By the way, Bagginsbill, I know you are a very experienced user of Poser and other 3d techniques.  (I read these threads a lot, though I'm somewhat timid about posting questions -- primarily because I dislike the drama that often accompanies it.)  Please note, I'm not trying to offend you, either.  I just thought you might like to know that your abrupt manner and tone at the start of your post almost made me disregard everything you had to say afterward.  I assume you're posting to share your extensive understanding of a complex topic.  I just want to point out that you'd be more effective at this if you were a bit less abrasive. 

I may not be an expert in 3-D software.  But I think I qualify as an expert in instruction.  wink

And, just to clarify, the "post that started it all" for ME was this one.  I'm relatively new to 3-d art, which is why I don't know the formal terms for everything.  And once I got past the fact that I felt like you were insulting my intelligence, I re-read your post and found valuable information within it.  I appreciate the reference to the other post, though that's not the technique I'm very interested in.  (I rarely, if ever, layer my renders onto background images in photoshop.  I  prefer to work within Poser and don't do much postwork to speak of.)  But, in case I do ever need this information, it's been filed away for future reference.  

Thank you for the help.  I hope you accept my constructive criticism in the vein it was intended -- as a place where improvement is possible. 

Edited because I'm apparently not an expert in typing, either.

Quote - > Quote - I'm assuming that "shadow catching" means you can move shadows around independent of the objects which cast them.)  Is this correct? 

No.

Quote - Ah. No that's not what it means. 

Shadowcatching is on default for the Ground Plane in Poser so you can easily see how it forks. Basically it's a material that renders invisible - but on which shadows are cast. and caught :)

Right.

Quote - Weird advertising wording, though.  I didn't think moving a shadow was possible in Poser,

Why are you still on that? Did you see the words "move shadows" somewhere? In your original post you said you assumed that, and TG said that's not what it means.

sigh  You are such an engineer.  Please re-read your post and pay attention to your your tone.  You have managed to come off as utterly condescending and... well... somewhat rude.  Your information is, indeed, accurate, but you've conveyed it in a way that nobody in their right mind wants to read, because it makes them feel like an idiot.

The "move shadows" thought I had was not related to the original question, except that the promotional ad made me infer that such a feat was possible. ("Using the Shadow Catcher, you can separate shadows from their underlying surface and put them virtually anywhere.")  I understand... shadow catching refers to adding shadows to a transparent surface and then "putting them virtually anywhere" via a background image.  But  I was simply wondering if my initial idea (from a mis-interpreted ad) was possible.

If you read my little brainstorm, my idea is possible.  It's not "shadow-catching."  I get that.  But it would be an interesting technique.  I appreciate being told what the actual definition of shadow catching is.  I understood that after the second post.  But my question was more of a reference of what I wanted to do, not what the formal definition of "shadow catching" is.

It's worth noting that I'm a physics teacher and web designer with a master's degree in molecular biology and experience in javascript and php scripting.  I'm NOT a moron.  And yet, in the first two sentences of your post, you managed to make me wonder if I was.  I am continually saddened by the tone that some people take when being "helpful" on these threads.  As a teacher, I feel  compelled to point out that simply spouting correct information is not enough to instruct other people.  Trying to put yourself into the shoes of the learner might be nice. 

And, incidentally, if someone does get something wrong the first time, or if they choose to do something in a less-than-efficient or round-about way... should they be flogged? Publically humiliated?  Drawn and quartered?    Trust me, there are MUCH dumber questions to be found in the universe.  For example, on a test that asked "Why doesn't the Leaning Tower of Pisa fall over?" I had a student respond today with, "Air resistance." 

Perhaps that's why I have more patience for "dumb" questions and round-about thinking styles.

I really do appreciate the tutorial, but your instructional strategies leave something to be desired.  You might want to work on this a tad, lest you offend people without need.

Quote - Or could it be a reference to the option to render "shadows only" and export this as a separate layer?

That could be it, too.  Weird advertising wording, though.  I didn't think moving a shadow was possible in Poser, simply because the shadows aren't previewed...  How would you know where to put them? 

And, I think I know the answer to this, too, but... You can obviously control which objects CAST shadows (in the preferences tab), but you can't control which objects CATCH shadows, can you? 

If you do get a solution to this, could you PM me here on Rendo?  I have the same issue -- SR3 came with my version of P7. ( I just gave up on a hairy Lycan until Luthbel updated.  But if you can get Smith to send you some sort of back-dated version, please let me know.)

