do you tweak your colors/materials alot?

[SgWRX]

lately, it seems like i've been tweaking my colors a lot, doing smaller test renders. i have saved materials, grasses, trees etc. a lot of the colors for materials like brick, metal, sidewalks, asphalt, really all of it, i tend to never stick with what i've saved. always tweaking due to slight differences in lighting or camera angles. sometimes it's not possible for me to get actual colors, i'll pull them from pictures or manufacturer pictures etc... but even then, i tend to tweak a lot after that.

[martinhoura]

great story, looking forward to part 2

[SgWRX]

LOL. i've just noticed i spend a lot more time doing that lately. and i have it the back of my mind that the gurus here have an easy button maybe it just means i'm getting more critical of the overall image and not just the pieces of it.

[Corey Beaulieu]

My personal approach is to only do global color and contrast adjustments in Post. In a perfect world anyhow.

 

But. The client sees the image roughly 4 times in total. I try to be smart and let things be a bit rough at first, fixing a lot of local color in Post at the early stages, but the local adjustments get moved into Max as the process evolves. I may still have tweaks to make at the final, but the base is usually pretty decent.

 

I know this isn't the core of your question, but I think that in a production world, you are wasting your time shooting for perfect too early. It leaves no room for exploration/discovery and can cause you to double back over time spent when the client updates the design.

 

Keeping a material library can save a lot of time if you manage it well. Good maps are hard to come by and complex textures take time to set up. Even if your library is only a starting point you would do well to figure out how to bring one into your workflow.

[loadrvincil]

m looking to invest in a new build desktop to run 3Ds Max 2015 and edit composite still renders in Photoshop CS6. Looking to cut render time down to a minimum. Also want to try out VRay as Ive not used it yet.

http://e-six-sigma.com/

[loadrvincil]

've been using an Evoluent vertical mouse for several years and my wrist aches are gone. The build quality is somewhat lacking (the rubber detached from the scroll wheel on my old v3, and the chrome finish on the thumb rest is flaking

 

 

http://e-six-sigma.com

[loadrvincil]

know this isn't the core of your question, but I think that in a production world, you are wasting your time shooting for perfect too early. It leaves no room for exploration/discovery and can cause you to double back over time s

 

 

 

wwwe

[Chris MacDonald]

I find setting up materials to be one of the most satisfying things to do in 3D. I love it, and can (if the job permits) spend hours doing it.

[RyderSK]

I spend ton of time tweaking them in scene, sometimes in each camera differently, but definitely differently in each scene, even when I pull them from same library.

Then I spend ton of time on them again in post-production as well, using my Material masks.

 

Disagree with wasting time, it's what I get paid for. If the difference wasn't noticeable, I wouldn't be doing it out of OCD.

[SkylineArch]

If your materials are all created in a calibrated standard sunlight or white room then they should all match and be correct in any lighting condition. Final overall adjustments to the image can be done in post.

 

Although, my renderings look like crap, but that's how the pros do it.

[heni30]

The main thrust of a rendering is NOT to achieve 100% accurate materials and colors. It's to create an image that works artistically/aesthetically to create a strong impact. The colors/materials can be in the ballpark more or less but all the tweaking is done to make a strong visual image that will move the viewer.

Edited April 21, 2015 by heni30

[M V]

I usually get my stuff 98% there but always render out a Material ID because a client will always want to adjust colors.

[RyderSK]

If your materials are all created in a calibrated standard sunlight or white room then they should all match and be correct in any lighting condition. Final overall adjustments to the image can be done in post.

 

Although, my renderings look like crap, but that's how the pros do it.

 

Which pros ? The only person who I consider to truly get the most out of materials, Bertrand Benoit, painstakingly matches them by eye, and tweak for each shot and asset (!) individually, workflow he shown in VeniceAD.

 

And unless I missed a memo where people started using spectrometer scanned materials, no one is using matching anything. 99perc. of users have no idea how physical Albedo looks when stripped from specular tint, every inch of light and camera response curve.

 

 

George above correctly said to get most out of materials is to make the image look good. Where photographer would use fleshlight, I can user brighter albedo. When my chrome looks too flat, I make it less reflective. Physicality is not one-dimensional trait on how achieve something that is correct based on some chart. Those charts are unreachable by common approach anyway, it would require fitting custom scanned BRDF data, so you don't even need to bother.

