Good = a set that has a number of lighting options

Easy = examples of what the specific lighting will/should look like when renedered

Is there a good/easy to understand light set out there for Poser 8?

Lighting is always a challenge for me, and it is only after numerous time consuming light placements, edits and moving - and then rendering them - that I might find the right lighting. What I'm looking for is a set that helps me cut the time way down in finding that perfect lighting for my scene and character. Can anyone recommend one that really works for you? I have Poser 8.

Your best bet is to learn how lights work in general. Light sets don't always supply what you need. Sometimes it's better to make what you need ;).

I use Advanced Light and Camera guides from RDNA to place my lights and actually SEE the area of influence each light has. Helps a lot :). I've fiddled and fiddled with a light only to find that the distance wasn't enough to reach the object I was trying to light. Advanced Light and Camera guides helps with that.

Laurie

All you really need is one infinite light in the 80-90 range and maybe one diffuse that's really low (I keep mine at 5) for starters.

Quote - All you really need is one infinite light in the 80-90 range and maybe one diffuse that's really low (I keep mine at 5) for starters.

Thank you, but 80-90 what? And what about position, colors and all the other settings (intensity, red, blue, green, scale,etc) that go with that. Diffuse? Placed where? Same questions.

And as far as the Advanced Light at RDNA, do you have a link to it. Can't seem to find it.

Thank you.

With the newer lighting systems in both regular and Pro series Poser, older sets are becoming completely obsolete.  IBL is being replaced by IDL, multiple lights are dwindling down to absolute minimums for more realistic results, and lower intensities  oupled with light emitting objects are becoming more the standard.  An excellent way to learn lighting, observe your surroundings and imitate lighting as found in natural and manmade environments.  Too often, artists ignore the very basics of light placement and intensities.  That's why many gallery images have lighting coming from below in outdoor settings which is both unrealistic and unflattering.

Find some good books on photographic lighting and read 'em :biggrin:

Seriously - it's much better to roll your own lights than rely on someone elses idea of what looks good.  See if you can find a copy of [Digital] Lighting and Rendering by Jeremy Birn (of Pixar I think) - you can get it off Amazon I think.  Not everything will apply to Poser but a lot of the principles etc. are universal

What do you all think of Rim lights?

http://www.runtimedna.com/Rim-Light-Studio.html

Sorry, but I'm trying to get this resolved, so I have questions.

Not sure I understand the IDL concept, but looking at a few products at RDNA I'm wondering what the difference is between DL Studio Expansion 2 and DL Studio Expansion 1.

Also, do you need to get their Vanilla Sky VFour to make it look like their renders show?

No, you wouldn't need that character particularly. In theory anyway

I think it was in another thread that you were contemplating which way to go with Poser (or possibly another 3D app). Poser 8 is a bit of an interim version in terms of lighting. For a minimal investment, I'd be going to P  9 and then you can take advantage of what HBorre was referring to: the simpler the better.

Older versions of Poser depended on a lot of kludges in order to light scenes believeably. As you move up the Poser versions, those kludges no longer apply: indeed, you're going to find them a nuisance. Unfortunately, a lot of vendors - I can't speak for the products you mentioned, but still - will continue to stay with an older way of doing things because it's what they know.

You're probably not going to find shortcuts in buying stuff: as frankT said... you're best off getting your head around what you want to achieve, gets some books or do a google on lighting or have a look on here and get your head around proper lighting techniques.

Remember: the world we live in has an atmosphere. When we photograph out-of-doors, we are also photographing that atmosphere. In Poser, without anything in the scene, you're basically in outer space: no atmosphere. For outdoor scenes, I always use a skydome (Bagginsbill's is about the best) and IDL at reasonably good quality. 1 light, infinite, 80 - 90 intensity, raytraced shadows. You might want to do a search on ray-trace and user Bagginsbill on this forum: he's written copious amounts of information on achieving consistently good lighting using ray-tracing and why depth-mapped shadows have gone the way of the rumble seat.

End of the day: save yourself some money and read a lot on this forum and DNA's... lots of stuff on lighting for free!

IDL (Indirect Lighting) is simply bounced light. If you shine a bright light on a shiny mug, the mug will reflect that light onto another surface, even if the mug itself isn't casting light - like real light does. The mug doesn't even have to be shiny. If it was just a dull white matte it would still reflect light. It's what causes shadows to be somewhat lit rather than deep, dark black blobs :P

Laurie

IIRC, there was a "fix" around the time of Poser 4 to sort of simulate this by making all objects in a scene have a tiny amount of ambient.  Of course, it's hopelessly wrong but that's all there was back then.

