Quote - Please - I hope the kink at the side on the upper body doesn't get buried under breasts ...

Or the armpit height.

Quote - YAY a body render!

I like her torso, really do.

Might be an illusion, but her arms look kinda dettached at the shoulders? A bit too broad? I'm not sure.

I'm not sure if it's the pose and the angle either, but the armpits look a bit too high.

I say this as someone who badly wants this figure to work, because I really want something natural-looking to use with Poser dynamic cloth.

Lux can do motion blur.

http://www.luxrender.net/wiki/Motion_Blur

Quote - Aww :(. I'm sorry to hear that. Seriously. Hmm...maybe it's because you have to throw out what you know about Poser and start over with Luxrender :). I can't imagine what's up with the lashes tho. I'd have to see the materials files..hehe. Not asking for em or anything...I don't need to know ;).

Laurie

The lashes could be an issue of "use hair mask" being unchecked. The mask prevents the SSS from making eyelashes look funky and reddish.

I really recommend that everyone read the user guide. Also, the forum over at RuntimeDNA is useful.

And I totally agree about people needing to throw out what they know about Poser when trying unbiased rendering.

Me, I took one look at Poser lighting and went "are you kidding me?" Luckily, I came across Reality, Lux, and a far more simple, intutitive and real-life way of lighting scenes.

But then I learned that many of the products out there don't look good in physics based-rendering, mostly because they were created for a more cartoony rendering style.

As a result, I became more discrminiating about the products I buy. Painted-on buttons and lacing are a pass. Very painted skin textures are also a pass. I'm going to be very honest and say that many Reality renders look like photos of plastic dolls, but they would be vastly improved by simply using better photo-based textures.

Okay, I shouldn't say "improved." Some people want the doll-photo look. It's fun for humorous stuff. Still, there's a reason why many Reality users use the bleep out of Danae's skin textures. They look effing awesome in Lux...with a little tweaking.

With DAZ's Reality, I've never once not fiddled with the textures in Reality's editor. However, I have to do it less with Reality 3. You noobs are lucky. Still, would I never expect to just load an object, light, and hit the render button because, again, most of the content out there isn't made for unbiased rendering. Now that we have Reality for Poser, I am hopeful vendors will start making products with Lux in mind.

Tl;dr: Unbiased rendering is another tool. It requires learning, and a different perspective.

Quote - > Quote - And I don't know why they keep putting the Pure Hair series hairs with these packs   (maybe they look good in 3Delight?), but I can never get them to look good with Reality.  The ones that came with M5 also looked like crap. 

The way some of the hair in the picture is reflecting looks like a very high spec with a specular map confining the light reflection to certain areas.

What's the specular on the hair in your picture? I once had a Pure Hair load at 212 and had to bring it down to ~40.

Or the reflection could be painted on, which would suck.

Quote - And I don't know why they keep putting the Pure Hair series hairs with these packs   (maybe they look good in 3Delight?), but I can never get them to look good with Reality.  The ones that came with M5 also looked like crap. 

The way some of the hair in the picture is reflecting looks like a very high spec with a specular map confining the light reflection to certain areas.

What's the specular on the hair in your picture? I once had a Pure Hair load at 212 and had to bring it down to ~40.

Quote - Having a wierd issue I've never had before.  I have my image in Lux exactly how I want it with film response, exposure, lighting, gamma, etc.  It's a dark scene with lots of shadows and took a while to get it right.

I used file-->save and exit in lux, opened the png in photoshop to make it a forum friendly size and the image is much brighter and the lighting and shadow look nothing like they do in the lux window. 

Edit: Just tried opening it with Windows photo viewer and it looks fine, but I can't edit with that.  

The Windows viewer isn't color managed like PS. You might need to look into color space and monitor calibration.

For me, GIMP reflects my Lux window better than Windows because my monitor is set to sRGB and I select sRGB in the Lux panel under the "color space" presets.