markf Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 I had the opposite view of this posted in another thread here. I have incorporated allot of the comments I got into this view. As always any comments are apreciated. http://www.openrangeimaging.com/test-posts/Seeforever_House_West02_low-res.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
batfink82 Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Hi Mark, I think this could be a nice image, the composition works well. However i think the mirror reflection of the glass makes the whole image look painted and abit flat. you would see into the rooms behind the glass, curtains, blinds etc would all be seen. Try rendering two versions one without any glass and then one with glass, then composite the two together in PS, this way you can play around with the reflectivity. Also I don't think the stone material quite works, it looks painted on because there is no shadow or depth to it. what kind of material is this? are you using any kind of bump or displacement channels? The wood is nearly there, I would try and remove the slight tiling you have to the diffuse map and maybe try to make the material have more of a sheen. Also, planks of wood are never exactly the same colour, try to introduce a random tonal variation to the facing. I think the foreground trees and their shadows work well and are pretty convincing. Hope this is useful! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amer abidi Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Hi Mark, I think this could be a nice image, the composition works well. However i think the mirror reflection of the glass makes the whole image look painted and abit flat. you would see into the rooms behind the glass, curtains, blinds etc would all be seen. Try rendering two versions one without any glass and then one with glass, then composite the two together in PS, this way you can play around with the reflectivity. Also I don't think the stone material quite works, it looks painted on because there is no shadow or depth to it. what kind of material is this? are you using any kind of bump or displacement channels? The wood is nearly there, I would try and remove the slight tiling you have to the diffuse map and maybe try to make the material have more of a sheen. Also, planks of wood are never exactly the same colour, try to introduce a random tonal variation to the facing. I think the foreground trees and their shadows work well and are pretty convincing. Hope this is useful! Couldnt agree more with all points mentioned.. especially the stone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevor Tizard Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Also I think both the building and the trees need some snow on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfienoakes Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 All the comments above are bang on. I think good points are that it does look fairly natural against the original photo.. Scale and overall lighting seem good, imo. Its a tough one for sure, getting some nice bits of snow on the branches and edges of roofs etc.. The glass yes, that is easily changeable, and I think would improve the image instantly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STRAT Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 work further on stone and glass materials (Swiss Tony is superb) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markf Posted February 26, 2009 Author Share Posted February 26, 2009 (edited) Thank you all for your helpful replies! Regarding glass, I agree some transparency would be cool. I did not budget to model the interiors of the rooms so I'm not quite sure how to achieve this. Do you all typically include modeling the interior spaces when you are hired to produce exterior renderings? I have a Vray Displacement modifier on the stone. I have the bump map in the map channel instanced into the Material Editor. I have the map inverted in the output rollout. Then I use -1" displacement. I use the inverted map and negative displacement because if I use the map with positive displacement it causes the corners/edges of the stone walls to separate and black gaps appear. Does this sound correct? I will try increasing the amount of the displacement. Edited February 26, 2009 by markf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
innerdream Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Nice, and I agree with the material comments. Re the glass, you can make it a dark grey with less of a mirror quality and still very opaque. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Erstad Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Your getting some good comments here. A couple things I would add to the list is that you need to incorporate more gradients across surfaces. The architecture is lit a bit to flatly for me. this can be easily accomplished in Photoshop with some quick surface selections and a larger soft edged brush for the quick down and dirty approach. Second your shadows are fairly dead. Inject some color into them, if yo look at snow photos, cast shadows are anything but gray. Take the opportunity to put some color and sparkle into this. This is the fun part. Again, easily done in PS. A easy workaround for the interior/glass issue for you - google some hotel or lodge interior images that are close to the correct perspective, add some contrast & transparency and there yo go. You see inside most in the shaded glass, less so in the glass in direct light. This is the fun part, go nuts and see how far you can go with this, regardless of budget. this is how you really find your techniques and improve. Many of us will spend significant time in PS on a still image. Cheers, Scott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfienoakes Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Thank you all for your helpful replies! Regarding glass, I agree some transparency would be cool. I did not budget to model the interiors of the rooms so I'm not quite sure how to achieve this. Do you all typically include modeling the interior spaces when you are hired to produce exterior renderings? You dont need to model a load of the interior.. stick some partial net curtains, or normal curtains up, and you cant see much of the interior.. Job done. problem at the minute is that your glass so so mirror like, its detracting from the image hugely. A little bit of opacity, and some curtains would make a massive difference.. Chances are you wont actually see much in there anyways..... Swiss Tony rocks.. the world according to.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
