BB's light meter has become EXTREMELY important.  But I'm curious if there are any other light meters out there or any other way or technique of measuring and balancing specular & diffuse?

None.  BB's the first.

Your eyes? May sound stupid but if an image doesn't look right  to you it's not right. You can use tools for it, but that is someone else's predetermined way of how things should look. In the end you decide if you like the result and outcome or not. Use tools.... but also depend on your eyes and personal taste.

Quote - Your eyes? May sound stupid but if an image doesn't look right  to you it's not right. You can use tools for it, but that is someone else's predetermined way of how things should look.

Incorrect. That's like saying that a power drill is going to decide what style birdhouse you're going to make.

The meter is adjustable, and can measure and display any node configuration you like, just by swapping out the sensor part in the shader. Currently there is a Diffuse node with Diffuse_Value = .8 in the center part, for example. If you wanted to use a toon node instead, and meter your lighting from a toon perspective, you put a toon node there.

Why do you always crank about everything I do, aeilkema?

You should invent something that helps people, so you have a leg to stand on.

Quote - BB's light meter has become EXTREMELY important.  But I'm curious if there are any other light meters out there or any other way or technique of measuring and balancing specular & diffuse?

The BBLightMeter supports every way you could want to measure the lighting. So - nobody would ever bother making another one. It wouldn't be any better, so why bother?

Oh, I'm just hoping people will start being creative again, instead of relying on all these tools to get the 'perfect' image. It's getting quite boring to browse through galleries where 90% uses the same settings. We've lost a lot over the years due to relying too much on tools.

Anyway, sorry for posting and bothering anyone, I know.... I'm not allowed to be here.

Quote - We've lost a lot over the years due to relying too much on tools.

Poser itself is a tool, and only a tool.  It's up to the artist to use the tools at his/her's disposal to bring forth the image in his mind's eye.

Now, if you are saying there are some lazy artists posting in the Gallery, that's another kettle of fish...

Quote - Your eyes? May sound stupid but if an image doesn't look right  to you it's not right.

I must say that I agree wholeheartedly with aeilkema's point about "Your eyes".

My intent is not in any way to diminish the usefulness of BB's light meter, but only to stress what to me seems an obvious point. Your eyes must be the final arbiter! If it don't look good, it ain't good, no matter what a light meter says.

I take a lot of photographs, I always use a light meter, but I very rarely use the exposure suggested by the light meter. I use the exposure that looks right to my eye, and very much with the sort of processing I intend to use on the image in mind. My light meter is very useful, but I use it to gather information, I don't let it mandate what what I must do. My eye is always the final arbiter. As aeilkema says "Use tools.... but also depend on your eyes and personal taste."

P.S.
I have no desire to take sides in any feud that may be going on between BB and aeilkema ("Why do you always crank about everything I do, aeilkema?". I have no knowledge of what may have gone before, but my personal opinion is that, in this particular instance, aeilkema makes a good point, and that point is worth defending. Taken at face value, there is nothing in aeilkema's statement that goes against BB's meter, or the using of it. He only points out the eye is another tool, the most important tool in any graphic artists tool box. Who could disagree with that?

I just think it's a shame so many people rely on tools to get the perfect picture and don't use their eyes to judge anymore. You may get the perfect tooled image, but it may end up just not looking right. Your eyes need to be the final judge. I often wonder how the great masters could have even produces the paintings they did..... without the digital tools. But what they made just looks right, while often what we produce with poser using all kinds of light related tools just doesn't look right. At times we need to trust our eyes more. Tools are tools, use them for good, but they're not the final judge..... our eyes and the eyes of the beholder are.

Real is objective.

Perfect is subjective.

Big difference.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a subjective kind of guy, but if you want real you need to be objective and have thing that react as close to reality as you can get.  Another problem with using your eyes is you can fall for optical illusions, you can miss things you shouldn't, and you might let subjectivity get in the way of the real deal.  Or your monitor might not be calibrated right and throw everything off.

