Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
I have a question about this for the moderators, particularly since I have never entered a contest before. There have been several occassions with my renders when one was too dark in areas and another too light, and since I am pretty well versed in 2d photo editors, it would have been a lot easier for me to simply fix the problem with my lighting scenario by editting, compiling,etc, in postwork. But given that this is a lighting challenge I did not think that would be in the spirit of the contest, and have chosen to make getting the light right in the 3d rendering the objective. Is compiling multiple images with various degrees of brightness/contrast/saturation etc acceptable to do in postwork in a lighting specific challenge?
I wrote a typically verbose post about how to fake flame when you dont have fire geometry in this thread:
http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/52015/
I guess my solution to everything is Uber Plane Lights! My edit to that post which has come from the experience of trying it out is that you need to keep the images for the ambient strength very high key (Bright) and low contrast and dont mess with the opacity of the flame itself, just the use opacity to make everything that isnt flame disappear. And it works better with low contrast flames, not high. (speaking of which I should edit that post but I doubt it will ever get read...) The thing with creating a 2-d rendered image from a 3-d environment, particularly with things like flame that dont have physical volume and wont cast a shadow, is that you only need to see it from the camera perspective, so it doesn't matter if it doesn't have any thickness. Game makers fake 3-d geometry with low poly semi-transparent flat planes all the time to keep render time brief in a real time environment, so the practice has real world application. If you have ever played a game like Rift which has beautiful scenery- if you walk up into the trees you have a bunch of "leaf" planes that are 2-d, angled this way and that to look 3-d from a distance. Apparently I like to mess with maps... It might take an hour of messing around to get your fake flame just right, but then you will have it for ever-more. And I know how you like freebies!
the short skippy:
create uber light plane and delete light that comes with it, orient it to vertical
squarish high res flame picture on black background for diffuse color map, diffuse color set to white (Black must be absolute black, verify and modify as necessary)
same flame map in ambient color, ambient color white.
Bright low contrast greyscale version of flame picture in ambient strength, set ambient strength over 100% to emit light.
For opacity strength map use the ambient strength map but turn all grey areas to white, keep black areas black. (Map should look like white cutouts on a black background)
Scale to size, translate to appropriate place and orient towards camera
Repeat as necessary..
It wont emit much light, and will emit light in ways are far more soft than a flame, so stick point light(s) on it for your actual light source, the ambient is more to make it glow
Of course this would technically be a "light" other than your point lights...
Hope this helps!
Made some adjustments to the light casting the blue hue. Scott was right. It was too strong.
I have a question about this for the moderators, particularly since I have never entered a contest before. There have been several occassions with my renders when one was too dark in areas and another too light, and since I am pretty well versed in 2d photo editors, it would have been a lot easier for me to simply fix the problem with my lighting scenario by editting, compiling,etc, in postwork. But given that this is a lighting challenge I did not think that would be in the spirit of the contest, and have chosen to make getting the light right in the 3d rendering the objective. Is compiling multiple images with various degrees of brightness/contrast/saturation etc acceptable to do in postwork in a lighting specific challenge?
It is a lighting contest, not an image editor contest. We aren't learning to use image editor tools as part of the contest either. In my opinion post processing should not be allowed at all. It used to be frowned upon for these contests, I guess things have changed.
Guess I won't enter. No loss. This is the learning thread, the results thread, eh, not at all, since placings are not explained.
I have a question about this for the moderators, particularly since I have never entered a contest before. There have been several occassions with my renders when one was too dark in areas and another too light, and since I am pretty well versed in 2d photo editors, it would have been a lot easier for me to simply fix the problem with my lighting scenario by editting, compiling,etc, in postwork. But given that this is a lighting challenge I did not think that would be in the spirit of the contest, and have chosen to make getting the light right in the 3d rendering the objective. Is compiling multiple images with various degrees of brightness/contrast/saturation etc acceptable to do in postwork in a lighting specific challenge?
I tend to think that in a contest, particularly a contest which is meant to be educational as well as a contest, abiding by the tenets of the challenge is the main thing. So a contest to help refine the use of lighting within the main program used should indeed only use the lighting from that program, rather than use any form of post processing to achieve the same aims.
