richardson opened this issue on Jan 06, 2012 · 37 posts
richardson posted Fri, 06 January 2012 at 3:48 PM
I was trying to match this photo by Igor Amelkovich as a challenge (link). started to get some results and then sort of plateau'd. What stood out was my inability to get the high specular and shading/shadowing at the level of the photo.
I noticed this for years really. Once you convert a render to greyscale, you see how little contrast survives at rendertime. I'm sure there is an explanation.
Anyway, I zipped the scene up with the Zbrushed object if anyone wants a go at it. Send me a sm to email to.
Below, my best so far. IDL, SSS, one light, one light box and bb's envirosphere. Body is at sub1 so, not much detail yet. I used V4Hi, snarly's EZskin with fresnel, and a concrete texture.
richardson posted Fri, 06 January 2012 at 3:51 PM
Gotta be a way
ghostman posted Fri, 06 January 2012 at 4:10 PM
You should be able to protect some elements like the hair with a mask in photoshop.
"Dream like you'll live forever. Live like you'll die tomorrow."
richardson posted Fri, 06 January 2012 at 4:18 PM
I think Poser should get better clarity though. The body loses all the detail, too. I just don't have the displacement map here.
ghostman posted Fri, 06 January 2012 at 4:28 PM
Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=2262534&user_id=29771&np&np
Have you tried with a light plane infront of her for the highlights? I've had some pretty good results with that."Dream like you'll live forever. Live like you'll die tomorrow."
Blackhearted posted Fri, 06 January 2012 at 4:43 PM
have you tried turning off GC?
LaurieA posted Fri, 06 January 2012 at 4:57 PM
OMG...my jaw just hit the floor.
wanders off....mutters something about never using Poser again cause she's too stupid....
Laurie
RobynsVeil posted Fri, 06 January 2012 at 4:59 PM
I'll join you, Laurie - even with that brain cell of yours I've confiscated, I still feel... um, what was the word you used again.... ??? :-/
Monterey/Mint21.x/Win10 - Blender3.x - PP11.3(cm) - Musescore3.6.2
Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehen
[it is clear that humans have contempt for that which they do not understand]
LaurieA posted Fri, 06 January 2012 at 5:02 PM
I think I said "bloody ****" but we'll settle for knocked out of my chair :P
I thought the render WAS the photo. 
I am SO not worthy....lol.
Laurie
RobynsVeil posted Fri, 06 January 2012 at 5:06 PM
Why aren't these images ever on Staff Picks? or Carodan's? You guys set a new (pretty-much unattainable to the unwashed masses) standard for us. Have you considered doing a tutorial, Richardson? or two? or five?
This is simply mindboggling...
Monterey/Mint21.x/Win10 - Blender3.x - PP11.3(cm) - Musescore3.6.2
Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehen
[it is clear that humans have contempt for that which they do not understand]
LaurieA posted Fri, 06 January 2012 at 5:09 PM
Quote - I noticed this for years really. Once you convert a render to greyscale, you see how little contrast survives at rendertime.
Just a thought...have you tried going into the channels and clicking on each of the color plates...r, g, and b? sometimes one of those has more detail or the detail you want than just converting to greyscale :). If you chose one of the channels and delete the other two you may be able to keep more of the details. It's been been my experience that red or blue usually seem to get the closest to what I'm after ;). Then convert that one color to greyscale :). Or you could copy each one, desaturate and then layer them using different layer settings...see what ya get.
Laurie
richardson posted Fri, 06 January 2012 at 5:33 PM
Yikes!
Sorry guys.. just give me a few to test out the ideas.
msg24_7 posted Fri, 06 January 2012 at 5:37 PM
Quote - ...
I noticed this for years really. Once you convert a render to greyscale, you see how little contrast survives at rendertime. I'm sure there is an explanation.
Anyway, I zipped the scene up with the Zbrushed object if anyone wants a go at it. Send me a sm to email to.
I would go at this from a photographers POV...
Render to HDR... this should give you much more data to play with...
(like shooting in RAW vs. JPG)
Then take it into Photoshop...
Here's a nice, short article about creating b/w images in Photoshop...
http://photo.net/learn/digital-photography-workflow/advanced-photoshop-tutorials/converting-to-black-and-white/
Martin
Yesterday's the past, tomorrow's the future, but today is a gift. That's why it's called the present.
richardson posted Fri, 06 January 2012 at 5:50 PM
I did use a lightbox set to 3ambient. It does not give the deep shadows though.
richardson posted Fri, 06 January 2012 at 5:53 PM
I think you got it. Sheez I thought the new shaders would not function without gc but apparently they do. All I did here was greyscale it.
ghostman posted Fri, 06 January 2012 at 5:54 PM
Hmm.. I did'nt get that kind of results when I played with it.
"Dream like you'll live forever. Live like you'll die tomorrow."
bagginsbill posted Fri, 06 January 2012 at 5:58 PM
Nice work.
There is no universal "physics says" way to convert color to grayscale.
But if you're trying to match a camera, you can't do it by simply averaging R, G, B which is usually what people do.
You might want to try my Artistic Lens, which lets you render B&W directly in Poser, no Photoshop or other postwork.
Anyway the equation that is identical to B&W television involves a weighted sum, which I included in the Artistic Lens.
