When I first got PP2012, I noticed some of my figures who had blonde hair seemed to have issues.  The figures rendered fine in previous versions of Poser, but when opened in the newer Poser versions, with identical settings, the blonde hair would render with excessive shadowing and would actually create these blotchy smudge shadows.  Oddly it was only visible with blonde hair for the most part and after discussing it with Bill Baggins and a few others [several years ago] I eventually just started working around the problem and hoping for a fix in later versions.  Fixes have not been forthcoming.  And while a few people expressed that they had similar issues, the majority of people don't seem to be able to repeat this glitch.  If you want to see a sample of the problems I was having, see the attached image link.

Bug by JAG Poser Work In Progress

Anyways, long story short, I finally discovered a fix for this.  Like most old timers in Poser, I still like to plug my textures into the diffuse color block on the materials tree.  And I don't like adding a lot of nodes to my hair props and figures, so I've never updated my basic hair presets whereas I have updated my figures and clothing figures to incorporate subsurface scattering and the like over the years.  Essentially I've updated my figure skins...but never quite changed my hair settings for a good five or six years.  Somewhere along the way, Smith apparently changed the way that diffuse color section works and I was unaware of it.

So how do you fix it?  Plug your texture image into the ALTERNATE DIFFUSE section rather than the color.  Your texture will now render much differently, and the weird shadowy crud goes away.  It will render looking normal.

Anyways, just wanted to share the discovery with everyone in case anybody out there is still an old-school dummy like me still trying to use Poser7 materials in PP2014.  Ha, ha.  Why it took this long for me to think about trying that, I don't know.  I just always assumed the texture was the texture...and shouldn't really matter which of the two diffuse plugs I used.  Apparently it makes a big difference in regards to transparent objects when going from PP2012 to 14.  

Now delete all your lights and render. Tell me what you see.

The hair appears to glow.  I actually left my texture connected to the diffuse color node and set value to 0.5 then made my alternate diffuse color gray 50/50 white/black.  This toned down the brightness and kept a little of the over-shadowy affect...at least an amount that was acceptable.

So what's up with that glow?  I have my figure's body set with SSS and all that jazz and she still looks black without any lights.

Do you remember talking to me about this issue few years back?  We exchanged messages on it and never could figure out what was going on at the time.  Is there anything else I should be doing here?  I mean it seems to render acceptably at this point.

You delete all lights.

And your hair glows?

What does that tell you?

Check that there is NO Ambient on the hair. (Ambient_Color or Ambient_Value.)

Uncheck Light emitter on the hair properties.

PS : all Diffuse + Specular nodes combined can not be higher then 1.000

You can never have more light going out then coming in.

Post a screengrab of the hair shader so BB (or others ) can have a look at it.

I know everyone generally means well when they post here, but quite honestly, is it necessary for people to be so smarmy?  If you know something I don't, try telling me in a way that isn't so condescending. I appreciate all advice, good or not...but I really dislike when people are arrogant about it.

In response, there is no ambient light on or values set.  Color is black, value is 0.0 - the glow is in preview not in actual render.  Render looks fine.  With lights gone, figure renders completely black.

Again, I was mostly volunteering a "fix" I had discovered rather than asking for help on a problem already solved.  I'm a bit bewildered by the subsequent posts which haven't really done much but state known facts and spread tiny bits of smarm.

Vilters - if you've been following my explanations you'd have realized why it glows and not asked about ambient.

(The things I'm about to tell you are not exactly true - when you use transparency some of these channels behave differently. But for a first lesson on what the input channels on the poser surface do, this is correct.)

The Alternate_Diffuse channel has no node in it. The Alternate_Diffuse channel's purpose is to give you a place to plug a diffuse node in as an alternative to the built-in diffuse.

The top two inputs (Diffuse_Color, Diffuse_Value) are the exposed inputs of a hidden, built-in Diffuse node. You turn the built-in Diffuse node off by either putting black in Diffuse_Color or by putting 0 in Diffuse_Value.

Then you choose an alternative implementation of Diffuse (which is a kind reflection behavior, involving reacting to lights) such as Clay or Scatter. You plug the Clay or Scatter into Alternate_Diffuse, and the Alternate_Diffuse channel paints whatever it is you plugged into it without further interpretation. If the Alternate_Diffuse channel did anything at all to the data you gave it, then it would interfere with the presentation of that data and make you unable to get the precise node effect to come out.