[heni30]

Plus, obviously a material is going to look different depending on lighting and environment. Sunny day? overcast day? material seen in perspective? straight on? gi from adjacent green wall? So get it in the ball park and instead think "Is making it darker making the space recede more? will making it lighter lead your eye to the entry better?. etc.

[marcellabbe]

Specially if they're viewing the image on a different monitor than the maker. I sometimes get sent a texture color to replicate, i try it on two different monitors at my end and get the comment that it's too dark or something. I adjust it to the client's satisfaction but it no longer looks like the exact color i was sent in the first place.

Some client are not computer savvy, so trying to tell them to gamma calibrate their monitor...

[Corey Beaulieu]

 

Disagree with wasting time, it's what I get paid for. If the difference wasn't noticeable, I wouldn't be doing it out of OCD.

 

Just to clarify, I absolutely believe that spending time creating refined materials is an important part of the process. What I was trying to say was simply that my personal approach is to iterate the material along with the image. I try to avoid spending a lot of time on a material early on when it may change in later rounds of review with the client.

[Francisco Penaloza]

Which pros ? The only person who I consider to truly get the most out of materials, Bertrand Benoit, painstakingly matches them by eye, and tweak for each shot and asset (!) individually, workflow he shown in VeniceAD.

 

And unless I missed a memo where people started using spectrometer scanned materials, no one is using matching anything. 99perc. of users have no idea how physical Albedo looks when stripped from specular tint, every inch of light and camera response curve.

 

 

George above correctly said to get most out of materials is to make the image look good. Where photographer would use fleshlight, I can user brighter albedo. When my chrome looks too flat, I make it less reflective. Physicality is not one-dimensional trait on how achieve something that is correct based on some chart. Those charts are unreachable by common approach anyway, it would require fitting custom scanned BRDF data, so you don't even need to bother.

 

Yes I agree with you on that but I would not generalize that much, I also believe that in ArchViz most of artist do not go all nerd/scientific on the material creation, and honestly is not that necessary, Bertrand, Alex roman, Guthrie, and many other prove with any of their works, "if it looks good, then it is good" but there is other industries that they may need to go the extra mile, such Car Viz or product viz and others. I know Mark is involved on those

 

Now in my case I work directly with interior designers and sometimes with manufacturers and they get really picky in the color and materials, sometimes with interior designer the color has to be the way they want them, even if this meant bending the physics or rules of light

 

So I always try to get my best out of the render engine but, stay working in full float images with all the passes needed to adjust and change materials in post.

To answer Gru question (if it was a question actually my answer would be yes and not, you need to look who are you clients and adapt your services/products to their needs. Always trying to save your souls in the process so you and them are happy

[Francisco Penaloza]

Specially if they're viewing the image on a different monitor than the maker. I sometimes get sent a texture color to replicate, i try it on two different monitors at my end and get the comment that it's too dark or something. I adjust it to the client's satisfaction but it no longer looks like the exact color i was sent in the first place.

Some client are not computer savvy, so trying to tell them to gamma calibrate their monitor...

 

amen to that.

[RyderSK]

sometimes with interior designer the color has to be the way they want them, even if this meant bending the physics or rules of light

 

 

Of course this will always apply. When it comes to designers and materials are arbitrary ("perhaps wood should be brighter here, in this very spot?"), I communicate a lot if I feel adjustment would be detrimental to image quality.

 

But where materials needs to feel exact according to swatch, even if they are pretty close to exact in given conditions (light, exposure, angle...), for example for furniture brand, then I match them 1:1 to swatch in Photoshop later using mask.

 

I understand the triangle with client, but I think this aspect is often unnecessary introduced into this discussion :- ) Obviously, all of us work for clients, so it's given we came into contact with limitations it brings, but the discussions can feel abstract of it. That's what I got from the original question/topic of this thread.

Otherwise every discussion will devolved into "My clients are tougher than yours, you must not live in reality".

Just good old messing with materials ;- )

[Francisco Penaloza]

Of course this will always apply. When it comes to designers and materials are arbitrary ("perhaps wood should be brighter here, in this very spot?"), I communicate a lot if I feel adjustment would be detrimental to image quality.

 

But where materials needs to feel exact according to swatch, even if they are pretty close to exact in given conditions (light, exposure, angle...), for example for furniture brand, then I match them 1:1 to swatch in Photoshop later using mask.