batfink82 Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 you always need some kind of interior behind the glass. as the guys say just put some curtains/blinds in place, I always model internal rooms behind the glass so you don't get any light leaks or gaps in the alpha. adding different colours to the walls behind the glass can also introduce some randomness to the windows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhmd19732008 Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 hi great, if we compare this with previous project render, the difference is obvious. but there is a little notes: 1-shadows are not like realworld, the shot needs more dark areas, try changing exposure to linear. 2-use fallof map for reflection for snow, it could give you the appearance of melted snow. 3-for all reflected materials, check fresnel reflections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markf Posted February 27, 2009 Author Share Posted February 27, 2009 I incorporated most of your suggestions and I have posted the revised image for your review. I think it helped allot. Especially the glass! As always, thank you all very much! http://www.openrangeimaging.com/test-posts/Seeforever_House_West03_low-res.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
innerdream Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Better. I think you could still go with less reflection on the glass. I also think you could find a better stone material, that one looks like a Sketchup material - it's just not rich looking. And...perhaps less saturation on the building materials in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
batfink82 Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Better. I think you could still go with less reflection on the glass. I also think you could find a better stone material, that one looks like a Sketchup material - it's just not rich looking. And...perhaps less saturation on the building materials in general. I agree the stone and glass still need abit more work. I think the ground floor glass has just a white/cream material behind it, try putting some stock geometry to add some life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markf Posted February 27, 2009 Author Share Posted February 27, 2009 I made some more effort. I added to the interior modeling. I reduced the reflection a bit but it's pretty negligiable. It's an iconic mountain that shows in the upper right reflection and it's important that it is recognizable. I darkened, saturated and increased the displacement on the stone. Thanks for your valuable critique! http://www.openrangeimaging.com/test-posts/Seeforever_House_West04_low-res.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
innerdream Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Much better on the glass. Looks good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhmd19732008 Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 hi -try using vray2sided material for trees, this will make scene better. -try adding snow (use scatter) masses on house and trees. -the scene looks dry, i think if you add some melt or humid areas it will look so fine. -add exterior light fixtures to house. otherwise, its very nice, good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamf Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Overall looking much better now. Couple of points, render out a shadow pass and add some blue to the shadows, yours are pretty flat grey at the moment, in reality the blue skylight would make the shadows appear blue. Find another stone material its dragging an otherwise nice image down. Take the curves on the skier up, the contrast on him is quite low compared to the rest fo the image. Going to be a really nice image though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaneis Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 ...add some blue to the shadows, yours are pretty flat grey at the moment, in reality the blue skylight would make the shadows appear blue. Find another stone material its dragging an otherwise nice image down. Take the curves on the skier up, the contrast on him is quite low compared to the rest fo the image... All good points. You may not need another stone image, but instead just run it through P'Shop and reduce the contrast a little, adjusting curves would probably be best. I think that's what is making it so harsh to look at. Well on your way to a good image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfured20 Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 i agree on the stone material. overall the improvement is immense, and i am really starting to like the feel. but the stone is still bothering me. shaneis said, i would first just try to adjust the base material. maybe make it little less contrasty, and a little less saturated. play with the curves a bit to see if theres something that works better. overall looking good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markf Posted March 3, 2009 Author Share Posted March 3, 2009 I can't say it too often, thank you all for your valuable comments! I made some more refinements (hopefully). I had some blue in the shadows previously but increased it a bit. i upped the contrast on the skier. I also tried to make the stone look better. I'm reluctant to abandon the stone map altogether because 1) the client has seen this and not objected and 2) It is a photo of the stone they are planning on using. Here's the updated image: http://www.openrangeimaging.com/test-posts/Seeforever_House_West05_low-res.jpg And also the other side of the project http://www.openrangeimaging.com/test-posts/Seeforever_House_East07_lowres.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now