If we did not have Alternate_Diffuse what would we do? Plugging Clay or Scatter into Diffuse_Color would produce some output, but not according to the model of the Clay or Scatter node alone - it would be a combination of Clay followed by Diffuse, or Scatter followed by Diffuse. That would be bad. We need a channel that doesn't touch the data.

It turns out that the Ambient channel doesn't touch the data either. It has no built-in reaction to lights.

It follows, then, that the Ambient channel and the Alternate_Diffuse channel are actually doing the same thing (nothing) and that they differ only in the names. Why have them if they are the same? The answer is that they are slightly different but only under special circumstances, and that when you lack an awareness of what those circumstances are, it is best to follow the suggestions implied by the name. Planning to use a diffuse-type node? Put that in Alternate_Diffuse. Planning to use a reflection-type node? Put that in Reflection_Color.

The same notion of "just show this, please" is true of Reflection_Color and Refraction_Color - they do the same thing (nothing0, and you could plug a Clay node into Refraction_Color just as well as into Alternate_Diffuse, and you can plug a Refract node into Alternate_Diffuse just as well as into Refraction_Color.

So - you were looking for a way to get Poser to "just show this hair, please" and you did it. Unfortunately, you literally got what you asked for. You have told poser to just draw the hair exactly as it appears in the image_map node and so even when the lights are off, that is what it draws.

====

It was not my intention to make this a condescending lesson. I asked the question only to see if you already knew what you were doing, and if you didn't, hoped to get a surprised "What is happening?!?" from you. Sorry Vilters came in and made it seem other than that.

Quote - I was mostly volunteering a "fix" I had discovered rather than asking for help on a problem already solved.

Yes, but introducing a new problem that you didn't realize you created. I say this with all respect, but the blind leading the blind is dangerous.

Vilters this isn't true, either.

I know you mean to help, but much misunderstanding, including what seems like good advice, has been twisted into hard and fast rules that don't take into account all the factors. (Please note, the advice may even have been given by me several years ago. If I did, it was because I did not understand physical rendering yet, and how far from it Poser is. I now suggest that specular nodes have to be programmed much brighter than earlier thought.)

I routinely set up my Blinn node with a reflectivity of 90 - n i n e t y - which clearly violates the "can not be higher than 1" rule, but that's because the rule is not being stated accurately in that way.

In the attached image, every pawn has a specular node set up with a value higher than 1 - in fact the numbers vary from 22 to 90. What is wrong with these? Nothing - they are defining the size and brightness of my virtual light bulb, which as you know (I hope) has no dimension at all. Poser lights have no visible effect in and of themselves. We know they exist only through the behavior of our various lighting nodes. How those nodes "pretend" what size the light has is something we control. How those nodes "pretend" about the brightness of the light is also something we control. Two objects can appear to be reacting to different virtual light bulbs because the light has no property of size, just brightness. The apparent size and brightness of the light source is ultimately defined by the material reflecting that light source.

So - it is not accurate to say that the sum of diffuse and specular must not exceed 1.

What is accurate is that the amount of light reflected from a surface cannot exceed the amount that arrives. But we're very unclear in Poser about how much has arrived. It's not a physical model.

It is accurate to say that the sum of your Reflect + Diffuse node cannot be more than 1. !!!

Vilters goes fishing, and will not come back.
Have a nice day all.

Well, I've had a fair few scuffs with Vilters myself, and now after seeing it happen to others I think I see the problem:

"You delete all lights.
And your hair glows?
What does that tell you?"

Better version:

"You delete all lights.
And your hair glows?
What does that tell you? "

Try using a bloody smiley now and then, Vilters, it costs nothing and people won't misinterpret you.  It's obvious you wanted to help or you wouldn't have bothered explaining things, but some ways of wording demand a smiley to confirm the true intention.

I'm giving you a smiley so that you take my post the right way
That said, I should really have posted an ass-kicking smiley but they don't have one here *

"the amount of light reflected from a surface cannot exceed the amount that arrives"

this sinks into my brain. :)

Thanks.