It is a lighting contest, not an image editor contest. We aren't learning to use image editor tools as part of the contest either. In my opinion post processing should not be allowed at all. It used to be frowned upon for these contests, I guess things have changed.
Guess I won't enter. No loss. This is the learning thread, the results thread, eh, not at all, since placings are not explained.
Or, since it is a lighting challenge and even doing things like putting a black or white background around your image will completely change how the lighting feels, it would be in the spirit of the contest to ask that those who do post editting submit both before post-editting and after post-editting pictures. As the rules are currently written, post editting is allowed and should not violate the spirit of the contest, and it is left to the contributor to decide what violates the spirit of the contest. Contributors only need to declare what programs they have used... and are not required to say in what ways they have used those programs. In the case of this thread, people have said they used photoshop to add a frame, or a black mask around the edges. But the judges are impartial and do not know who submits what image, much less read this thread. Will those who have used 2-d editors declare how they have used them? In looking over past contests, entries have been very vague about what post editting has been done. I have seen entries that only went so far as to say "some minor postwork done in photoshop". Without saying what was done, one persons "minor" could be another person's off limits. In many contests post work has less effect, but with lighting, anything you do to alter an image in postwork can greatly improve the look and feel of the lighting. I am not in favor of rules lawyering, but I do like a spirit of agreeing on what is common ground.
Sorry we were both posting at the same time and I missed this. Am I reading this correctly that images are "no post work" for this month? Or is what "achieves the same aims" up to the person to decide? I am not thinking anyone would cheat because I believe in the goodness of the human spirit, but I am not sure people always understand the degree to which post processing affects lighting. Changing anything.... changing sharpness/blur, cropping your camera angles, etc, can change change the focus and change the feel of the lighting. My vote if I get one is for either no post processing,or submitting before and afters so the judges can see for themselves exactly what has been done and what impact, if any, the post processing has had.
Hi everyone,
It is always good to review the contest rules (here) to see what they say. Per Ann the following applies with regard to post work:
YOU MAY:
.....................................................
3. Post-work your image. Please keep within the spirit of the contest though. (Example: If a contest is on lighting, please experiment with the lighting within your application of choice rather then applying lighting effects within your 2D Applications)
So my friends there is your answer just like Cho said.
Sorry we were both posting at the same time and I missed this. Am I reading this correctly that images are "no post work" for this month? Or is what "achieves the same aims" up to the person to decide? I am not thinking anyone would cheat because I believe in the goodness of the human spirit, but I am not sure people always understand the degree to which post processing affects lighting. Changing anything.... changing sharpness/blur, cropping your camera angles, etc, can change change the focus and change the feel of the lighting. My vote if I get one is for either no post processing,or submitting before and afters so the judges can see for themselves exactly what has been done and what impact, if any, the post processing has had.
As I understood, the aim of the moderators coments was for one, that looking at your render in another program can help understand what the light looks eg. on another persons screen and with this knowlege go back to Daz and adapt the light according to what you saw lacking. Other than that I believe that the ideas posted by our helpful mods go further than just the end of this contest. Therefore one person or another might come to better result in their general work doing postwork
As I understood, the aim of the moderators coments was for one, that looking at your render in another program can help understand what the light looks eg. on another persons screen and with this knowlege go back to Daz and adapt the light according to what you saw lacking. Other than that I believe that the ideas posted by our helpful mods go further than just the end of this contest. Therefore one person or another might come to better result in their general work doing postwork
Yes Linwelly, that was most definitely my intent with my suggestions of using a 2D graphics program.
Oh I like it. I noticed the God rays in the background. Your welcome Giovanni. Looking forward to seeing how it goes with your work on textures. Sheep are a pain in the patuty when working on their surfaces when you want to get something that looks kind of real.
Looking good Kismet. You have done a nice job learning how to control light. Well done!
I then asked for further clarification of how those judging the contest will know to what degree postwork has had an impact on the image if they don't know what post work has been done. I think that for this contest the rules be clarified so that people declare in what ways they have used post processing OR submit before and after images OR simplify it this month that postwork not be used, since just about anything you do to an image will effect the way the lighting looks.
In any case Dollygirls suggestion wasn't part of the question in the first place
YOU MAY:
.....................................................
3. Post-work your image. Please keep within the spirit of the contest though. (Example: If a contest is on lighting, please experiment with the lighting within your application of choice rather then applying lighting effects within your 2D Applications)
So my friends there is your answer just like Cho said.
