.

bagginsbill what would be the easiest wayto make a specific VSS prop only for apollo maximus.

i want to have a body ''zone'' and a face one. so when i want to do some cahnges i only need to change two materials. for the face and for the body.
in need to go in the VSS prop right? 

delete everything and make new rules with AM names? 

Quote - bagginsbill what would be the easiest wayto make a specific VSS prop only for apollo maximus...

I got this one BB.

My horse sample on page 27 gives all the instructions to "design" for a specific model, or material zone.

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?thread_id=2737823&page=27

thanks i will try

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?thread_id=2772463&page=2#message_3454316

I posted the other day on how to separate out some skin materials to use a different template.

Look at the "Shader Rules" material - that defines all the words that are matched by names of materials, and links those words to templates using Copy XYZ nodes.

This was also what jdredline did.

I don't remember which rule is matching what in Apollo. The important thing to remember is when more than one rule matches, the longest rule wins.

So skin and face are the same length, which wins? I don't know.

Make a rule for your specific material zone (without any * in the rule) and it will win no matter what.

That should work. I would not have made two new material zones, just one for the face. Then all the other stuff would stay the same. but this works.

now testing new skin shaders will be faster. for exmaple if i add a panorama image.

i mean i understand what Antont wanted with those material zones. but now there are to many. beard and face could be together. torso and body could also be together.

this is how i connected the specular. but i get a hard edge with a rim light. very strange.

looks like from the fastscatter node

oh, you don't want to use fastscatter in general.  i think it's backside SSS, not front.  and it doesn't work properly.  i've seen it used well with a mask for extremities (ears), but it works wrong in all kinds of ways on the body.  last i'd seen, bagginsbill still advised against using it.