I'm stuck with P6 and IBL for now. :( 

Thanks for the wisdom, RobynsVeil. I know that is a good way to go, but for me time is of the essence, so at this point I'm really hesitant to spend a lot of time discovering how to know the intricacies of lighting when others have been down that route with applications to help. I know in the long run, you are absolutely correct.

Yes, I wondered about Daz Studio, but have decided to stay with Poser. I know it best and have invested money into it as well.

So, since I'm trying to be more on the fast track (and hopefully learn later) do you, or anyone know, if the Advanced Lights and Camera script (http://www.runtimedna.com/Advanced-Lights-and-Camera-Guides.html) works with IDL lights? This tool seems to show, more in a graphical way, light range and placement better than Poser 8 does.

The main problem I have is knowing where the lights have their effect, where they are placed and their effect on the character.

And, I'm not sure if upgrading to Poser 9 will help me that much with lighting. Will it?

From the ad:

Features:

Precise guides for spot lights.
Precise guides for point lights
Precise guides for cameras

Automatic update, manual update
Low, medium or high resolution
Lots of options, like display style, visibility.

Product Includes:

One script for the guides.
One Poser 8 specific graphical user interface.
One scripts menu launcher (+ another for Poser 8)
One launcher cr2
etc Detailed documentation

Since this is for spot lights and point lights (as opposed to infinite lights) I'd say that it doesn't address IDL specifically, because you set IDL in your render settings, not in your lights.

Dunno - I don't use this product (I thought LaurieA did, tho?). I really don't give IDL very much thought, since it's just something I use to give whatever scene more "there-ness" ... so I just have it set up in my render settings and that's it.

Hate to say it: to gedt decent renders in Poser, there are no shortcuts. You sort-of have to read a bit. Try the lighting suggestions I gave you above if you're doing an outdoor scene:

Image is clickable. And skin shine is low... I'm aware of it... going to change it in the shader (using matmatic).

As a for-instance: I just used whatever default settings I had for shadows...

Ray-trace
SBR: 4
Shadow samples: 19
SMB: .18

Please don't forget... I'm no expert - just gonna mess with it a bit, so:

Ray-trace
SBR: 2
Shadow samples: 60
SMB: .18

Instead of changing the specularity value of the skin from .8 (which in matmatic is just a matter of changing a number in a script and recompiling to mc6s), I decided to leave it and just add a spec light, which is trivial to do: duplicate your existing light, and in the material room set the diffuse colour pure black. Then, set intensity to 40% and turn shadows off for that light. I also took the main light's intensity down from 100% to 92%.

Like I said, just messing. Until you get really comfortable with all the settings - which I most assuredly am NOT! - Poser is really not your quick-image solution. I still find myself taking days over an ordinary scene like this one:

Oh, there's still a lot to do... but you can see change.

There is only one good Light set: That is the one YOU make YOURself for YOUR Poser version.

Let me explain that:

Any Light set, made, built and or sold before Poser 8 vaporises whenever you click IDL to ON.

Any light set that includes an IBL light is for the trash can.
Any light set that includes any AO is for the trash can next to the first trash can.

Any light set made for NO gamma corection disintegrades into dust the moment you put gamma corection on. (FYI Poser8 has NO Gamma corection)

You see??
There are too many variables.

Then??

Inside or outside scene?
What is in the scene?
What light do you need??

What render setings will YOU use?

Short cut: There is no ideal light set.

Long cut? Poser8 you asked?

Poser 8 has IDL so always use IDL in your renders.  => => But the light changes as you have more objects in your scene. More objects giving more diffusing-reflections, so more indirect light.

When using IDL, do yourself a favor: NEVER -EVER to use any IBL light and or any AO on materials or lights.

Your have the "real thing" , you have IDL.
You do not need to fake any more with IBL and AO.

It is like having a wife and a mistress. ( Well, euh) But know that wifes and mistresses have a nasty habbit of fighting each other.  OK. 

For outside renders, use BB's free sphere and ONE Single Infinite true white light at 55% That is more light then you"ll ever need in any outside scene. => You can go as low as 25%.

The best light is ONE single infinite light. => There is only ONE sun out there. And the sun is an infinite light.

For inside scenes, well there just are too many variables. There is no ideal solution.

Most problems come from IDL renders with IBLights and or AO in light or material.
Second most commoin error in IDL scenes is wanting to use too many lights.

Look around you.... And let IDL ( true In Direct Light do its thing at render time as it does in real life.

Conclusion?
Any light setup is only good for your current Poser verson, your current scene, using your current render settings.

