Thanks. Downloading now. It's getting late and I have to go to work early tomorrow, and I have an all-day meeting on Wednesday - hectic. But I'll be back.

 its no big rush - i have a lot more to do with the character before she's ready to go for sale. i'm grateful you are taking the time to help me out =) thank you !

I know what the problem is. It will take some time and many pictures to fully explain for the general public, but perhaps in the meantime you can make progress with a quick explanation here.

Your specular map is giving bad data to the shader. The specular map is supposed to represent how shiny the surface at each point. When you have a surface that is supposed to be modeled as a single material with uniform characteristics, you don't really need a specular map.

But - skin is shiny, mascara is not. Any form of powderized makeup is less shiny than skin, and mascara is particularly designed to be matte. Yet your specular map is uniformly gray on the eyelid. The lightening you see is simply a result of that information - the whole eyelid is shiny like skin.

You should draw the mascara onto the specular map in black. And the eye shadow should be drawn much darker than the skin parts on the spec map. Your spec map is slightly darker on the eyelids, so the lids are somewhat less shiny than, for example, the forehead, but not by much, and it is still uniform.

The spec map must indicate the shine level accurately. Until you do that, it will present the wrong amount of specular. You have four different real-world materials on the face and your spec map doesn't capture that at all. The four materials are skin, eye shadow, mascara, and lipstick/gloss.

You have an even more unusual incorrect spec map on the lip area. There is a highlight drawn on the lip. This produces a very strange specular effect. The lips should be uniformly more shiny than the skin, if your intent is that they lips look like lipstick/gloss or wet lips. Dry lips should be the same specularity as normal skin.

 Ok I get it - no extra pics needed for me. I didn't even think about the spec map playing a role - good thing i sent that in!

I will edit them and see how things work out. Thanks so much for taking a look!

It worked - So awesome. Thank you BB you are my hero :D

Regarding the tattoo, I'd need to see what you have on the spec map there.

A tattoo is color inside the skin, not on the surface like makeup. So the specularity of that area should not in any way change just because there is a tattoo there (unless you want it to be a "fresh" new tattoo.)

The faded look of tattoos actually is a result of the thin epidermis that is above it, producing a slight washed-out look as well as the normal skin specular effect. In the comparison you showed above, the tattoo with VSS on it looks normal to me - more realistic than the other one.

However, if you really want it to be more contrasty, then you should make the color map more contrasty. Don't build the faded look into the color map. Let the specularity take care of that.

A color map should have the true diffuse color of the material in it, not including any effect that is produced by the surface specularity or other effects.

In order for the shader to really do its job, you have to design each of the maps to really indicate the truth about that aspect. Color, bump, shine, these all have to be accurate by themselves. Accuracy in this case means they should not look right by themselves. They will look right when all effects are combined. Any attempt to make them look right before the shader does its job will make the shader produce incorrect output.

 The tattoo map isn't one of mine so I don't have source files to correct it. But what you've said does make sense and it already started a little faded into the skin. I think its a compromise some vendors make to accommodate their buyers that aren't chasing perfection.  You've made me very conscious of the extra aspects of my products. Thanks so much again :D

Glad it's working. You fixed it damn fast. Wish I could draw like you.

 Haw. You're funny.

Got the lips and eyeshadow/liner parts fixed on the spec map and here's a render. Nevermind the dumb IDL artifacts giving her extra junk under her lashes :/ I can't figure out how to balance that. Its either on her lip crease or under her eyelash when i play with IC and Samples

(max IC )

min IC: 

Are you using the standard render settings dialog, or the D3D Render Firefly?

What values are you using? Can you show a screen shot of the dialog? 

I've never seen that stuff under the eyelash.

 these are my settings for the IDL:

the Min IC is the render with the fubared lips, when i max IC out, it gives me the eyelashes.

Umm - I was looking for what setting, not the word "max". The max is actually 95, based on what you get from the regular dialog set to 100. Were you using 100 in D3D?

no IDL on this render but thats what it looks like with no makeup/liner. sent PM with lash map

Quote - Umm - I was looking for what setting, not the word "max". The max is actually 95, based on what you get from the regular dialog set to 100. Were you using 100 in D3D?

Yeap, all the way over.

2024 samples / 95.0 IC

That's very strange. I'm doing a test render now at IC=95. You must have a screaming fast machine. I have never had my settings so high and it's taking forever.

A previous test with Samples=500 and IC=60 did not produce a problem with that lash map.

Are you using render GC or shader GC?

Are you using texture filtering on the lash map?

If you're using render GC, did you tell Poser not to use render gamma on the lash trans map, but to use gamma = 1 instead?

I did Samples = 1000 / IC = 50 and it looks ok on the lashes & lips, but you can still see a faint darker shadow on the lower lid from the eyelashes Lower settings just mutes it some.. but then I will add some form of clothing and hair and some other artifact will crop up LOL.

its quad-core and 64bit. It does render pretty fast. When i first started tinkering with IDL it was like, 4-5 hours per test render. Now if I add hair and clothes and max out the settings its 2 hours.

