A friend of mine and I were discussing something he read once in an Anton readme - the idea to apply a dark brown highlight to the skin, at 100%, to add a warm glow to the skin. Well, I decided to try it. The two images above are with the same character, and the same lighting and textures. However, the one on the right has the default r17/g17/b17 highlight. The one on the left has a different one - r25/g17/b10, with the highlight size set to 100%. As you can see, there is a very subtle difference. If you cover the one on the left, the one on the right looks fine. But when you look at them together, the one on the right seems to have almost a grey-ish cast.

Remember, kids! Napalm is Nature's Toothpaste!

This is just a tweak of the pic above - I overlaid the "glow" pic on the regular one, to better highlight the difference.

Remember, kids! Napalm is Nature's Toothpaste!

Thanks for the refreshing that info Valandar. Can you do me a favor? (this is one of Doc Geep's pet peeves) ;=] Repost this pic (it's a good one) but first ... Make the eyes look at the camera ... - and - Put a (slight) smile on her face. Couldja do that for the ol' Doc, huh, huh? Thanks. cheers, dr geep ;=]

Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"

cheers,

dr geep ... :o]

edited 10/5/2019

Well, my recent lack of Internet access at home will kinda keep me from doing this for a few days... But, sure.

Remember, kids! Napalm is Nature's Toothpaste!

Sounds very similar to the settings suggested by Maclean which I've used virtually since he suggested them Lights H16/S240/L228 hadow to anything LESS than .500 and the map size to 1024 Skin instead of the default black for highlight and ambient colors, set them to 8/110/35 Works fine for me and gives a very rich skin tone in all the variations from light to dark skin.

If I'm doing a well-lighted scene, and I think of it, I like to use a very dark red (between 16 and 64, green and blue set to 0) for the ambient color. It gives a nice rosy glow effect. At least one of my freebie character sets includes a pose to do this for V3. On night scenes, though, it tends to pop out a bit. ;)

Hey questor, Thanks for posting that info. I was reading the thread and thinking I should mention it.... but, of course, I'd have to open poser, find a figure and get the settings. You saved me the trouble. Re the ambient color thingy. I find this such a useful trick that my new product readme contains a special section devoted to using surface materials, and specifically, how to darken/lighten wood and other materials using object and ambient colors. Fyrespyrit, I used exactly the same technique on the flames I added to my fireplace figure. I set ambient to dark red on the flames and the brickwork around the fire to get a nice glow. mac PS I can't believe people actually still use these things I reccommended years ago. Someone recently mailed me asking for my default light set which I posted about 3 years ago. She deleted it by accident and said she was lost without it. LOL.

Geep, completly agree. So many render with poser people staring off into space...

Way too many people take way too many things way too seriously.

What is it that they are looking at? Can you spell h-y-p-n-o-t-i-z-e-d? ;=]

Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"

cheers,

dr geep ... :o]

edited 10/5/2019

I'm a bit of an expert on the subject of people staring into space. I HATE it. And as a fashion photographer, I very seldom allow it in models. I like to get them staring RIGHT IN THE CAMERA! The problem is that in poser, the eyes can be a bit sucky. I call it 'intensity'. Here's a 'rogue's gallery' of intense eyes. mac

Hey! ... That is neat!

Thanks for posting mac.

You would be an excellent judge if we had a contest here on R'osity for the best eyes on a Poser Figure.

That is, the one that minimizes the "blank-stare" the best using any figure with NO post work of any kind and rendered only in Poser.

Whatdya think?

;=]

BTW - Who is that real good lookin' one on the right? ;=]

Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"

cheers,

dr geep ... :o]

edited 10/5/2019

These are just a few pics I had lying around from rebuilding my web site. From left to right - kayce, my ex-roommate (and model) / a swedish model / an american model / my ex-cat, ziggy (long dead and gone, but I have 2 new ones). mac

Depends on the sort of picture you're creating. If, for example, the image is of somebody doing something in particular, other than posing for a camera, I much prefer the model to not look into the lens. It's false. In fact, there was a fashion for photographer's models to look anywhere but at the camera. In general, I prefer that.

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

I agree Sam, if the "subject" is doing something, then they look "stiff" (awkward) if they are looking into the camera. "HEY!!! Watch the road while you're driving!" What are your thoughts on this, mac? You can always tell an amateur actor because they seem to always "check" to see if the camera is on them. Interesting discussion ... even if a bit OT. Maybe it is relevant though since we are talking "posing", no? ;=]

Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"

cheers,

dr geep ... :o]

edited 10/5/2019

Yep, totally relevant. Anything which makes for more realistic posing is totally on topic, hein?

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

Yup! (in my book anyway) ;=] "hein"? ... isn't that a brand of beer?

Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"

cheers,

dr geep ... :o]

edited 10/5/2019

Hehe. Almost. For posing the eyes, I usually use a box prop behind the camera, since setting "point at" directly to the camera usually makes the model go cross eyed.

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

Yup! BTW - Would that be a "magic" box? ;=]

Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"

cheers,

dr geep ... :o]

edited 10/5/2019

"What is it that they are looking at? Can you spell h-y-p-n-o-t-i-z-e-d?" Look, zombies are people too, ok? :-) Q, many thanks for the helpful tip!