Let's see some tests:

PP 2012: IDL on, SSS on, Gc on. Two Lights: one diffuse, one point

Save all pics and put them in a single folder so that you can better compare them.

Conclusion:

1. For outside renders, IDL only makes shadows darker. Any "color bleed" isn't noticeable.

(Unless you do "neon lights at night" type renders.)

1. For background figures, lack of SSS is hardly noticeable.

(You can notice a slight difference at the eyes)

1. You can get a very decent render out of older Poser versions without GC using just old fashioned infinite lights. 

(Speed is exactly the same, too)

Is it a good thing to have SSS and IDL and GC ?

Yes, NOW that PP 2012 can handle all this stuff properly, my default scene has GC and SSS enabled.

But there is still and never was a reason to get all uppity and declare any other lightning techniques obsolete.

If you don't now what you're doing, neither GC nor SSS nor IDL won't help you.

"If you don't now what you're doing, neither GC nor SSS nor IDL won't help you."

Trying to parse this... and failing.

Sorry for appearing "uppity". By all means, listen to Joe! Buy all the lights you can get ahold of. He's right.

*Very good examples JoePublic.

"But there is still and never was a reason to get all uppity and declare any other lightning technique obsolete."

*Oh no, IBL and AO are not obsolete.
But they are the "old way" of faking some sort of IDL.

If you render with IDL, it is better to NOT havve an IBL or any AO. ( AO is internally ignored anyway when IDL is set to ON)

But for some creative scenes they are still usefull.
Just do not render with IDL then and stay with Poser7 techniques.

Ps, my default scene is within BB's shere, with One true white infinite light at 55%, and my default render is with IDL and with GC, but without SSS.

SSS that is very noticable for close-ups, but looses its effect the further your figure is in the scene.

Continuing with my "uppity" explanations of my messing around with lighting and shaders:

This is with a specular light on... notice the steps. BTW, GC on all of these images. Using the Poppy morph by A_ at 70%.

Then, I took the specularity value from .8 to 1.2 in the skin shader and turned the spec light off:

Again, I'm certainly no expert, nor was I intending to put on airs. I was merely showing how simple doing one's own lights really is. If I can do it, pretty much anyone can. I'm as logic/lighting/colour/you-name-it challenged as they come. But, I'm probably wrong: purchased lights probably are better for this scene:

Here IDL makes sense as there is strong color bleeding noticeable.

As for easyness: I don't think the "new" lights are easier than the "old" ones. Yes, you need less lights to get a decently lit scene, but you lack the immediate feedback of the OpenGL preview.

(The "new and improved" real time shadow OpenGL preview of PP 2012 is a joke)

There are ways building a true WYSIWYG Gamma Corrected lightset, but it's not exactly intuitiv or newbie friendly.

The best way would be for SM to ship some actually DECENT lightsets with Poser that people can use out of the box and later modify once they feel more comfortable.

Just a few corrections/additions.

• IDL = Indirect Diffuse Lighting - Note: there is no specular component.

• IDL isn't just bounced light, it also covers object based lighting (from P8 up), such as using an environment sphere with an ambient material.

• Quote JoePublic -

"Conclusion:

1. For outside renders, IDL only makes shadows darker. Any "color bleed" isn't noticeable.

(Unless you do "neon lights at night" type renders.)"

I'm a little confused at this, and I may be wrong, but in my tests IDL only lightens shadows by bouncing the diffuse component of ordinary lights.

• Since IDL only deals with the diffuse component of adding light to a scene, it may be necessary to add extra specular only lights (i.e. lights with the diffuse colour set to black). This is particularly the case when using an environment sphere as a primary light source, with the exception that in P9/PP2012 we can now use faster blurred reflections in combination with the fresnel node (although this isn't perfect or fully controllable). This all adds to render time though, and issues can arise with occlusion artifacts from near/intersecting geometry.

To add to the general consensus, there is no one 'correct' way to light a scene although IMO for realism some are better than others.

It is important to learn and understand the concepts of lighting a scene in 3d and specifically with the systems included in any given app. There are still workarounds that we need to employ in cetain circumstances, and you'll only understand what and when by learning and experimenting.

To add further, lighting isn't just about the lights you use but also your material setups.

For instance, use an old style skin setup (which often includes an ambient/translucent component) with IDL and you'll end up with glowing skin. Might be just what you're looking for as an artistic effect, but for realism it'll look odd.

You've got to consider the whole scene and what you're trying to achieve.

I'm not arguing but I don't see this on my machine. (Intel I5, Nvidia Geforce)

Here is a night lit scene with IDL, SSS and GC. All objects and figures are light emitter enabled. PP 2012 with SR1.