I was aware of the rules at the beginning of the contest, but as I stated earlier, some people's idea of "postwork" goes well beyond my own, and there should be some clarification from an admin. For the sake of not making things more confusing, it is a matter that the admins only should comment on.
Not to beat a dead horse, but here is a further example of why this months rules should be adapted:
Thanks for the detailed feedback! I really appreciate it. :)
I added the dark edges in postwork, with a Filter Forge effect. I like to use it with most of my renders, as it's not that obvious, but still something which binds the render together.
(snip)
I am not meaning to pick on TobiasG, but I think this is a very good example of how a similar effect can be created either in postwork, or from within the 3-d rendering program. The rules only say that you must declare what software you have used, and in past contests people have done simply that, with statements like "some postwork done in photoshop".
In the case of TobiasG, I honestly didn't know whether his effect had been created with an atmospheric camera, or in postwork. As he stated, the postwork he did binds the render together. I would agree wholeheartedly that his postwork makes his lighting tremendously improved. If he were to merely declare what programs he used, without saying how he had used them, that he had used a Filter Forge effect in postwork, he might be given "credit" for achieving an advanced lighting effect such as from an atmospheric camera. (Not to imply that TobiasG would do something like that, it is merely an example of the ambiguity that is in the rules.)
Almost anything you could do to an image, from cropping, to adding blur to adding a dark mask like Tobias did, to adding that cool trytich like one of the other entrants did, will change the lighting. Thats why I think for this month there should be some clarification to the rules to make it so the judges know what effects came from the 3-d rendering and what came from postwork.
In my opinion, "minor" postwork should be just that.. minor. Add a border, fix errant poke through pixels, etc. These contests are supposed to encourage and explore features within the basic program, DAZ, Bryce, whatever. The contest "should" encourage people to use and experiment with the basic program features and use them. With that said, the judging should also focus on that.
Multi layering, filters and light/smoke effects from photo editors are not minor. Creating an entire final image based on post-processing effects is not "minor" in the context of what this "educational" contest should be doing.
I cannot say how much the WIP threads have impacted me. Most revolutionized my images, from DOF to use of light, and particularly the shader contest. The shader contest totally changed the game for me, and it ALL came from the WIP conversations.
I've wanted to say this for a couple of years. In contrast to the above, the results and final entry thread contribute nothing. I am not disparaging the judges, only the format. It is meaningless to see placings without "why" in an educational contest. It is frustrating to have winners, and there have been several, who posted not one word in the WIP and contributed nothing to the learning aspect. It is disheartening, at the end of the month, to see that it is just another themed Render contest.
I'm sorry folks, I didn't mean to set this thread ablaze. I always thought that some degree of postwork was expected in any form of 3D rendering. Even in a good render, the application of a few slight effects can dramatically improve the believability of an image. For instance, I almost always use slight lens distortion, vignette, and chromatic aberration effects. If I've done my job, the effects will be unnoticeable but the result will be vastly improved. Even without those tricks, I was under the impression (from my art professors) that exhibiting any artwork of any kind digitally without at a minimum adjusting brightness, contrast, and color was a sign of at best poor computer skills and at worst poor craftsmanship.
My own (non-authoritative) interpretation of the rule was that if I didn't draw anything or do any serious photo-editing, and did not use a flat background photo as the majority of the image, or otherwise make a photographic element the primary visual element (such as when they green-screen live action), it was all right. As 3D artists, we all use a number of photographic resources, most noticeably for sky domes and backgrounds, but if I had, say, painted a figure in by hand, that would be too much.
Getting upset at any and all postwork is like getting mad because a carpenter used sandpaper instead of just a chisel when carving an image, or a baker for frosting their cake.
Beyond that, Daz itself has an internal post-processor for render layers. I don't like to use it because it has a tendency to delete my renders, but it has blend modes and other tools that one might like to use.
In the interest of fairness, I will post my work process and setup here so that everyone can see clearly what I did. All the programs I have used are freely available to anyone with a computer.
