Jump to content

Something's still not OK on these renders


Recommended Posts

I think they look quite good ;)

 

To improve them you would need to add a lot more detail I think.

 

The "tube" on the house looks just like that, a tube - not like something real.

All walls etc are completely even. Basically while the texturing is not repetitive, it still looks like paint.

All lines are 100% straight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join Date: Nov 2005

Location: nowhere

Posts: 10

 

Name: Jan Ruhser

 

 

Austria.gif

 

 

 

 

icon1.gif Re: Something's still not OK on these renders

I think they look quite good ;)

 

To improve them you would need to add a lot more detail I think

 

 

"To improve them you would need to add a lot more detail I think."

 

my 1st thoughts as well..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ jinsley & Strat;

 

I don't quite get what you mean with the colour tone adjustments, besides the curves, which action should I take?

 

@jinsley;

 

what's with the color dodge? Apply it to the leaves in order to get them more shiny?

 

Thanks for the valuable replies...

 

layers --> new adj layer --> colour balance... you could maybe put a little time into trying to warm up the highlights and cool down the shadows...

 

main-street-tree.jpg

 

Sorry, I said colour dodge, but I meant linear dodge (add). If you look at trees lit from behind... leaves that catch the direct sunlight really show their translucent nature. Your leaves seem very flat in colour, if you made a selection of them and very subtly gave them some highlights with a light yellow colour on linear dodge (additive) around the rim where they would catch light you could somewhat simulate sss without re-rendering or worrying about setting up the shaders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Tom,

 

I think the biggest issue lies that the building does not have depth. The way to do that is to create something in the foreground in order for the building to be pushed back and therefore create interest. I've just quickly added couple of things to show you what i mean. Also, for these kind of things we tend to brush some glows which tends romanticize the building and do some vignetting to focus onto the building... Hope this helps...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that people photoshopped into renders afterwards generally look pretty awful. For example the picture posted above the lighting on the people doesn't match the lighting in the scene, the same can be said for the tree too.

 

What the scene needs is more detailed modelling to make it more believable - don't rely too heavily on textures to do the job for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a difference. Shown side by side you can see the 2nd image has more color and warm plus the windows above have reflections. Tones are also grading more which makes it more realistic.

 

As far as people go, the quick example done before is pretty bad but normally if you have a large library you can select carefully and match your rendering lighting conditions. And you can't beat the effort vs. speed with which they liven up a scene.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did some corrections, following the advice of some of you.

Colour balance and curves ok now?

 

I think you could push the contrast a little bit more (although it looks better than the originals). It still looks a little flat to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Tom,

 

I think the biggest issue lies that the building does not have depth. The way to do that is to create something in the foreground in order for the building to be pushed back and therefore create interest. I've just quickly added couple of things to show you what i mean. Also, for these kind of things we tend to brush some glows which tends romanticize the building and do some vignetting to focus onto the building... Hope this helps...

 

I have to agree with Arnold... bikini girls definitely create more interest. and that maybe a foreground element might help...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again thanks for those great remarks.

I just post the final result with some added glow, which pushes the contrast a bit. Vignetting is also increased.

 

The depth-issue got me intrigued though, I agree with the principle, but since it's on the foreground, it has to be subtle, and have great quality.

 

Where can I find images to use in this purpose?

Any reference material maybe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again thanks for those great remarks.

I just post the final result with some added glow, which pushes the contrast a bit. Vignetting is also increased.

 

The depth-issue got me intrigued though, I agree with the principle, but since it's on the foreground, it has to be subtle, and have great quality.

 

Where can I find images to use in this purpose?

Any reference material maybe?

 

a discussion on quality entourage... sounds like Epicutor is the coice for the best quality... here is the thread:

 

http://forums.cgarchitect.com/40055-epicutor-vs-proviz-entourage.html#post279028

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me it seems that the sky is indicating the sun to be just to the top right of the skylight, but the shadow indicates the sun to be lower on the horizon on the left. Also if I cover the top half of the image, what I see appears to be a more overcast day.

 

Phenominal model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...