If someone is asking for a light-meter, chances are he's looking more for the real deal.

I use my eyes to determine which tools I use. :)

No offense, but you have to use a light meter.  If anything a light meter + your own judgement is better. Why limit yourself? 

If you want to eyeball it then FINE, go ahead.  But at the end of your workflow turn on the light meter to see where you stand and do a couple of test renders to make sure what you thought was great is TRULY great.

Why not do both?

Quote - No offense, but you have to use a light meter

No, you don't.  I've never used one in a render, ever.  Besides it only works in Poser.  I know what lighting effect I want to achieve and just tweak the lights till I get it

Quote - No offense, but you have to use a light meter.  If anything a light meter + your own judgement is better. Why limit yourself? 

If you want to eyeball it then FINE, go ahead.  But at the end of your workflow turn on the light meter to see where you stand and do a couple of test renders to make sure what you thought was great is TRULY great.

Why not do both?

Don't worry, I'm not offended easily. I hope your not offended if I say I don't agree with that you have to use it. You can use it and if it gives you good results, use it by all means, but you don't have to, you can manage without. That's the cool things about tools, use 'm if you need them or want to do so and or pass them, it's up to the user.

I want to help you guys achieve PERFECTION. Listen to me. My monitor is different than yours. What I see maybe different from what you see.  If not for yourself at least use the light meter for fans of your artwork.

Do this, go into photoshop and take every render you've done and load it.  Then click "auto contrast".  If you notice a lighting change it means you didn't use a light meter to properly light your scene.  If you don't notice a change in lighting it means you did a great job with lighting.

A lot of you are talented and have a GOOD eye, chances are you guys nail the lighting most of the time. But why not be 100% thorough?

OK, I'm willing to go there for a moment..... Not sure if your familair with Vue? Vue has a neat feature to add auto exposure and natural exposure (as well as other tools) after you render, just in case you didn't hit nail perfectly. It gives you the 'perfect' image. Now I'm going to bring my 'perfect' image to photoshop as suggested and auto contrast it, you can guess what happens next, the image will change. My 'perfect' image wasn't too perfect after all according to photoshop. But..... it also destroyed my perfect image at the same time, it just doesn't look right anymore, not on any of the 7 different monitors I've got at home.

Again you're using a tool, but a tool doesn't make the image perfect at all and neither will my fans perceive it as better. You can nail a pefect lighting with or without a tool, it depends on what you perceive as perfect.......

Anyway we can discuss this back and forth, but it's not going to change how each of us looks at an image or change the taste and personal preference we do have, we all look differently at an image, liking it or not.

Btw.... I do see one image in your gallery, using the lightmeter and on my monitors, that image looks completely overlighted.

BagginsBill is there too much spec & diffuse on this light meter?

Quote - OK, I'm willing to go there for a moment..... Not sure if your familair with Vue? Vue has a neat feature to add auto exposure and natural exposure (as well as other tools) after you render, just in case you didn't hit nail perfectly. It gives you the 'perfect' image. Now I'm going to bring my 'perfect' image to photoshop as suggested and auto contrast it, you can guess what happens next, the image will change. My 'perfect' image wasn't too perfect after all according to photoshop. But..... it also destroyed my perfect image at the same time, it just doesn't look right anymore, not on any of the 7 different monitors I've got at home.

I've never used Vue but that feature sounds great.

Quote - Again you're using a tool, but a tool doesn't make the image perfect at all and neither will my fans perceive it as better. You can nail a pefect lighting with or without a tool, it depends on what you perceive as perfect.......  

Anyway we can discuss this back and forth, but it's not going to change how each of us looks at an image or change the taste and personal preference we do have, we all look differently at an image, liking it or not.

 

Btw.... I do see one image in your gallery, using the lightmeter and on my monitors, that image looks completely overlighted.

You're right, it is overlighted.  The light meter clearly shows that it is overlighted but that was my first day using the light meter so I didn't know how to read it properly.