I used this window of Joan of Arc as the beginning of a Magdalena-inspired image (I'm a fan of women paladins, what can I say). To make it a functional stained-glass window, I inverted the colors to create an opacity map that would create the correct colors when light shone through it. The idea was that I would have a statue and the light of a stained glass window would be falling on it. It took a good bit of experimentation to figure this out, but in the end I got it working. The architectural elements are all freebies that come packaged with the program, re-purposed for my needs. The stone material is a standard surface shader applied equally to the figure, hair, and props, with an aged concrete tile-able image that I got from Google. The figure is Genesis 2
Here is my daz scene in its current form. My volumetrics come from the Age of Armor Cameras I have actually a regular camera parented to the age of armor camera so that I could get multiple layers, after I tried to render the uberenvironment and the volumetric cameras together and got an image of white blurriness. Ditto for the distant lights that make the rim light on the statue.
Following that is my Gimp setup with all of the layers labeled. Each one is either a render or a copy of a render, and they have been overlaid on top of each other. I essentially have four renders, one for the volumetrics, the rim-lighting, the cast stained glass window light, and the uberenvironment. All the layers are raw from Daz at this stage (unusual for me, I prefer to pose in Daz and then render in Blender).
There is also my blender compositing setup, which I use because it processes faster than gimp and gets better results. You can see that I have a lens distortion, minor chromatic aberration, and vignette applied at this stage.
Finally, I have added a spread showing all of my gimp layers at full opacity.
If anyone has any ideas about how to improve my image (posted previously), I'm open to suggestions. I learned a lot last month from the composition contest.
In any case, I thought the point of the lighting contest was "learn to use lighting to artistic effect," rather than, "Does the user know how to create a spot light."
Please can we stop the discussion about postwork. We will ask DAZ_Ann to pop in and clarify this matter as she is the person from DAZ 3D who is in charge of this new Users area.
However, as has been said already, it does say quite clearly in the rules, as posted by DAZ_Ann0314
http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/3440/
This particular contest is just that, a contest involving lighting, so falls within the proviso for that rule.
Thankyou
In the context of a "new user" contest, "Does the user know how to create lights" is a perfectly valid assumption, and learning to use that to full advantage a perfectly valid use of this contest.
Sorry guys, my husband had surgery yesterday on his back (Spinal Nerve Stimulator Implant Surgery) and so I have been busy taking care of him and missed that there was some debate going on in here.
Please give me a few just to try to read all the discussion so I can hopefully answer everyone's questions :)
Wishing your husband a speedy recovery Ann.
Finally, after making a new record of 20 different displacement maps, I have a nose on a bear with no poke through from the fur partition of the geometry, and without overlap of the eye/nose section onto the pads section . Now to make the color, degree of highlight, texture, and contrast just right. I could have easily done what the creator of the freebie fur shader suggested and correct any pokethrough in fifteen minutes of postwork, but in the spirit of it being an opportunity to learn how to manipulate elements of the 3-d program to get just the right light, I stuck it out. (Because changing displacement changes the true geometry of the figure; on a pixel-by pixel basis it changes the height of the elements, and thus their distance from the light, not to mention their texture and how that takes the light) And for the blood sweat and tears and two days of work, I now know more than I did, which at the end of the day is the point. Since the final map bears (pun intended) no resemblance whatsoever to the freebie, and Daz sells the bear in the store with fur for Poser only, maybe I will venture into capitalism and sell an add-on set of displacement maps for it for DS. Because to quote... fuzzy wuzzy wasnt very fuzzy, was he? :-) If the displacement maps I created weren't made to fit a paid product, I would pay the kindness of the person who made the original fur shader with the poke through issues forward and place them on that freebie site, since her ideas sparked the "aha" and the know how that made creating my own maps possible. It seems a waste to put all that work into something only I can benefit from. Getting the fur, the nose, and the pads just the right color, shine, and contrast to work each other, with the figure and with the bacground using the lighting is proving challenging. Seven more days of WIP! Thank goodness I started at the beginning of the month, I am feeling the crunch. This will get easier and some day I will do it with ease....
Moving on...I could really use some help from all you people who understand how to light glass!
In true fiona-style, I made an info-graphic. My current issue is the light from the candle hitting the glass. The glass is not round, and as I rotate it, it creates different shapes from a slim and pretty crescent in the colors of the flame, to a very ugly orange smudge. Furthermore, how off-center the light is from the center of the glass has an effect. If it is perfectly centered I lose the colors in the flame and it becomes a white shape. There are sooooo many settings! I put a placeholder second lantern out of camera just so I can know what the defaults are.