Four lights: One diffuse (6%), one infinite (70%) for shadows and specular and two additional point lights for the lanterns.

Ok, I think I see what you're saying.

I'm assuming that that shadows arn't enabled on all your lights (is this what you mean by saying 1 infinite for shadows, that the other lights have shadows disabled?).

IDL will force the occlusion for all the lights in the scene unless you exclude them from raytracing. Thus the scene will look darker.

If this is the case then you're kind of using a combination of old and new approaches to lighting your scene, in that you're using some of the lights to add extra fill to the shadows.

I actually quite like the depth of the first render.

You got me worried now that IDL might be multiplying the effect of shadows with it's own occlusion. Haven't got time to test right now.

The diffuse is shadow disabled (Of course).

The infinite "sun" (Or moon in this case) has shadows enabled set to 100%.

The two lantern point lights have shadows enabled, too.

I've seen things go wonky when I tried IDL with non-GC-multiple infinite lights lightsets where the shadow strenght of the sun was set to 120% or more

But these "new" GC lightsets all use only two lights to illuminate the scene.

Ah, ok. Sounds like it's the diffuse (an IBL?) that's adding the extra fill in the non IDL render. Makes sense.

Joe is using IBL. When you use IBL with IDL, it does proper occlusion shadows. When use IBL without IDL and without AO, it does not. What were shadows with IDL will appear to be much brighter with IDL, because it is missing occlusion.

There is IBL+AO, but the occlusions have to be set correctly and few people do so. They will also not be as accurate as the occlusions under IDL.

There is nothing wrong with IBL+IDL. The IBL acts exactly like the equivalent environment sphere with the same scene loaded on it.

When IBL is not used with IDL, it no longer acts like the EnvSphere. It acts like every point in the scene contains its own light source. You have to turn on AO to undo some of that and get some shadows where they should be.

Yes, the diffuse is an IBL. (But no image attached)

Never occured to me that I should enable shadows for an IBL.

I mean, it's omnidirectional. There ARE no shadows.

But yes, combined with IDL there is a difference wether the IBL "fill" has shadows enabled or not.

Umm, there ARE shadows with an IBL.

And they are very, very, ugly !

Never noticed or I might have noticed years ago and that's why I always disabled them. Lol

I'd be interested in opinions on this IDL plugin:

http://www.runtimedna.com/IDL-STUDIO.html and the expansion packs:

http://www.runtimedna.com/IDL-Studio-Expansion-1.html and

http://www.runtimedna.com/IDL-Studio-Expansion-2.html

I would guess for those of you who are adept at IDL this would be a waste, but for a newbie in lighting like me, maybe it will save me time in getting some great lighting???

When you have a good wife, you do not need a mistress.
Stay out of trouble and live happy ever after..

When you have IDL, stay away of IBL and AO.
Pretty-pretty simple huh?

Want realism?
Render with IDL, in BB's shere, and use Gamma corection.

For an outside scene that would be with only ONE single infinite light at reduced setting. There is only one sun, and she has no image on her surface. = Fact.

For inside scenes, a little more complicated.
Good tip/ Use as few lights as possible.

But? Do put ambient on a TV screen, a PC screen. Use the natural glow of some objects. Use natural reflections on other objects.

Example:
I am iside my living room now. It is a clear day.
I will have to find a way to render my living room, with NO lights in the Poser room.

Why??
In my real living room, there are NO lights turned on either.
All light is coming through the windows from the outside daylight. 
So? I will use the sun (One single infinite light, remember) and BB's sphere to "light" my inside room.

Quote - Yes, the diffuse is an IBL. (But no image attached)

Never occured to me that I should enable shadows for an IBL.

I mean, it's omnidirectional. There ARE no shadows.

But yes, combined with IDL there is a difference wether the IBL "fill" has shadows enabled or not.

No, you don't want to enable shadows for an IBL when using IDL. The IDL occlusion should be correct. There shouldn't really be any need for additional "fill" anymore, but it is a matter of taste I guess. The only way I know to add extra ambience with IDL enabled is via materials, which will then technically be glowing.

Quote - Want realism?
Render with IDL, in BB's shere, and use Gamma corection.

For an outside scene that would be with only ONE single infinite light at reduced setting. There is only one sun, and she has no image on her surface. = Fact.

Just to remind - you sometimes have to deal with the missing specular of the Environment Sphere lighting, particularly when the sun (or moon) is back lighting the subject. Remember that the object lighting will contribute only diffuse light. This means adding specular only lights or blurred fresnel reflections to materials. Just saying.

