as I said the diffuse is set to white. The material on the plate itself from blender was I believe grey default

Your light is orange. Make it white. When a colored light shines on white/gray things, they take on that exact hue/saturation. Even colored things become colored differently.

Numerically it's quite simple. The color of the light is multiplied with the color of the object.

awesome! That did the trick! Thanks... :-)

Poser doesn't like creases, even right angles can sometimes look weird.  Best way to fix it is to add a row of polys very close to the crease, on either side.  Also, split the verts in UVMapper, or some similar app.

Some people will tell you to alter the default crease angle in Poser.  I say that's not really a great idea, since you're then stuck with something that may not work in all cases and - if you want to give the model away or sell it - it would involve other people having to do the same thing.  Better to make it properly in the first place.

I'd strongly reccommend splitting verts on any model you make for Poser; they tend to render "cleaner". 

Could be the normals are inconsistent as well.

I did apply an edge split modifier in blender before I sent it to poser...and I will double check the normals...thanks for those ideas. Adjusting the crease angle to 0 didn't effect it anyway...and thanks for the advice re: selling it...I will try adding the row of polys close to the crease and let you know how it works...thanks! H.

Thanks!

On the Image_Map node, it says Image_Mapped=Tile by default. Change that to None or Clamped. If None, the other pixels will be set to the Background color of the node. Otherwise, the colors of the edge of the image are repeated forever.

You can resize the image using the U_Scale and V_Scale. You can reposition it using U_Offset and V_Offset.

Thanks for your reply. Unfortunately I did have it set as you suggest and I was still getting those results. I will try the U scale and V scale...

hmm didn't have any luck with that. Does anyone else use Gimp 2? And do you know if there is a good size for a texture image that loads well into Poser? Any other ideas also appreciated bagginsbill! Thanks. H.

is it uv mapped ??

I double checked...uvs is selected on export from blender...

Your'e showing U_Scale and V_Scale = 0. That's impossible. You did not get an image to show under those conditions.

Well i did but I have no idea why I shouldn't or what it might mean that I did?

here is a screen shot of the settings and the image rendered from them...

How did you UV map the plate? 

My concern is you've got the image mapped into a space that is 0 units wide and 0 units high. That means it occupies a tiny infinitesimal point in the UV coordinate system.

I'm guessing that Poser refuses to divide by 0 as that causes program termination. So it is probably substituting an extremely tiny but non-zero width and height despite what you're showing.

For this to work, I'm guessing that you did not UV map the plate, and that all vertices have the coordinates of 0 0. Again, Poser must be re-mapping that onto some very tiny subset of the UV coordinate system.

What is the UV mapping?

The Uv mapping is from blender. I made sure the UV tab was selected on export from blender to make sure the UV coordinates were available to poser...OR should I have done something different?

You misunderstand. One interpretation of what you are saying is you did not actually map the UV coordinates, but you did instruct Blender to export them. In that case, a bunch of zeros are being sent out. That's not the same as "Yes I UV mapped the prop". In other words, if you did not look at a picture of the plate's polygons, mapped onto a 2D image, with your eyeballs, in Blender, then you did not perform the step of UV mapping the prop.

The process called UV mapping involves you actively doing something and reviewing it. As such, had you done so, you would be able to answer my question; how did you UV map it?

Is it covering the whole map? Partly? A tiny bit in the corner? What?

Did you manually do it? Did you use a planar projection? Spherical? Cylindrical? Circular?

heddheld also asked "Is it UV mapped"?

You answered that you double checked that UVs are enabled for export. That has NOTHING to do with whether or not you UV mapped it.

Yes I understand that. I went back and checked which file I was using and it was not the one I had unwrapped. (Split windows in blender press u and unwrap which I think creates the uv map though I could be wrong?) At any rate I reloaded the bowl in poser with this file and now I can't get the image to appear at all. Is this progress? :-)

Yes - now put the U_Scale and V_Scale back to 1.

As I said, there was no way you got an image with them set to 0 - assuming you had UV mapped, of course.

you do need to add seams when u "unwrap" or the map will be wierd, good idea to project from view (pick the best for the object eg for plate (horizontal) pick top view)

I had wondered if you had many faces mapped one on top of the other and causing the extra images you didnt want

Hmm they are set to 1, and I can apply the image to the outside of the bowl, and the inside walls of the bowl (each their own groups) But when I go and try to apply the image to the bottom inside surface of the bowl (again its own group) I see nothing but the white background?

Well I'm not even an intermediate at UV mapping so I can't help, although I can tell what is wrong. You need to examine the mapping - where did that polygon fall on the image? Obviously on the side where it only got a teeny bit of the center of the image.

Personally, I'd use a planar mapping - I'd just map that whole plate top side to the range [0-1] in both dimensions. Then any image you put on will be square and even.