I am scared. I dont want to touch it and mess it up because it is getting so close! On the other hadn th lantern came with very very nice maps and textures, and the glass was a good start, and I feel a little like it is cheap to get the benefit of someone elses work with a paid product, especially since there are those who have created their glass entries from primitives! (Kudos to you!!!)
Where should I begin to manipulate the glass shader settings to get that crescent to appear where I want it without having the lantern rotated in an unrealistic manner? AND.. what settings are giving the flame highlight a pixelly looking edge? There are four point lights inside the lantern with different fall-off parameters to hit the figure at different intensities. In the best version for the reflection, the white and dark orange were set to "light on" while the pale yelow and pale orange were set to "diffuse only". As those settings are mostly working for both the figure and the lantern, I don't want to change them too much and focus on changing the glass, if possible. Hellllllppppp...
OK so here goes me trying to explain the rules very specifically :)
The rule as written on Post Work is this:
But what do I mean by it?
What it means is that physical lighting (where and what light is hitting and where shadows are being cast in 3D Space) should be done in a 3D App of your choosing and tweaked to the best of your abilities within that app.
So what does that mean as far as post work? Should it be allowed? Can you tweak said lighting? What about compositing?
That IS allowed.
Why do we allow it?
Most 3D Artists (regardless of the app they use to render in etc) generally tend to do some work to the render after the render is done in some 2D program like Gimp, Paint Shop Pro, Painter, Photoshop (and the list could go on). That is as much a part of learning how to use your 3D Apps to the fullest extent as learning "how to add a light into a scene" is.
For the sake of this contest, we are meaning to teach you "how to use lights in your 3D App". That is the focus of this month as it is a New User Contest. So painting in shadows, painting in lighting, using things like the filter "render lights" in Photoshop all would not be allowed as they go against the main point of the contest which is how to use lights in 3D. There are lots of tutorials out there for various 2D Apps on how to "fake" lighting in an image. Doing those things would be against the "spirit" of the contest.
The point (focus) of the contest is to set up lights in DAZ Studio (just as an example) and render them and tweak the positioning etc to get it hitting just in the right places and to get the shadows just right, and learning the settings of the lighting options in your app of choice, learning how to move them around the scene, learning how changing color, position, strength, can impact the image.
So say you do all that and get everything just right but the image is still kinda dim, the light is where it "should be" in 3D space but it doesn't have the impact you want. Well, that is a normal issue with 3D Applications and lighting (A fair few 3D Applications render a bit dim or dull even with the best of light.) Taking that image into Photoshop (as an example) and playing with levels or contrast or even combining a couple passes etc are all very much a part of learning how to make the most out of the lighting you got in your 3D App. and so those things are allowed as it is taking what we are trying to teach and using what was created from the 3D App. and utilizing that to get the best results.
It has been asked in the thread, how do we know what is faked and what is not or what work has been done to an image. It has also been suggested that we possibly request everyone post "before and after" any post work. In general we do not ask for that as those that judge the contest have been creating 3D Artwork for upwards of 10+ years. In that time you get an eye for how things look, how something was accomplished etc. That said, if those participating feel that would add something to the contest, I would be open to considering doing that :)
I hope that fully explains things and hope I was clear (my mind is on 20 different things LOL) If not, please feel free to e-mail me directly ([email protected]) with any additional questions or feelings on the topic you may have and I can try to explain in further detail or come back in and clarify further etc.
Also of note, this WIP Thread, the feedback, help, support, and information are now and always have been the true reward and "prize" to this contest. The winners and contest format are meant to be just a small incentive to get people excited to learn
Thanks DAZ_ann0314 for taking the time to respond, your thoughts were illuminating. (Hehe, iluminating, get it? I find myself so amusing :-P) I think the topic is worthy of exploration and I would like to hear what others think, but I don't want to continue to derail this thread from its purpose of helping people with their WIP. So if its okay with you, can we start another thread to discuss it? (If yes, I will leave creating the thread to you since it is your contest and your request for feedback about the submission guidelines.) I appreciate that you are willing to entertain feedback. Unfortunately I think conflict if any kind can make some people uncomfortable, and I don't want the presence of it to distract from people being willing to talk about their art, which is a sensitive subject in itself. To that end, I know that I can be intense, I hope it reads as artists passion, and not contentiousness or malice in any form. I have enjoyed participating in the WIP process for the first time and I appreciate everyone who has participated for bringing their art and feedback to the table. I feel that I have grown and I have seen others grow and at the end of the day thats what it is about.