 

I understand the triangle with client, but I think this aspect is often unnecessary introduced into this discussion :- ) Obviously, all of us work for clients, so it's given we came into contact with limitations it brings, but the discussions can feel abstract of it. That's what I got from the original question/topic of this thread.

Otherwise every discussion will devolved into "My clients are tougher than yours, you must not live in reality".

Just good old messing with materials ;- )

 

true that, true that.

 

So going beyond the first question, besides client imaginary world of colors. We as an artist we have two options, or we need to perfect our skills as material creators, (a la bertrand etc) or maybe the render engines are not really showing how that material will react in different conditions, so we need to make it look as we think it should?

 

As a casual photographer I always get comment of over all color temperature "mood" or eliminate un-wanted objects in the scene but, never a complain of, That brick does not looks right or that white wall is not white enough in the dusk shot.

This make me think our client assume since is a photo they can't complain about that, compared with a rendering since is "Fake" they think it is wrong? or the render/artist can't deliver?

 

Besides artistic representation and mood and all that mambo jambo.

[RyderSK]

compared with a rendering since is "Fake" they think it is wrong? or the render/artist can't deliver?

 

And you're correct, that's exactly what they think :- )

 

This always reminds me how often they don't trust me what mirror shows. I had to draw once those simple geometry graphs from elementary school to convince them it's indeed physically correct. But now I often resort to argument that my renderer is physically correct (well...it is), and that I can indeed still change it, but I am changing it for artistic reasons, not because it was wrong. You slowly educate them to trust you (and images) more and they eventually stop asking those questions. The process repeats with every new client but I am also getting better in putting forward arguments in defense.

 

I think all this comes from them not fully understanding the process, contrary to what many renderers believe, most clients don't think it's computer doing all the work for us ( :- D .. ) but actually something strangely abstract, but closer to painting instead ? Basically, us creating it, and with that, all the physical laws as well.

[SgWRX]

great responses thank you!

 

First and foremost on my mind i guess is: i'm glad i'm not the only one that obsesses! like Juraj even pointed out, from camera to camera! and by the way, sometimes when i switch from camera to camera i think the differences are far greater than they would be in the real world in terms of lighting and color. i think this might be rooted in the fact that global illumination is camera based (at least for me in FG). but that's a different discussion ha!

 

Second, and this was brought up in a different thread, try to convince a designer, architect or customer that yes, your "light grey" is probably going to be pretty "white" under these lighting circumstances. there has a been a few times where i've actually made completely matte materials to get colors closer to what someone expected. like crazy things, matte metal panels like car paint. ugh. it can depend too on areas customer might focus. "that's not our red" then i figure they'll focus there and not on the light blue grey slate tile on the lobby floor.

 

in the end i think i have to look at my images as a whole and make sure everything is balanced out. but i do enjoy learning the technical behind the "real world physics" and such of color, reflection and light.

[heni30]

Even though these are black and white, it illustrates the kind of manipulation you can exercise - with the same raw material.

 

[ATTACH][ATTACH]52903

[/ATTACH][/ATTACH]

Edited April 21, 2015 by heni30

[TomasEsperanza]

I confess, I am a "tweaker"! lol (...and I feel frustrated if I don't have enough time to tweak )

 

Seriously though, it's reassuring that it is being shared that folks do really pour effort into materials in this way, and it's not just some dark-art secret. It shows that caring about the work enough to deliberate over creative decisions, is a pastime that is deemed worthwhile for some.

 

I love PBR, I love Bertrand Benoit's work, and if I can learn something through practice that get's me closer to realism, I'm chuffed to bits.

Edited April 22, 2015 by TomasEsperanza
spelling

[SkylineArch]

Which pros ?

 

My work literally has a team of people who photograph the physical materials in a calibrated white room and in outdoor conditions and recreate the shaders in the CG calibrated HDR whiterooms to be physically (mathematically) correct. it's a crazy process, but the clients demand it. To be fair though, my work deals with mainly automotive clients, not Architecture. In architecture they want a pretty picture. But for automotive the colors and fabrics need to be correct, and trusted to work in any environment. However, if someone were to take the same effort to recreate Architectural materials, you would know that whatever comes out of the rendering would be correct, then you can throw a few adjustment layers on the whole image for effect.