Render GC - not material.
lash filtering is set to 'quality'.

The lash map doesn't have a gamma network hooked into it. its a straight trans map.

Your lashes appear less dense than my render because

a) you're using render GC
b) render GC includes (by default) anti-gamma correction of any incoming texture unless you tell it otherwise (nothing to do with a GC network - it's built into the renderer)
c) you didn't tell it otherwise

Because Poser Pro render GC is anti-GC'ing your texture, it makes dark things darker, thus the somewhat transparent areas become close to completely transparent.

There's nothing wrong with that - it's just another factor to keep in mind. In fact, it's a factor that should have helped avoid what you're seeing. I was going to tell you that the lash map is very dense. Near the base it's almost completely opaque. But regardless, you should't get the occlusion shadow you're seeing.

But until I can reproduce it, I'm clueless as to why you're getting it.

Whoa! I just noticed you only have one IDL bounce. Are you doing that in all cases?

Just a thought, and maybe completely irrelevant... 

Why is the "Light" showing green in the D3D render settings?
Doesn't this mean there is AO somewhere? AO plus transparency can give some strange shadow artifacts, if I recall correctly.

Edit....  oh, never mind, if it's light-based AO it's ignored anyway.

 Well that explains why I made it so dense. lol. My first go at it they were very faint ( while rendering with Render GC ) and I was like, blah she's balding on her eyelids. So I worked on the map somemore and tried to make them thicker. In your render they are slut-thick LOL. Its a good thing You showed me or I would've been going 'wth did these people do to my girl!!"

I switched to Shader GC from Render GC and I no longer get the grubby lower lid problem.

So Then - i Need to disable GC on the eyelash if I want to use Render GC then... How would I go about telling poser to not GC the eyelash ?

Quote - Just a thought, and maybe completely irrelevant... 

Why is the "Light" showing green in the D3D render settings?
Doesn't this mean there is AO somewhere? AO plus transparency can give some strange shadow artifacts, if I recall correctly.

Edit....  oh, never mind, if it's light-based AO it's ignored anyway.

You are right. I was using a different light set ( i had IDL disabled at the time of the screenshot ) that was using AO on a light. My IDL settings were the same as before, I had just unchecked the IDL in default Render Dialog and switched out my lightset.

ETA: you only need to do it once for each image map, and Poser will remember to never anti-GC it.

 Duh. I've seen that thing a thousand times now and I just never made a mental note. Thanks =)

Quote - I switched to Shader GC from Render GC and I no longer get the grubby lower lid problem.

Whaaat!?! I switched to render GC and I'm still not getting it. I'm mystified.

I may have to do more to match your lighting setup. I'm just using my usual test setup - a plain white IBL and one infinite. Are you using my soft studio setup? 

Yep SoftStudio. The weird thing is precal IDL render shows the super dark shadows under her lids, but once its renders its gone.

Material GC / 1.0 GC on Eyelash

its there a little bit ... whereas before it was SUPER dark at these settings.

( eyelashes would be so much easier to morph if they were their own 'bodypart' instead of stuck on V4's face. her inner eyelash is so tiny I cant even get to it to morph it with morph tool / magnets. )

 From what I just tested ( 1000 Samples 95 IC ) the shadow has nothing to do with samples, but with the IC itself. It was completely unchanged between the 2 renders.

2024 Samples 50 IC looks well enough on the eyelash and the lip area. If the artifacts are there its too hard to see anyway. Not sure how well it performs in a full scene not focused on a bald V4.

vex, if lash not already a group on poser figure's head, it can be made a group using group editor.
create new group, rename new group, add material (e.g. upper or lower lash).
then mag zone for head can be restricted to lash group, whence mag will only affect said group.
unfortunately it tends to move the lash around a bit.

p.s. setting IDL IC to 100 means there's no pre-calc (interp.), in case anybody asks.
these things are feasible on fastest macs with 10.6.x.

 Ooooh something more to test then.

THANK YOU for the tip about the eyelashes. They are driving me crazy now. 

Quote - vex, if lash not already a group on poser figure's head, it can be made a group using group editor.
create new group, rename new group, add material (e.g. upper or lower lash).
then mag zone for head can be restricted to lash group, whence mag will only affect said group.
unfortunately it tends to move the lash around a bit.

Its not adding a new bodypart when I do this. I can't even make the eyelash part red on V4 in the group editor.

Guess its a bust for V4 :/

Hi there.

Thanks to Vex ^^ I've started using your vss shader with outstanding results.  However, I've recently came across an interesting problem when using it in conjunction with Shana's Scarred Vol I - http://market.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/index.php?ViewProduct=79088&vendor=327115

I'm not sure what you need to see or know, but suffice it to say, when I use the VSS shader along with her product, the end result is a beautiful render without her product showing.  Either way I load it:  vss then product or product then vss, it just won't show up.