Artistic Lens Thread:
http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?thread_id=2754029
Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)
bagginsbill posted Fri, 06 January 2012 at 6:01 PM
Note: I suspect my artistic lens shader won't work with GC on.
I probably used a color to do the weighted sum.
It would have to be adjusted for modern Poser use.
Let me know if you need it.
Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)
richardson posted Fri, 06 January 2012 at 6:16 PM
All great suggestions. I think the gc off has cured the contrast problem I had. The photo had an incredible specular to shadow ratio that I was not getting with my setup.
I'm beginning to think most of my textures are in need of some form of correction.
Nice link Martin.
richardson posted Fri, 06 January 2012 at 6:23 PM
bb I have your lens. I've not tried it yet. I have much to learn in Photoshop. I've avoided it until lately. As to matching the photo... the one I linked to appears to be tinted. The one I used was monocrome... groan I like the tinted one better.
richardson posted Fri, 06 January 2012 at 6:37 PM
richardson posted Fri, 06 January 2012 at 6:40 PM
ghostman posted Fri, 06 January 2012 at 6:46 PM
Outstanding work richarson. 
"Dream like you'll live forever. Live like you'll die tomorrow."
LaurieA posted Fri, 06 January 2012 at 7:00 PM
What model is that btw richardson?
Laurie
richardson posted Fri, 06 January 2012 at 7:01 PM
ghostnan, it's ok. If I do the displacement map and a good dynamic hair.. I wasted my creative juice on 30 test renders... but learned a lot
dlfurman posted Fri, 06 January 2012 at 7:04 PM
What makes her pop is the wall is darker than the wall you have in the render. This is by looking at your render and the image side-by-side
"Cheat" and make the diffuse of the concrete wall/floor a bit darker than you alerady have it and see what happens.
Also given the model (the Poser model not the Model model) has got that shoulder thing happening. The Model model's back seems to catch more light.(Got how I want to phrase this) The dropoff from the Poser models back to the shoulder is more pronounced/sharper than the dropoff from the Model model's back to shoulder, so Model model gets more light (thus spec) on her back than Poser model does. Got a shoulder fix morph for the Poser model?
(Does that make sense?)
"Few are agreeable in conversation, because each thinks more of what he intends to say than that of what others are saying, and listens no more when he himself has a chance to speak." - Francois de la Rochefoucauld
Intel Core i7 920, 24GB RAM, GeForce GTX 1050 4GB video, 6TB HDD
space
Poser 12: Inches (Poser(PC) user since 1 and the floppies/manual to prove it!)
richardson posted Fri, 06 January 2012 at 7:18 PM
(Does that make sense?)
Yep. More time in Zbrush is what you are saying. Shoulder "fixes" don't work. Not on a non default figure. I can pull that into position in ZB much better. Might as well start from scratch though and use precise measurements. This was eyeballed in a few hours. Maybe tomorrow. I can see lots of position problems.
richardson posted Fri, 06 January 2012 at 7:22 PM
What model is that btw richardson?
It was V4 morphed into a Milla Javovich fbm Legs are at -.425*
Blackhearted posted Fri, 06 January 2012 at 7:35 PM
"@bh,
I think you got it. "
ive seen great results with gamma correction on in certain renders, but i have yet to see someone get deep, dramatic shadows or inky blacks with it enabled.
one of the first things many photographers do after snapping photos is take them into PS/LR and adjust levels. GC is great but it doesnt have to be on for every render.
dadt posted Sat, 07 January 2012 at 3:46 PM
The point about turning off GC got me thinking about what happens if you use GC but set it at less than 1? I tried this and it gives even more contrast, with the possibility of some unusual results.
richardson posted Sat, 07 January 2012 at 5:03 PM
The point about turning off GC got me thinking about what happens if you use GC but set it at less than 1? I tried this and it gives even more contrast, with the possibility of some unusual results.
Post your results. I don't care about driftin'
msg24_7 posted Sun, 08 January 2012 at 3:45 PM
Yesterday's the past, tomorrow's the future, but today is a gift. That's why it's called the present.
richardson posted Sun, 08 January 2012 at 4:09 PM
Now that was fun, no? Not easy. I know.. Not even with the scene. I used the same hair!
msg24_7 posted Sun, 08 January 2012 at 4:30 PM
Yes, it was fun... and even more so, because it isn't easy... :-)
Somehow this exercise reminded me of one of the first images I created back in 2003...
That render was based on a photo as well...
http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=599474
Almost looks like I haven't learned much in those 8 years :lol:
Yesterday's the past, tomorrow's the future, but today is a gift. That's why it's called the present.
richardson posted Sun, 08 January 2012 at 4:38 PM
That would be challenging now. Makes me want to mess with displacement in Zbrush..
msg24_7 posted Sun, 08 January 2012 at 4:54 PM
have fun messing :-)
Yesterday's the past, tomorrow's the future, but today is a gift. That's why it's called the present.
richardson posted Thu, 12 January 2012 at 1:58 PM
Kinda screwed the displacement map and then deleted the object. I'm NOT doing it again. My first dynamic hair trial in years and some post corrections to fix a bald spot. If I had a month,,, it would be much better. Overall happy with PPro2012 and the nodework of others that I could reach from. Thanks