I know lots of people who've followed the updates from day 1 just keep the old version of their installs, so that they have an original, SR1, SR2, and SR3 version on their machine.  I sure wish I could do the same!

Oh, okay -- I already knew that.  I was just a bit confused by online promotional ads for Poser 7, which state... "Shadow Catching:  Poser 7 features true to life shadow effects, making image composition and 3D figure integration easy. Using the Shadow Catcher, you can separate shadows from their underlying surface and put them virtually anywhere."

Not sure how else to interpret that... What else could it mean?  And is it just wrong?

EDIT:  I think I just answered my own question.  You could create two identical objects.  On one object, set visibility ON, but turn shadows OFF.  On the other, turn visibility OFF, but turn shadows ON.  Then, move invisible shadow-casting object to wherever you want.  Viola, shadow has moved.

Thanks for making me, you know, think about this!  LOL!

You can have runtimes anywhere.  I have runtimes on three separate hard drives, with poser running on my main C drive.  And, yes, you probably can run Poser from any drive, too, though if it's not a serial drive, it will slow down considerably.  I suggest keeping Poser's main install on your C drive, and using external runtimes, just as IsaoShi suggests.  Just remember a few things:

1. DAZ main figures (V4, M4, mil2dragon, etc.) don't like to be moved from your main runtime.  I suggest leaving them there, unless you go to the DAZ threads and read EXACTLY how to install them in other runtimes.

2) Python scripts must be installed in your main runtime.

1. If you boot poser with your external drive unplugged, it will forget about your external runtimes, and you'll have to re-add them.

2. Take IsaoShi's advice and get a redundant, self-backing drive. I lost ALL my runtimes about two months ago and had to start over.  NOT fun, I assure you.  Thankfully, I had backups of most of my install files on another drive.  In any event, back up EARLY and OFTEN.

Good luck!

pgmeri01 -- Let me see if I can help.  I usually use AO on materials instead of lights, because it's difficult to get a lot of control over the scene with lights.  (AO lights affect EVERYTHING the light touches in the same way.)  You might consider turning AO off on your lights and turning it ON for materials.

In any event, MaxDistance is the biggest distance (in whatever default unit you have selected in Poser's main settings) that a ray of light can travel between two objects and still casts a shadow, where Ray Bias is the smallest distance.  If you are getting dark spots from far-away objects (and you don't want them,) you should lower the maxdistance.  If you are getting dark spots from very close objects (and you don't want them,) you should increase the ray bias.  "Samples" will increase the number of light rays sampled, but usually 3 or 4 is sufficient, unless you have a very HIGH max distance.

I suggest adding AO nodes to your materials instead of using it on lights.  That way, you can adjust every material in your scene individually.  This can be a pain to do wth the material room, because you have to apply the nodes one material at a time.  However, there are some very good and inexpensive products out there that will do this in one or two clicks. 

Check out my tutorial on RuntimeDNA.  It might be useful to you.  The same principles I talk about in the tutorial apply to AO lights, too.

By the way, nice scene!  :)

Good luck!

Here's what I came up with:  I used hard lighting from the figures' right and an IBL light. (Depth mapped shadows on hard light.)  I also added ambient occlusion nodes to the skin to add contrast.  The figure on the left has the sss wacro applied, while the one on the right does not.  I'm not especially fond of how pink  the sss wacro makes her look, but she sure isn't dull and clay-like!  With a little better lighting, and perhaps some fiddling with the colors in the material room, this might be what you're looking for.  Though, for the record, finding a good freebie texture might be much easier.

You can also try using the "Use Subsurface Scattering" wacro on her materials.  This is meant to replicate the semi-translucent nature of skin.  (Kind of a pain to change one material at a time, but might be worth doing if you feel she's looking flat.)  The wacro adds SSS effects by adding Edge Blend, Fastscatter, and Blin nodes to the skin textures. It also changes the lights in your scene to produce Depth Map Shadows.  For Victoria, I'd use the wacro on all materials numbered 1, 2, and 3.  (Face, body, and limb.)

Be aware that poser's default lights suck.  Lighting will change Victoria's coloring a LOT.  Gimme a few minutes, and I'll throw together a few sample renders of what V4's mats look like with and without SSS...

Gini,
Semidieu is correct -- there would be an issue if there was something else attached to the node.  My little python just looks at all the material nodes on an object and deletes them if they are AO nodes.  If there were other things attached to the node, they would be disconnected.  In most cases, this would be sufficient, but if there was something more complex, you might be un-plugging other nodes that you wouldn't want to unplug.   If someone can come up with something better, please feel free! 

Kari  :)