Oh ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . sorry! ;=]

Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"

cheers,

dr geep ... :o]

edited 10/5/2019

'In fact, there was a fashion for photographer's models to look anywhere but at the camera. In general, I prefer that' Fair enough, although I'm a bit suspicious of 'trends' and whatever happens to be 'fashionable' at a particular time. IMO, any artist has to do what he/she feels, NOT what happens to be the currently fashionable thing to do. Originality doesn't come from doing what everybody else is doing at the same time. To descend from general musings to the topic in hand, I'd say that the best models are actors. They sort of reach into themselves and play a role for the camera. Not easy to do with a digital figure, but I suppose you can try. I learnt about fashion photography from looking at pictures and working as an assistant to other photographers. And I don't mean just camera and lighting techniques. I mean working with models, dealing with clients and art directors, getting a result when everything that can go wrong does go wrong, etc, etc. So I'd say that the best guide to posing is observing people. In the street, in the home, in magazines and on TV. And it helps to think 'outside the frame'. By that, I mean outside the normal way of looking at things. I don't render often, but when I do, I like to experiment. I'll try one single light and get it right, then switch to a 20mm camera and play around with weird angles from above or below. Or pose the figure lying on the floor and bring the camera down to floor level. Do an extreme close-up of the face. I dunno. Anything EXCEPT the standard scene with a figure standing up straight and the camera face on. My problem is that I tend to do things I would do with a nikon, which isn't always possible in poser. But hey, why not try anyway? mac PS When posing, it's a good idea to use the animation controls to 'tweak' the pose. If you set an initial pose, then a 2nd one, you can use the keyboards arrows or animation controls to move the figure frame by frame between the 2 poses. Great for altering preset poses.

On the Eye Contact vs. No Eye Contact thing? Seems simple enough usually: Is the subject aware of the viewer? In other words, do you want the viewer to feel as though they are a "character" in the scene, or an outside omniscient observer. Sometimes one way, sometime's t'other. Just another tool to be used to manipulate the affect on your viewer IMHO. --------------------- ~OT-OT: In addition to using a Point-At Eye Target prop as SamTherapy mentioned above, I recently played around with using an extended cylinder prop, parented to the eyes, to simulate the line-of-sight for a figure. Kinda gratuitous, if using the Eye-Target prop, but, at a minimum, it was fun watch while adjusting the eyes that way!

While on the subject of eyes it's also worth remembering that the eyes do have morphs for the pupils. This again is where "people watching" plays a part, getting used to how the eyes react to certain lights and situations. A wide pupil is considered more attractive and shows desire - according to "them who know" - but is somewhat unsuitable in bright light. The pupil expands and contracts with a great deal of variation and can make a considerable difference to close portrait shots along with where the eye is pointing. It becomes a negligible point for anything beyond head and shoulder portraits but is worth thinking about if you're going for those close in "mood" renders. On that note, don't ever forget the expression dials, these can make a world of difference to a portrait, even just using the dials in small increments can turn a plastic manikin into a better render. No face is completely expressionless - unless you're Charles Bronson. Eyes looking directly at the camera work better for portraits as they help to draw the viewers eyes into the image, but with a pin-point pupil you can actually make a viewer feel uncomfortable. They're cold, angry, staring... and few people will look directly at the eyes, whereas a wide pupil has almost the opposite effect. For dreamy, thoughtful or distant expressions the eyes should not look at the camera. Then the viewer becomes interested in the ambient mood of the image. What's the model looking at, what's she thinking about? Then there's focus. Nance's trick with cylinders can work very well if you're trying to align the eyes with a particular object/item and helps to focus the model eyes on that item. It might not matter to the viewer but it can make a small difference to the render. In this respect it's also worth concentrating on the pupils because they will contract and/or expand depending on the subject, the focus of the subject and the lighting. It's also worth noting at this point that the default setting for the millenium figure eyes (and this appears to be all of them) is bossed. They're about 6 points shy of true on the figures when they're loaded so it's worth checking and straightening them up first before parenting or pointing at another item. In the end it comes down to the long term Poser users most socially obvious trait. Watching people closely and trying to relate how that real life action could be poserised. If Poser had a better lighting system, it would be possible to get better effects with the eyes as you could use the lights to fake some of the more common real life things that eyes do. That's one of the more limiting aspects of Poser that takes some hard work to get round. Also consider the texture map you're using. Has it got annoying false highlights added to the texture and does that highlight match your lighting? If not, change it to something that does match. Ultimately it's care in construction and compilation. Don't reject something because it's too fiddly or too boring. The face dials are important with portrait renders and refining a pose is vital. There is a weight to humans that is very rarely reflected in Poser renders where it seems that limbs and other things are often "floating". If it takes two hours to make a hand appear to be resting on a piece of clothing, then it's two hours well spent. If it takes a day to tweak a facial expression, it's a day well spent. The end result will be subtly far superior to similar images. This tweaking and thought in construction might not get more comments in the gallery or more "wow, cool" comments, but they are personally much more satisfying. Remember, most people will look through the galleries just to look, they're not actually concentrating on the images they see. It's a few seconds glance, scan over, move on. A very few people actually LOOK. Those are the ones you'll catch. Those who are looking at the image to be impressed, not just to "see it". In the end though it's personal satisfaction. You "know" what you did for that render, it's your enjoyment in the knowledge that you did what you could and didn't just load, pose, click render.

Wow... lots and lots of good advice... Wonder of Anton has noticed my mention of his little tip yet. Meanwhile, I'm jotting this stuff down, to use in my future images!

Remember, kids! Napalm is Nature's Toothpaste!

Uh... ya know, these silly things are actually turning out to be pretty handy - - as the Eye-Target prop itself is often obscured, or otherwise out of the current view.

The X-Trans and Y-Trans values will have to be adjusted for each figures height & size -- I presume.