You can actually do such a mapping in Poser using perspective UV mapping. It's the only kind Poser can do. You line up the plate in the viewport how you want it, with the image loaded in the background. Then you snap those UV's in place. Thereafter, if you put that image into the plate material, it will be mapped over exactly the places you had at the time that you did the mapping.

can you post a screen shot of the uv map? I think thats where the problem is, never tried BB's way of doing it in poser(never knew you could lol ) but in blender mark a seam round the rim then do the unwrap, should end up with 2 "maps" one of the bottom an one of top! then use the butterfly on to the uv maps!  you "hinted" that this might be a freebie or for sale? then it needs to be compatible with daz and daz wont do the fancy overlay that your doing in poser ( not in the same way lol ) but the uvmapped one will work in either proggy without any troubles

that looks like an ok map ;-) was wondering what the other one looked like lol no worries that should work fine , just paint it white and put your butterfly on. At least with good maps most stuff will work well in poser or Daz, poser procedual shaders dont transfer to Daz

thanks. :-) And thanks for the info on the shaders...not that I really know what those are yet but I will kep it in mind! lol. Anyway when you say just put butterfly on that is the problem. I can't get the butterfly image to load to the bowl in the materials room by adding a node, and slecting a 2d texture image map. However...maybe I am doing something wrong? (Forgive me I am only just starting to learn texturing) Am I supposed to paint the image on teh map and then load the map onto the bowl? because I have just been trying to load the image I created in gimp directly onto the bowl...I could probably do the texturing in Blender. But I wanted to understand it in Poser as well. Thanks! H.

for compatibilty with Daz then just paint it on the texture map then load that map into a 2d image node, this is only really important if you want that compatibilty with daz

if you just want to use it in poser then do what u did before (load as overlay ) BUT the default settings place that image in centre of uv map you need it in the top left (from the map you posted here) so change the u & v offset (as a guess try about -.5 and .5 and adjust as required)

ps is always a chance I got u an v mixed up so ur warned lol

hope that helps

This is the most recent post outlining how to decal an image to an object in the material room.

https://market.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?thread_id=2830431&page=1

I didn't realize you had to paint the image to the UV map and then load that as a node in the material room in Poser! Makes sense though...

I am having some weird stripes appear on a plate I am modeling and I can't figure out what is causing them. I will post the pic of the mesh in blender then how it looks rendered in poser if anyone has any ideas. Thanks!

Is the banding present in the finished render before you save it or only visible in the saved image?

The reason I ask is because that kind of banding happens with low quality JPG files.  If it's showing up in the unsaved render, I dunno what the cause is. 

I have had that sort of "banding" but its usualy when I have render settings real low (either cos I forgot to turn them up or when testing stuff out )

If the banding is really in the render, and not just save as jpg quality issue, we might have to discuss shadows and smoothing - which are usually involved.

Things to try, for diagnosis. I'm not suggest these are solutions, just ways for me to know which problems are in play.

Disable smoothing

Disable shadows

Increase shadow min bias

Attaching pics of each. And thank you everyone for your responses.

Shadow min bias is found on your light settings. 

thanks :-)

(Note: I am going to use "baby" talk because the math won't reach all readers and isn't that important anyway. I mean no disrespect.)

Smoothing is useful for making low-poly things look curvy instead of having facets.

If you visualize a surface generated for a polygon, there are two versions possible of each polygon - one that is shaped and curved to follow the contour of the whole piece, and one that is flat. 

Poser is a little bit schizo when you enable smoothing. Parts of its "brain" see the curvy polygon. Other parts see the "flat" polygon. And parts accidentally see both. Guess which part sees both? The shadow calculator.

When a surface is being rendered, or more accurately a specific point on that surface is being evaluated, the renderer has to call on the shader to figure out how much light is coming from that point into the camera. The shader demands to know, among other things, how much light is reaching that point and from where. If shadows are disabled, only lights need to be consulted for this info. If shadows are enabled, then after getting the  info from a light, a shadow calculation determines how much of that light is obstructed.

Now the renderer up to this point was using the curved polygon points. Imagine a polygon undergoing smoothing as being shaped like a bowl and we're rendering one of the points in the bowl. Imagine the other interpretation of a polygon, the flat one, as being a plate sitting on top of the bowl. So we're starting from the bowl and looking around at light sources and asking if there is anything in the way.

Here's where the schizo part comes. The raytracing subsystem doesn't see the bowls - it sees only the plates. So when it goes to see what is in the way, it sort of finds that the polygon is in its own way. (Remember, the same polygon is both the bowl and the plate.)

The phenomenon is called "self shadowing" and is a consequence of the REYES style of rendering that Firefly uses. To avoid it, we use "Shadow Min Bias". This is a number that is consulted when doing shadow obstruction testing. It says that there is a minimum distance around a point that nothing can obstruct light, even if it seems to be in the way.

We use this to make the plate be invisible to the bowl.

When the SMB is less than the deepest bowl, we get funny artifacts like you see. Parts of the plate are close to the bowl and no shadow is seen. In other places, the plate is farther than the SMB and a shadow is seen.

So you have two choices. Either increase SMB until the artifact is gone, or turn off smoothing. Pros and cons attach to both options. 

If you're making this as a product, and must solve the problem for others as well as yourself, I think you should design the prop geometry so that SMB is less of a factor. This usually means keeping the plates and bowls closer together, and can be done by using more polygons.

Wow bagginsbill, Thank you. That was very informative and I appreciate your depth of understanding and your willingness to share it! I am making it as part of a product. So I will try to keep things closer together and perhaps use more polys as you suggest. H.

Quote - I couldn't see how to increase shadow bias. However I disabled shadows and smoothing and it made a world of difference. So the question now is, what do I do about it! :-)

...

The easiest thing would probably be to use ray tracing for the shadows (from the looks of it, you have buffer shadows). You can enable ray trace shadows in the light's properties panel. I personally would not try to make the bowl look right under every possible buffer shadow configuration by making the polygon count higher than it already is, and it would fix the problem for only some situations anyway.

 Another thing: If this is a kind of salad bowl sized bowl, best do your test renders in the intended usage size. The setting for the shadow bias (for buffer shadows) is an absolute value, i.e. the effect does not scale with your object, and one setting for the bias might not be useful anymore after you scaled your object down.