I used to believe Alt-Diffuse was for 'do not receive shadows'. 

Ambient has always been complicated, i used to plug a gather into it for watery sufaces. in Poser 7 days.

It would be kewl if there was a way to assign a light to effect only a specific obj or material surface.  it was fun to do the negative1 shadow to make an obj cast a white shadow.  Like, to make sunlight through window blinds, the blinds would cast white shadows on the floor, but the walls wouldn't cast any shadows inside the room from the outside sun.  then, my brain would get tired and i would give up on the project.

?  i thnk she was just sharing her Flightcheck list for when something is behaving wonky.
we all have 'em

especially when the Koi man gives homework.

which reminds me, i bought a 3dc bathtub that looks like it'll be fun to play with water and enamel and faucet.  a long overdue homework assignment. !!

     BB, thank you for that exposition of the root node inputs.  I wish the Poser manual had that.  Very useful indeed.

     Jag:  thank you for posting your solution.  I get that you were sharing the apparently successful results of empirical evidence;  obviously, if you had known that there was a pitfall in that method, you would have said so.

     BB is right that these things need to be corrected -and bless him for doing so- but on the other hand, it is often someone's experimental attempt at a fix which prompts someone else to fill in the missing pieces, refine the process, or make a correction.  That is what happened here.  But the end result is a successful solution, which benefits everbody reading the forum.

     BB's teaching style is one I'm familiar with from school days majoring in math, physics, and bio-sciences.  He is blunt (not with intent to insult, merely direct to the point - think "male counterpart to Seven Of Nine"), and will challenge you to defend your postion.  This is an effective technique to encourage you to logically reason out how you came to your stated position, which in turn develops into a solid chain of proof-steps, so that you either are able to prove your assertion or you see the point at which your assumption fails.  Personally, I like this style;  it is all meat - time spent reading a BB tut is never wasted.

     The rest of us are all over the spectrum in explanatory style, personality, and areas of Poser knowledge.  When we confer on a problem, we complement (that's complement, not compliment) each other - each person contributes from their areas of strength and in turn is helped in their areas of weakness.    Sometimes, the forum may seem like a contact sport, but the marketplace of ideas works. :lol:

other option for low specular response when using poser directional lite: increase specular on lite.  when using BB's lite meter, have noticed specular often too low, but diffuse o.k.

My reference to "smarm" wasn't directed toward BB.  I've conferred with him several times over the years and I'm used to his method of instruction.  He just asked me a question.  It was Vitters who ruffled me somewhat.  Having read some of the subsequent posts, I see I'm not the only one who's been ruffled by him, so I assume I'm in good company.

Thanks BB for the explanation on the tree and nodes.  I often wonder why they don't let you write the dang manual for the software.  If we had such in-depth explanations in the manual, we'd probably bug you a lot less.  Of course the manual would probably be 2000 pages rather than 900+.  Ha, ha.

I realized the ambient affect seemed to be what was happening.  I just couldn't fathom exactly why that was, considering it was concerning the alt diffuse plug.  It worked, enough said...and I figured I'd post it in case someone else had similar issues.

I'm still wondering why PP2012 rendered without the funky gray/black smudges and then PP2014 does.  It seems strange that moving the exact same Pz3 file with identical figures, setup and lights from one version to another version would come up with such dramatically different rendered results.  They should be identical, or at the very least, the newer version should render better...and certainly not worse.  But as BB mentioned, transparencies apparently cause some strange affects that don't adhere to the set rules on the nodes.

So while this may be a bunk effort, it works half-aced, as they say.  I have also found that plugging the texture image into a simple Diffuse node and then into the Alt Diffuse tends to knock the glow down completely.  I added the texture into the ambient color with value 0.125 to lighten my shadows back up a bit.  So my hair now has nothing but the image>diffuse>ALT Diffuse plus transparency plus image>ambient color attached to it...and it looks pretty good.  I don't shoot for dramatic appearances in hair, as it bogs down render time when you start adding too many nodes to hair.  I like to keep it short and sweet.  My skins...now those I go bananas with, but the hair, or at least most of the better ones, have too many overlapping layers that shadow one another and despite having a good computer, my five minute renders start creeping toward ten and twenty minutes if I try adding too many nodes to the hair props.  So that's why I avoid excessive node'ing of my hair.  It's not a lack of knowledge.  Please note I've been here since 1999.  That said, BB still blows my mind most days.

