thanks

Personally, I like it. Very natural looking.

Yep, I'm with basicwiz.  I think it's very nice :).

Laurie

Many thanks, but i have some doubt on my work

Quote - Many thanks, but i have some doubt on my work

What bothers YOU about it?

looks good to me

I think we're heading towards another debate about what's physically accurate (i.e. emulates the physics of light very closely) and what we'd expect to see (based on our visual experience of photographs, TV shows etc.).

Your render looks more or less physically accurate; if I were standing where the camera is I'd experience it differently because the human eye* super-adapts to variations in brightness and colour.

If this was for a hotel brochure or website I'd expect it to be lit 'properly', the way a professional photographer would; the extra lighting should be designed either to get closer to the super-adapted experience of the human viewer, or to show off key features of the product (the room in this case) to their best advantage; or to convey some sort of ambience or atmosphere compatible with the hotel's image.

So, I think the scene needs some subtle additional lighting for a start. It also looks unnaturally stark, so some 'lifestyle cues' (ornaments, pictures, vases, flowers etc.) would help.

*and by 'human eye' I mean the whole visual system, not just the ball of jelly sticking out of your face

Its much better than I've been able to do.  :)   Have you tried going even a bit darker for the rest of the room to see what that would look like?  Really emphasize the light coming in the window?

I think your work is great! How about trying a point light in the light fixtures. That would be a natural source of extra light in the scene. But if my dad was still alive he would say turn off the lights! :-)

Tom

First thing i would do is take this into photoshop and color correct it and add some 'real world' camera FX to it, like bloom and glow. For example:

Of course i'm working with a low rez jpeg, so there's only so much improvement possible. Ideally this sort of thing should be done with an HDR file.

What intensity do you have the "sun" at? I would have it around 800%. The outside image I'd have around 300%.

I think it looks good but ghonma's stab at it looks amazing.

if you read all of the above you will understand why I asked for an opinion
the image of ghonma is spectacular, as I consider my render sufficient , but I firmly believe that they are both wrong
if that was the reality without any corrections light, the side of objects facing the viewer would be much more dark

on this topic cspear could give us many insights, following this reasoning I find more real my rendering, even if wrong

returning to the rendering of ghonma not think it's possible to achieve that without postwork for this I turn to BB (you are my god), I do not have Poser here, I do not remember the settings of the lights Tomorrow I'll tell you the settings used. thanks and all

Looks good but the walls should be brighter near the window and fade into the room.

The outside light is probably linear, should expodential....

Might help if you post a sceen shot of your render settings dialog.

xpdev is correct.  the background photo has the sun somewhere behind and slightly to the left of the building in which xpdev's room exists, but a second sun is apparently shining into the window, coming from a position ~150 degrees opposite the light source for the background photo.

Yes miss nancy, the background has different light Compared to the room, but i need sun as you see in the room and the background is the best i have found.

You said: "xpdev is correct"

What you mean ?

Forgive me if I cringe when some tells someone else "you are my god". I'm not sure anyone can take that kinda of pressure ;).

Laurie

I looks a tad dark for a room that has sunlight shining halfway into it. Would the foreground really be that dark in real life? Can you render it again with raytracing one notch up, or does that turn out too bright.

IMO it's important to try and impart mood and emotion to your work. After all we live in a world where most visual systems are inherently biased/limited so 'physically accurate' is a fuzzy goal at best. Personally I like to play with light, and that isnt easy with pure rendering. Much faster to just experiment in an image editor. It doesn't all have to be warm and bright of course, eg 'stark and inhospitable' could look like this:

Ghonma, I like both of yours but this last one looks the most realistic in the room itself. The grain is perfect. The Light and shadows are terrific. I like the bloom & glow on the first one. Nice job.

xpdev, I think you have a nice render there. I'd be proud of that.

wait, didn't moses say "ye shall have no gods before me"?  no, but seriously, xpdev, "you are correct" = "the lighting of the room is very different from the lighting of the background".  since the sun is coming in the window of your room, the buildings in the background should all be showing their shadowed sides.

in order that the room lighting be the same as the background lighting, apply an hdr or jpeg (4X hsv value) panoramic background image to bill's envsphere, then use the envsphere as a light source.  as the daytime panoramic background has a zone for the sun, set the poser infinite light to the altitudinal/azimuthal position corresponding to the UV co-ordinates of the sun zone in the panoramic background. this method is explained here: http://www.hdrlabs.com/sibl/archive.html

you're right again Miss Nancy, but i do not always find the background in which light corresponds to what i want

how you doing ?

where you find FLAT ( NOT for BB environment sphere) backgrounds ?

Yes I agree that it is a nice render. xpdev, please don't think that i'm criticizing your work, you've definitely done a good job here. I'm just massaging it to look more dramatic and photoreal. The actual hard work is all yours.

hi ghonma, do not worry, everything is ok :-)

everything that comes from those who are better than me is welcome to do me some small step forward

Something seems off to me about the windows... IDK if it's the reflections or the shadows.

Lighting looks nice to me.

Quote - IMO it's important to try and impart mood and emotion to your work. After all we live in a world where most visual systems are inherently biased/limited so 'physically accurate' is a fuzzy goal at best.

 

I'd very much agree with ghonma and cspear's points... which I interpret to be about the goal of "realism" here... and it's largely subjective nature, past a certain point.

You'll get a good way with the application of scientifically established light physics etc.

But to jump on from that, to tricking yourself and / or your viewer into suspending their disbelief, is probably going to involve the application of the "artistic lens" (as I've often heard BB put it) and not a little slight of hand...

I don't know, but I do wonder if it's not so much a form of unbiased photorealism, that you're seeking, but more some kind of slightly more hyper-realist result? As I think others are also suggesting in the thread... so I guess I'm just offering my agreement with them...

...if you can manage to clarify for yourself better, perhaps, what the end result you're envisaging is... that may, in theory help you to achieve it?

As cspears said already, really, when we look directly at the world we see it, right from the spherical peripherals, with our binocular vision (usually), heavily post-processed and enhanced, apparently, by unconscious filters within our brain's visual cortex, etc.

This projection of the light that is bouncing at us from the world, into one's mind, is then coloured by our emotional relationship with whatever it is we are gazing upon... I'd say.

It's a colourful can of worms indeed...

Beyond my probably incoherent ramblings above, I like Kendra's suggestion... combined with what Willber said... and the idea of where that might lead.

xpdev, flat images are available throughout the internet.  all we ask when using them is that one avoid redistribution in most cases.

however, I am interested that you may be applying the flat image to a one-sided poser square, such that this one-sided square is both the window and the background.

If we're into physical lighting and angles, I like the one image that is lighter than the other two.  But I ask where the sun is based on the room lighting.  Up higher than the window line but not overhead.  Then the buildings in the background, the sun appears to be in a position behind the camera, not in front.  Would the buildings be darker, in the shadow, as the room is?

I'm trying to figure sun position based on the building lighting and sun position based on room lighting and to me they don't look quiet the same, but close.

Lets say this is a view directly to the East and it is northern hemisphere.  Maybe Deleware.  Sun for the buildings to me would be late morning in the sky.  Maybe 10 or 11 oclock.  South of verticle as to be expected. 

Sun for the room looks early afternoon, around 2 oclock and not south of verticle, but closer to verticle (like Florida).

So the window frame angles on the left side of the image correctly for a south sun but angles the wrong way on the bed (more like a direct overhead sun would angle).

Does that make sense?

One other thing that is harder to do.  The light angles on the buildings are all the same and to be expected since the sun is so far away.  The window frame angles are more extreme between right and left side of the room image as to be expected with a much closer light source.