Anyone else experiencing this type of problem with overlays?  Thanks.

I do not have the said product but it is a python scripy which appears to create specific shader nodes to convey wounds and scars.  Unfortunately, if you apply first then VSS, VSS will overwrite the product nodes.  The other way around, the product may have problems detecting image map textures within VSS unusual node arrangements.  You will need to examine both node arrangements and figure out where to connect wounds/scars nodes within VSS.  It will also mean that the network will need to be reworked to intergrate the two.

Sounds like it would be easier to apply the scars to the texture in your favoite paint app and save them out.

Quote -  hmmm maybe if there were a python script to automatically add a letter to the front of a name, like semidieu's scripts where there are checkboxes, and you can check all, uncheck the ones you don't want and invert.  That could possibly help.

You could do this by first saving the scene PZ3, then adding the letter with a simple search and replace command in something like Notepad++ - say you'd call everything VSSMAT at the end, a replace of .jpg to _VSSMAT.jpg would add those letters to all jpg images.

That is, if it's enough that those letters are present IN the file name. If they have to be at the start of the name, I think it can be done, too.. I'm just not sure of the exact way of writing it. But this works at least to add those letters at the end :)

I don't have this product but you should be able to use this by adding a blend node.  I´ve added tattoos by using blend nodes with VSS.  I've attached a mini tut that explains how I did it.  Maybe you can use it for your situation...

Vestmann's modifications will work very well within VSS and is a very simple way of applying defined texture and masking maps.  However, be aware that additional product shaders which apply bruising and discoloration may need some forethought before making correct node connections.

 Actually it's much much simpler: As long as the textures of the cars, tattoos, etc, are on a white background, all you gotta do is plug in the image map into the Color Tint node. That's it. Color tint multiplies the Diffuse color map with the plugged in image map, so the white will appear as the skin and the scars/tattoos will appear correctly overlayed on the skin.

I agree that is simpler, but the result is different. In the above image, the original tattoo is underneath, top left is Multiplying and top right is Blending with a mask. (I generated the mask within the shader, and the edges are not quite right).

Multiplying darkens the original diffuse colour by the colour depth of the tattoo, whereas Blending retains the brightness of each image map. With the bright colours in this tattoo, both are okay; but they are quite different.

 Because it is multiplying the non white colors, just like in real life. Bagginsbill is the oen that taught me the technique.

 The important thing though is to place these nodes in the right place within the VSS node system...

Quote -  Because it is multiplying the non white colors, just like in real life. Bagginsbill is the oen that taught me the technique.

Yes, I'm not disputing that it's a valid technique. But real life does not always multiply colours, it can overlay too. Bagginsbill also teaches the blending technique.

And there is a tutorial by BB using the technique IsaoShi mentions for applying tattoos.  Posted around 2007.

 I actually asked BB about that in a PM a while back, and eh said that 2007 technique is actually identical tot he technique he outlined to me (which I passed to you). 

Okay, I'm not arguing with you.
These are two different techniques. Neither of them is right or wrong. I was simply pointing out the difference between them.
Let's just leave it at that, shall we?

 It was a reply to hborre's comment.

 What BB told me:

If we blend as in that tutorial, we do:

A: Blend(S, T * S, f) = (1-f) * S + f * T * S

If we use Texture_Strength equal to f, we have:

B: S * Blend(1, T, f)

I will now prove that these two setups are the same:

B
{ substitute definition of B }
= S * Blend(1, T, f)
{ substitute the definition of Blend }
= S * ((1-f) * 1 + f * T)
{ (1-f) * 1 = 1 - f }
= S * ((1 - f) + f * T)
{ distribution of multiplication over addition }
= (1 - f) * S + f * T * S
{ definition of A }
= A

Voila. B = A.

   Hi! I have been playing with VSS3 and Bagginsbill's Beach Light from the Studio Render Scene-using BB's envirosphere with an HDR mapped. I must say it it THE most realistic lighting I have seen in Poser (PoserPro2010). It even shows the ear reddening you see when they are exposed to bright light- or so it seems.

I will be an EARLY adopter when BB sells the Pro Version!

   I am attaching an image _ I realised that the VSS3 synchro made the eyes flat- so I added specularity and slight reflection to the Iris, Sclera and pupil. The TEETH are the real problem!
 
  Any suggestions????

You are using PoserPro 2010 which automatically includes gamma correction = 2.2 in it's render engine.  Did you reset VSSProp's Gc to 1 before synchronization?  I think that is what we are seeing with the teeth.  The nodes are found in most of the shaders.  Also, what are your light intensities and are you using IDL?

 You might still want to adjust the Gamma end the SSS value to get rid of the glow under her right arm and also where her arm touches her thigh.   You render looks beautiful btw.