Ah - shadow blur radius (2.4) is way too big. The sun's blur radius is .5 - no more and no less. (it's 1/2 of a degree)

The shadow strength is not 1 - it should be 1.

ok changing that now and trying it

 here are the render settings.

here are the light settings for the "sun"

the square is infront of her and at a slant to kind of go over her,

I am also going to try and do a white scene like you suggested to try and get this working.

:S

Perspective and angles have a dramatic impact on perception. I really think you should work with some simple white props until you have a firm grasp of what to expect. Also - this has the benefit of producing a render in 10 seconds or less which permits vastly more effective experimentation.

Here is a scene I set up with a gel similar to yours. Two renders with different camera focal lengths and perspective (position) reveal a big change in the apparent size of foreground vs. background shadows. If this isn't clear to you, then do 100 renders like this - your brain will learn what to expect without you thinking about it.

Here it is with the camera focal length at 26 mm

And here with the camera focal length at 91 mm

hmm see in this one

I adore the shadows on her, on the lotus...but not on the rocks. That is the "gel" on the light(sun)

but on the latest one I did...I cant get the shame effect with just using the square infront of the light to caste shadows.

Is there anyway to get this gel look with using the square?

also I am going to change the water to your settings...but will it allow part of her tail being visible? in the one I am using its distorted like water but still slightly visible.

I also see you have GC enabled, but configured for Gamma=1. This effectively disables GC.

Not sure what you're trying to do but that setup is neither on nor off.

Of course I'm going to point out that you're going to struggle and tweak and constantly test render (unlike me, where I render once and done) if you render without gamma.

:S I was using suggested render settings.

The square setting is wrong because you also enabled the falloff transparency, thus it becomes completely transparent as the angle of incidence decreases.

You should either set Transparency_Falloff to 0 to disable the Transparency_Edge, or configure Transparency and Transparency_Edge identically. You have the same number (1) but you did not connect the image to both so the strength of your shadows will approach zero if the camera is "looking" at that square edge-wise (even if we don't see the square).

Once you correct this, the square will produce consistent shadows just as the gel does.

ok I changed the settings on the square. this is the outcome so far and here is the new settings on the squareits still not like the "gel" light I made. Am I doing something wrong still?

I love the look of the "gel" shadows but...they are odd on the rocks etc.

no you get shadows on water...like this

I would argue that those shadows are more in the water than on it, this photo from that same photographer shows it:

the water has to be quite murky for shadows to be visible (and the shadows are on the murk, in the same way as you can get shadows on smoke or fog). I've just been in my kitchen with a flashlight and 2 mugs of water, one clean, one murky (diluted leftover milky coffee). To get a visible shadow on/in the water it has to be so murky that you can't see the bottom of the mug. As you dilute it with clean water the shadow gets weaker and then fals directly on the bottom of the mug. Can Poser render murky water? I've never tried.

and that is like the water I am doing in the scene...its pond water....so I am trying to get the shadows on the water as well

In reality, unless the water is really scummy I don't think you'd get much of a shadow cast on the water surface. You might get reflections of the dark leaves against the sky, but that's not the same thing.

or this

In reality, unless the water is really scummy I don't think you'd get much of a shadow cast on the water surface. You might get reflections of the dark leaves against the sky, but that's not the same thing.

no you get shadows on water...like this

I knew I should not come in here. I knew it. If this shows up, whoever is reading it, you need to understand that it did NOT show up when I wrote it.

o.0 Ok this is how the set up goes.

Those are the render settings

Then we have a partcial render(just to save time from it trying to do the whole thing...it shows the lack of shadows I am talking about) this is with a square set between the figure and the "sun" and using an alpha map to try and caste "leaf" shadows its not too bad on the form in front of her..but its not what I need on her nor the water.

This one is with a "gel" on the lights. I like the shadows on HER but on the background etc the shadows do not look right and again nothing on the water...

So I need to get the shadows as lovely as they are on -her- and I need something on the water surface to show the leaf shadows.

This is my square setting

o.0

I have ray trace shadows. bounces are 4

it still not leaving "leaves shadows".

And when I use a "gel" on the light(sun) the shadows are great on the figure but are odd (small, dark and repeating far to much) on the rocks and grass...

IDL is not on.

Yeah, well it's different.

My advice usually to someone using Daz Studio after using Poser.

Is simply to just accept that Daz Studio isn't Poser and isn't trying to be. Things will be a lot of little differences and at first may seem even a little uncomfortable but most are different for a reason and given some time and experimentation will seem just as natural as any other system and some instances better. There is a lot of community support about for DS so don't be afraid to ask if you get stuck with something. :)

Yes it is different. Most of the lil differences arent bad. Just abit of getting use too. The lights though...I am bound and determined to learn. 

Also...the textures. I know DS does SSS but...how do I set it up?

If they are distant lights there x,y,z position doesnt matter as they shine from the virtual edge of the world. Just there rotation will effect the direction. 

You can pickup AdamR render settings here which is not a bad base to get you started with the settings.

Oh thank you! that is great! as for the lights....they all come in at a ball at her feet. Its really frustrating. 

I just use the defaults for 3delight renderer. Make sure thats selected or you get Opengl.

Yes the lights load on the floor.    The point lights dont seem to do much.

:/ not much of "Light presets" then are they? Why dont they create them to load in position?

I have been using the default 3delight, seems good. I was hoping to ramp up the details etc though.

This is harder then when I started with poser >.<

Hi Elisa.

There are several factors you need to know when venturing into the current Octane built (2.xx)

It mainly uses nVidia card's GPU(s)

The more 'CUDA's you have the faster your renders, more VRAM will handle your textures better.

The GT730 has 96 cuda cores. It will do the job, put very slowly.

The GTX 970 has 1664 cuda cores, that's 17X more cores than the GT730

The average price of the GT730 is $50, The GTX 970 $350. There is a large gap in pricing.

I would suggest maybe something in between (perhaps a GTX 750 with 512 Cudas) around $100

Another thing you have to consider is your power supply. Some of these higher end cards are very power hungry.

The GTX 970 requires a min (500W) power supply

The GTX 750 (300W)

Octane supports multiple video cards. It can harness both GPU's power for faster rendering

So, you can add on as many video cards as you want.

My setup has two GTX760's. It is fast, but I would love to have two GTX 980's on my new rig next year.

In conclusion, I think if money is a factor, I would suggest a GTX750 4gb first or if your PS can support, a GTX760 4gb ($200)

Happy rendering

JV

He has found one on ebuyer for 89£ ...so we are thinking of that one. the power supply is not an issue we (read, -he-) has checked that. I mainly want the NVIDIA because it seems all the GPU render engines only use it. I need to "come up to speed" if you forgive the pun, on rendering. AND the INVIDIA seems the be the path I need to go down.

WHY on earth it cant use any card that is able to handle the work I do not know. My husband said other cards could handle it...just Octain and DS have chosen to only go with INVIDIA...We are building (slowly) this lovely beast of a machine only to see that I need an INVIDIA in it to get anywhere....

For rendering ? It will run but you wont be seeing amazing performance or be able to handle large scenes. For that you want something like a 970GTX.

ohh I do not think he will like the sound of that......