For those not familiar, a black rose is a very dark purple-red rose with a "dusty" cast. For whatever reason, it was incredibly hard for me to achieve in Poser (without turning the lights up the whole way...lol).

This is what I wound up with. I realize it's a tad velvety, but rose petals are somewhat and that was the trade-off for having a slightly velvety surface and still have detail. There is some petal detail, but it's hard to see, I'll admit that.

I'm sure bb will come along shortly and totally shoot me down in flames: however, I'm still proud of it nonetheless. I've never worked so hard on a texture before...lol. And if it's wrong, it sure wasn't for lack of trying ;o).

Thanks for looking.

Laurie

oh thats fantastic!

Before BB comments, it is gamma corrected?

Do such rose color exist in the real world?

I just wiki and black roses do not exist naturally.  However Laurie, the coloration of a black rose is a very deep red, not purple red as you describe it.  I think we need a reference source to confirm it's actual existence.   

hborre: I'm not sure what you mean by that. My monitor? I don't mean to look stupid, but where in Poser can I correct gamma? (straight Poser 7)

TheOwl: yes, such a color does exist as well as green, blue, purple and every color in between :o).

Laurie

Well, there are some that are sold by florists as "Black Rose".

The Black Magic rose

The Ena Harkness rose

Both, when bred properly, can actually develop a very dark crimson petal, with the flower artifacts giving the effect of "black" color in certain lights.  The color that Laurie has up there isn't that far off. 

Attached Link: http://www.rosenut.com/gallery/roses/Black%20Jade.jpg

Picture at the link (pictures are hard to come by folks - I've looked).

FWIW, the "black" roses look purply red to my eye. I didn't mean they were purple. I meant that they were red with a touch of purple. If I'd meant purple, I'd said red-purple because purple would have been the main color then (take blue-green for instance - it's still green).

There are different levels of darkeness too between the different varieties: some are quite light and some are very dark (like the pic at the link). The dark was what I was going for.

No completely black rose exists in nature that I know of. Black is just the name here, not the actual color.

Laurie

roses in msg 1 appear almost solid black on my monitor (1.8 gamma).
script avail. for GC in version(s) prior to poser pro.  however, suggest waiting and re-render in poser 8, after activating some of the new features mentioned in bill's poser 8 thread, or use poser 7 with IBL, spot and GC script. add refl. node to shader.

Concerning GC, Poser 8 might not be the complete answer to solving the issue.  Laurie, the reason for asking about gamma correction refers to your statement about *dark blobs devoid of detail. * It is rather hard to discern some detail in your render although the roses look splendidly modeled.  Poser 7 renders images linearly without gamma correction.  As a result, there will be a tendency to add more lighting to compensate for the darkness.  Although, miss nancy uses 1.8 gamma for her monitor settings, it is still incorrect because the rest of the digital world (digital cameras, printers, scanners, internet web pages) is standardized to 2.2.  It is frustrating to view a beautifully exposed photo on a MAC and have it print darkly on your printer.  Bantha has up out a script to apply gamma correction to your material in the Material Room.  It can be found here:

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?message_id=3473894&ebot_calc_page#message_3473894

It may help to bring out more detail. 

I am impressed with your shader set up. 

This is a nice shader. I'm not going to shoot you down. LOL

However, hborre is right. When trying to model something that is very dark, you run into difficulties that simply should not exist. The issue is simply that images must be rendered with recognition that dark things appear darker than normal on a computer monitor. All photography equipment takes this into account. Poser 7 does not. However, it can be trained to do so, by gamma correcting the color generated by the shader.

I can't really make out the connection details, but I think I see FastScatter with no attenuation and also some translucence. In Poser, both of these are effectively just adding some self-illumination. In other words, you "manually" gamma corrected the image until it looked right.

Now render it with double light intensity. It will look more than 2x brighter. Or render it with 1/2 light intensity. It will look less than half as bright. This is the result of how computer monitors work.

I don't have a nice rose model to show you how it's done. It just requires 4 more nodes. Then we'd be able to delete some of the nodes you have and come out about the same. The difference would be that it would look right in all forms of lighting.

Attached Link: http://toucan.web.infoseek.co.jp/3DCG/3ds/FlowerModelsE.html

Yes, there is fastscatter with no attenuation and translucence. It was the only way I could get it to look like it had detail ;o). Someone suggested I add a translucency map and attach it to the translucence value node so that the petal would fade a litlte more around the edges.

The rose model is Toucan's roses (free on his site). The red and white ones. In case anyone was wondering... I would like to say I modeled them, but I can't model my way out of a paper bag...lol.

Laurie

Cool - I'll have a look but it will be a while. I have an all day meeting today.

Again, nothing wrong with yours - I like it.

Nice! 

those roses would dress up the Banquet table.

I took my friend's advice and added a translucency map. I also added a tiny bit of transparency and plugged that into the translucency map as well. I changed the main map and changed the fastscatter attenuation to Light and got rid of a couple nodes that were no longer necessary. I think they look better...not nearly as velvety, but still slightly and I got a little bit of fade out on the edges. They have depth. You can also see petal detail now (yay!).

Same lights as before.

LaurieA

Oh, and I forgot to mention before that these are my maps, not the ones that come with the model. I guess I should have said that...

Laurie

Very nice job.  They look outstanding.  A much better render with the new node set up.

Awesome work!

Thanks. Stupid lil me thought about the new setup later on and smacked myself in the head: I can't plug the trans into the translucency map - the trans map has to be reversed...lol. So I fixed that. They look smashing...lol. Render in a bit ;o).

Laurie

I think the shapes are a little too simplistic to be believable, especially on the inner petals.

Here's my WIP.

Quote - I downloaded from where you indicated. It only has one material zone? I had to do some dual-material hackery to be able to change the color fo the petals without changing the color of the leaves and stems. Did you re-map this with new UV's and new materail groups?

I think the shapes are a little too simplistic to be believable, especially on the inner petals.

Here's my WIP.

Actually bb, I had to take it into UVMapper Pro and assign materials ;o). And I did remap it as well, yes. Yours look good tho, of course ;o).

I've gotten permission from Toucan to distribute the models, so when I'm all finished I'll put those and the textures up as freebies. Not even close to being done yet. I plan to to do morphs as well so that the petals and leaves are not all clones of each other.

Laurie

As an aside, I was elated to find that I could apply a slight colored cloud effect to the leaves so that they all look a little different between the leaves when setting the cloud filter to Global. Since they all use the same map, that helped to break them up a bit ;o). I'll admit its very subtle, but anything more distinct was glaringly obvious.

I'm learning a lot with this exercise. It's also been a huge exercise in patience...lmao.

Laurie

Well done! You're getting very sophisticated. Completely procedural leaves are very difficult. The details of the veins really have to be drawn. Using a texture (even if the same everywhere) gets you those details, and the procedural dispels the obvious repetition.

Quote - Well done! You're getting very sophisticated. Completely procedural leaves are very difficult. The details of the veins really have to be drawn. Using a texture (even if the same everywhere) gets you those details, and the procedural dispels the obvious repetition.

There is a texture there bb ;o). I just used the cloud filter in concert with it...lol.

I'm a texture artist, so using a map is nearly always a given with me. It's just that nodes make them so much more, well, realistic and gives them depth that you normally can't get with just a straight map. But thanks anyway! ;o)

Laurie

I think you misunderstood. I was acknowledging the combined use of image map with procedural variation - that's the right approach. Most people don't get that sophisticated.

Ah, gotcha ;o).

Laurie