Quote - Just to remind - you sometimes have to deal with the missing specular of the Environment Sphere lighting, particularly when the sun (or moon) is back lighting the subject. Remember that the object lighting will contribute only diffuse light. This means adding specular only lights or blurred fresnel reflections to materials. Just saying.

Well, that's sort-of what I did, but wasn't really impressed what it did to objects that normally don't have much specularity, like the stone in the steps:

I suppose I could set the materials for the stone, maybe?

No question it's never just lights: it's always shaders AND lights. And renderer.

Shaders <=> lights <=> renderer

Tricky thing adding extra specularity to compensate for object based lighting. Bit of a balancing act, bearing in mind you're adding to that of any regular lights plus using a workaround that's only going to approximate the missing shine. Fresnel reflections seem more accurate to me but come with a high render cost.

Haven't used fresnelBlend for much except eyes... need to learn more about it.

1. For busy outdoor scenes in open sunlight, a single light can be enough.

2.  If you use IBL but don't want to use IDL or AO for whatever reason, it's possible to just crank up the shadows of the main "sun" light to 110 or 120%.

1. For empty scenes or indoor scenes, a single light is too harsh as it creates a dark shadow border around the figure.

Attached is my default light setup:

First shows my OpenGL preview created by eight infinite lights. They don't render.

Then the rendered scene using an IBL fill and a point light "sun".

Then the same scene without an IBL fill. I had to crank up the "sun" to 110 % to get the same lightness as the IBL + "sun" and reduce the shadows from 750% to 500%.

Now, the result is not bad for an outdoor feel, but I really like the softness I can get from the IBL fill better.

"Sun" + IBL fill vs single light.

No IDL as the scene is empty. GC + SSS enabled.

Skin shader is Bagginsbills latest via EZSkin with some light tweaks.

So, this is V4 in a scene lit only by an environment sphere with an hdr map and a single infinite RT shadow casting light, shining from behind and to one side. IDL is enabled

I used one of bb's original PP2012 SSS setups for the skin, but added blurred fresnel reflections following his thread where he used only an env sphere with reflections for specular.

Any specular you see on the V4s left side and in shadow regions are from fresnel reflections. Note that I possibly had the fresnel blend node set up with an incorrect IOR, or my reflect setting was too high. It does show the potential of using real reflections from an environment on skin though. Pretty cool IMO, and theoretically at least much more accurate for realism. I like that it brings in more colour from the environment which helps tie her in to the scene.

There are admittedly problems using this technique, partly with increased render times but also interaction with other objects and materials. This FR skin doesn't like dynamic hair for example, or highly layered prop hair using transparency driven materials. This is one key improvement I could suggest for the next version of Poser.

There are other ways of achieving similar results, true, but this technique interests me more for it's overall results.

Heh, reflections on the eyes are probably a bit strong here too.

This is a great render and I'd like to give that skin shader a try someday

But honestly said, I don't like the idea of being constricted to the inside of an environment sphere.

It's also too close to photoshop trickery for my taste.

I rather prefer to work in "actual" 3D environments so I want lightsets that work under vastly different conditions. (It's the scale modeller in me)

If I get a decent result in an empty scene, then the light set will also give me decent results no matter what I add to the scene.

And of course Photoshop manipulation is an absolute no-no to me.

And of course anything that takes longer than a minute or so to render as otherwise I just loose interrest. :-)

But as I said, impressive render, Carodan.

Just not the way I'd like to do things in Poser. Perhaps the difference is:

I don't want to create a render.

I want to create a complete 3D "world" that I can photograph.

:-)

People - please stop contradicting me without evidence.

I said:

"There is nothing wrong with IBL+IDL. The IBL acts exactly like the equivalent environment sphere with the same scene loaded on it."

Then Vilters, you said "When you have IDL, stay away of IBL and AO."

That's wrong advice. Correct is "When you have IDL, stay away from AO."

AO is the problem with IDL. There is no problem using an image based light with IDL.

An image based light provides the identical lighting contribution as an environment sphere, when used with IDL.

Before IDL, IBL was inferior. With IDL, IBL is equal - no longer inferior.

The only difference between and IBL environment versus an EnvSphere environment is the latter can be seen in reflections. That is useful, but it doesn't mean the IBL is junk.

I have box-highlighted a number of pairs, where I have both the EnvSphere equirectangular version and the IBL Angular map version.

The two versions are interchangeable. The difference exists only when I seek reflections of the environment.

Quote - The only difference between and IBL environment versus an EnvSphere environment is the latter can be seen in reflections. That is useful, but it doesn't mean the IBL is junk.

Agreed. This is the main reason I use the Environment Sphere, except for totally enclosed scenes (I do like the FR on skin).