Vitters lists from Belgium.  I wonder if language may be an element in his abrupt responses and posts?  In other words, his perceived rudeness may not be intentional.

I don't think it's been mentioned but unchecking light emitter on the hair property box will speed up your render when using IDL.

     Mea Culpa, JAG.  Re-reading my post, I see I was ambiguous.  I did not intend to imply that you were offended by BB's posts, but now I see that my post could give that impression.  The idea which I was trying to stress is that posting experimental solutions is good, though such posts are best offered as a hypothesis, not as a declarative, unless one has firm evidence.   This applies to me, you, Vilters, and everyone else.  I do believe that Vilters was genuinely trying to help (as he often does, to his credit);  I also completely understand you taking exception to his "abrupt" style of response.

     To clarify, in my previous post, my first paragraph was directed to BB, my second paragraph directed to you, and the paragraphs thereafter directed toward, well,  the rest of us.

     If I bollix this up anymore, I may have to put myself on "ignore".  :rolleyes: 

     Thanks to Latexluv for pointing out the "[] light emitter" trick. 

Turning off the light emitter property does speed it up, but it does some really undesirable affects to hair which I don't care for.  You are right though, turning that off definitely got rid of the smudgy shadow artifacts, but you also lose the affects that are beneficial.  I found that solution almost immediately way-back-when, but I like having the emitter on, so another solution was needed.

 Seachnasaigh:

No need to clarify my friend.  I didn't mistake it at all.  I just wanted to clarify to BB that I wasn't fussing at him.

:0)

     Thank you for understanding/forgiving, JAG.  Regarding the light emitter box, I also avoid it for the same reason as you do.  Still, for many, it provides a quick and easy fix.  I usually try to nudge up the IDL quality and IDL cache, and increase pixel samples to fix IDL splotch in general.  Hair seems to be a particular issue, I would guess because it is a transparency in close proximity to other surfaces.  So, I've tried adjusting shadow bias too.

     I have an idea regarding violating conservation of light energy.  Previously, I made a Poser model telescope and found that it actually works! - place the camera to the eyepiece, render, and you get a magnified view.  :blink:

     What if we made a Poser model night vision scope, giving the viewscreen a material which intentionally does show (much) more light than it receives?    Hmmm...  I think I'll whip up a model and experiment a bit.  That would be neat for animation, because the scope image would automatically follow movements of the scope.  Imagine a HALO Spartan panning his rifle side-to-side in the darkness, scanning for enemy;  the scope image would change with the change in yaw angle of the weapon.

Interesting, I've not seen smudgy shadows with hair when turning off the light emitter on hair, but I do have a small minimum bias on lights and my IDL samples and cache are always high.

On the magnifier bit, BB's Artistic lense could be a start. Don't have a link now to that thread. I did on my HP before it died, but not on my new computer.

Maybe it's my science background-but I also take it that way. If I make a statement-I must back it up with the evidence and examples

Quote -  

     BB, thank you for that exposition of the root node inputs.       BB's teaching style is one I'm familiar with from school days majoring in math, physics, and bio-sciences.  He is blunt (not with intent to insult, merely direct to the point - think "male counterpart to Seven Of Nine"), and will challenge you to defend your postion.  This is an effective technique to encourage you to logically reason out how you came to your stated position, which in turn develops into a solid chain of proof-steps, so that you either are able to prove your assertion or you see the point at which your assumption fails.  Personally, I like this style;  it is all meat - time spent reading a BB tut is never wasted.

     The rest of us are all over the spectrum in explanatory style, personality, and areas of Poser knowledge.  When we confer on a problem, we complement (that's complement, not compliment) each other - each person contributes from their areas of strength and in turn is helped in their areas of weakness.    Sometimes, the forum may seem like a contact sport, but the marketplace of ideas works. :lol:

by request of renderosity, I sort of wrote that 2000+ page manual on material room principles, and node details. Actually it's just over 200 pages, on material room alone.

for various reasons it's not published in the rendo area itself yet, but it's already available online (html) as well as offlie (pdf) at http://www.book.artbeeweb.nl/?book=material-room