The lighter meter shows yellow around the circle (specular) which means it's burning a bit. The diffuse should have more black between the circles. I appreciate that by the way. My monitor tends to show things darker, so it's good to have your feedback :) 

I'm going to make a new post soon showing some images, I'd LOVE to have your critique no holds barred.

one suggests not attempting to compare c4d, maya, vue et al. with poser.  perhaps such discourse might occur in another forum.  IMVHO it's rather complimentary that those unfamiliar with poser should attempt to distract from it.

Quote - No offense, but you have to use a light meter.  

...

I want to help you guys achieve PERFECTION. Listen to me. 

You are obviously enthusiastic, which is great, but perhaps you need to figure all this out a little more before you get too evangelical.

Quote - Do this, go into photoshop and take every render you've done and load it.  Then click "auto contrast".  If you notice a lighting change it means you didn't use a light meter to properly light your scene.  If you don't notice a change in lighting it means you did a great job with lighting.

And try this little test: Open these two images in photoshop and click "auto contrast" and see how the lighting changes:

http://www.scenicreflections.com/files/White_cat_in_snow_Wallpaper_eux3j.jpg

http://www.insanewallpapers.com/wallpapers/snow_white_cat-1366x768.jpg

Does this mean the photographer 'didn't use a light meter to properly light the scene?' No. It means the photographer was smart enough to know when to use his own judgement and ignore what the tool was trying to tell him.

It's a bit like those people you hear about who want to drive 2 blocks to the store but they blindly follow the instructions their GPS is giving them until they are 300 miles into the wilderness. Tools are fine, but they are like employees, you need to stay in charge of them. Once you assume they know what they are doing or let them run the show things turn bad. 

Quote - A lot of you are talented and have a GOOD eye, chances are you guys nail the lighting most of the time. But why not be 100% thorough?

You are advocating being 100% thorough but you are working on an uncalibrated monitor which 'tends to show things darker'?

Quote - And try this little test: Open these two images in photoshop and click "auto contrast" and see how the lighting changes: http://www.scenicreflections.com/files/White_cat_in_snow_Wallpaper_eux3j.jpg

http://www.insanewallpapers.com/wallpapers/snow_white_cat-1366x768.jpg

When he took those photos did he apply any postwork afterwards? 

Quote - Does this mean the photographer 'didn't use a light meter to properly light the scene?' No. It means the photographer was smart enough to know when to use his own judgement and ignore what the tool was trying to tell him.

Well after I render something, I do an auto contrast to test my lighting.  If it checks out then I apply postwork. If I do auto contrast after the postwork I would get similar results as if auto contrasting that image you provided.

Quote - It's a bit like those people you hear about who want to drive 2 blocks to the store but they blindly follow the instructions their GPS is giving them until they are 300 miles into the wilderness. Tools are fine, but they are like employees, you need to stay in charge of them. Once you assume they know what they are doing or let them run the show things turn bad.

I'll keep that in mind, well said :)

Quote - > Quote - A lot of you are talented and have a GOOD eye, chances are you guys nail the lighting most of the time. But why not be 100% thorough?

You are advocating being 100% thorough but you are working on an uncalibrated monitor which 'tends to show things darker'?

Software wise everything is set to default when I work with renders & photoshop. When I watch a movie I have NVIDIA control panel adjust the bright, contrast, gamma (calibration).

Let's say I have nvidia control panel adjust the bright, gamma, contrast.  Now I take one of my renders and try to judge how it looks and make modifications via photoshop. Technically the modifications wouldn't be accurate because I have custom calibration settings right?  I always want to apply postwork and judge render lighting with the defaults of the monitor and default nvidia control panel settings right? Looks like there is windows 7 color calibration but once again, that is software modifying everything to my eyes.

Please give your feedback on this. I'm still new to this genre of work.

Let me add a very small remark here; Unless for some very exotic or ART renders !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IF you need postwork?
You screwed up in Poser.
Materials, or lights, or both.

PS;
You all know that there is a brandnew Postwork Manager inside Poser9/PP2012 SR3.1?

Right?

You knew that, Right?

You all tested it by now?

YES?

K N O W and L E A R N your tools.

AND,

R E A D the manual. ( and the SR read me files )

Carry on. :-)

I was going to reference that new feature but vilters beat me to it.

Quote - Let me add a very small remark here; Unless for some very exotic or ART renders !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IF you need postwork?
You screwed up in Poser.
Materials, or lights, or both.

Recently I had to use postwork to light a scene to make it appear VERY sunny. I didn't know how to make a sunny scene without causing specular & diffuse burning (using bagginsbill light meters).

Quote -
PS;
You all know that there is a brandnew Postwork Manager inside Poser9/PP2012 SR3.1?

Right?

You knew that, Right?

You all tested it by now?

YES?

K N O W and L E A R N your tools.

AND,

R E A D the manual. ( and the SR read me files )

Carry on. :-)

That manager is great if you don't have photoshop. 

Quote -
Software wise everything is set to default when I work with renders & photoshop. When I watch a movie I have NVIDIA control panel adjust the bright, contrast, gamma (calibration).

Let's say I have nvidia control panel adjust the bright, gamma, contrast.  Now I take one of my renders and try to judge how it looks and make modifications via photoshop. Technically the modifications wouldn't be accurate because I have custom calibration settings right?  I always want to apply postwork and judge render lighting with the defaults of the monitor and default nvidia control panel settings right? Looks like there is windows 7 color calibration but once again, that is software modifying everything to my eyes.

Please give your feedback on this. I'm still new to this genre of work.

Default settings aren't necessarily good, and custom settings aren't necessarily bad,  the trouble with any settings (even wrong ones) is that your eye gets used to them, and then anything else (even correct settings) looks wierd. It's like wearing sunglasses - you soon stop noticing the effect they have on light and color because your brain compensates.

I calibrate my monitors about once a month with a Datacolor SpyderPro3. It's a thing that looks like a mouse with light sensors in it, you hang it on the center of your monitor screen. The calibration software generates a whole sequence of different colours at varying brightnesses, and the sensor thing measures each one. Then the software calculates the difference between what should have been displayed and what was actually displayed and it generates a correction profile for that monitor.

I have 2 monitors which look very different at their default settings, but when they are both running their respective correction profiles their output is very, very close. The device also measures ambient light in the room and bases the profile on the level, so in theory you should use different profiles for daytime and nighttime work as the light levels change a lot. In practice I calibrate in daylight because that's when I do my paying work where color/tonal fidelity is an issue, at night I'm usually just messing around.

I've been looking into that tool and the older versions, but they recomend these 10, 000 dollar monitors. What type of monitors are you using them on? Are you happy with the product

doesn't it all boil down to what your aspirations are?.

If you are happy tooning or postworking renders then that's your preference. if you are the no postwork brigade again your preference. If you want photorealistic figures and lighting, why not take up photography and capture real people on film. I personally think that everyone comes at poser output or any cgi output from a different perspective, some enjoy the whole process others get frustrated with the mat room and the shaderverse, others are happy just rendering large breasted women in various stages of dress and undress.

Personally and thanks for the offer, i'm not sure i want to achieve perfection, what would be left for me to strive for?.

I've never used a light meter, wouldn't know where to start, I've had gallery problems where my images appeared too dark becuase my monitor lighting was set to bright, but you deal with it on the next render. I know people that have really expensive tools to calibrate their monitors, I couldn't ever afford to buy one or probably be bothered to use it truth be known. I am one of the many hobbyists who play with poser, sometimes with a degree of success and more often than not, not. I don't think a light meter would solve all the other problems I would encounter, posing, skin, facial expression, scene, props etc etc. Unless I've achieved a degree of professionalism or competence with the rest of the scene, I don't think the lighting of it is going to win me any plaudits from the community.

Quote - R E A D the manual. ( and the SR read me files )

I was just wondering where the documentation for the postwork manager is.

(I know that it is mentioned in the SR readme. Is that all there is?)