I wrote a typically verbose post about how to fake flame when you dont have fire geometry in this thread:
http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/52015/
I guess my solution to everything is Uber Plane Lights! My edit to that post which has come from the experience of trying it out is that you need to keep the images for the ambient strength very high key (Bright) and low contrast and dont mess with the opacity of the flame itself, just the use opacity to make everything that isnt flame disappear. And it works better with low contrast flames, not high. (speaking of which I should edit that post but I doubt it will ever get read...) The thing with creating a 2-d rendered image from a 3-d environment, particularly with things like flame that dont have physical volume and wont cast a shadow, is that you only need to see it from the camera perspective, so it doesn't matter if it doesn't have any thickness. Game makers fake 3-d geometry with low poly semi-transparent flat planes all the time to keep render time brief in a real time environment, so the practice has real world application. If you have ever played a game like Rift which has beautiful scenery- if you walk up into the trees you have a bunch of "leaf" planes that are 2-d, angled this way and that to look 3-d from a distance. Apparently I like to mess with maps... It might take an hour of messing around to get your fake flame just right, but then you will have it for ever-more. And I know how you like freebies!
the short skippy:
create uber light plane and delete light that comes with it, orient it to vertical
squarish high res flame picture on black background for diffuse color map, diffuse color set to white (Black must be absolute black, verify and modify as necessary)
same flame map in ambient color, ambient color white.
Bright low contrast greyscale version of flame picture in ambient strength, set ambient strength over 100% to emit light.
For opacity strength map use the ambient strength map but turn all grey areas to white, keep black areas black. (Map should look like white cutouts on a black background)
Scale to size, translate to appropriate place and orient towards camera
Repeat as necessary..
It wont emit much light, and will emit light in ways are far more soft than a flame, so stick point light(s) on it for your actual light source, the ambient is more to make it glow
Of course this would technically be a "light" other than your point lights...
Hope this helps!
Fiona, one question to this, why to you suggest to use an uber light plane with the lights removed. When I started trying thins out this way I primarily chose the primitve plane. Is there a difference after removing the lights fom the uber light plane?
Thanks for that
For one thing, when I afraid to ruin everithing I make a copy of my complete scene and go experimenting there, sometimes I end up with three times the same scene at the same endpoint but went diffrent ways there.
For the glass and reflection thing: the glass form I see in your lantern would not end in the crescent like in the example you have in your assembly. That comes from the glass getting smaller rather quickly, being almost circular at the bottom part, and after that its more or less a tube. The realistic flame reflection for your lantern shape would be the second from the right render.
Concerning reflection and refraction in your lantern glass, I tried to read the settings in your assembly but I couldn't make head and toes out of that. Did I see correctly that both parameters are in one slider? The glass i created either with the glass shader coming with daz or from scratch I have the parameters separated. I will go and try something on the matter.
I tried to figure out some things about reflection and refraction. The experimental settling is a box of 5 m each. Inside I put the Votive candle from my second february WIP with increased settings for the flame and I added a linear point light with some colour to it, fallof start and end are the standart settings. Additionally I had one spot light with light blue colour at 30% intensity shining on the candle from the side.
Around that I put the cylinder (primitive) and tried two settings for glass.
one can be found in this link
http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/3632/#45827 .. (how do I turn that into a link?)
the result is in the first render. Well is a nice glass shader setting, but it bugs me that it looks like a full body glass cylinder. And the DAZ machine obviously doen't care that I put a second cylinder inside with the standart air refraction etc. It treats everything inside like its glass.
In the second render I played some more with the settings I used for the glass cylinder in my first WIP from this month. Here are the specifics for that.
diffuse colour 255 255 255 at 100%,
glossiness 72%
specular colour 255 255 255 at 70%
multply though opacity on
ambient clour 255 255 255 at 10%
Opacity 6.8%
reflection colour 255 255 255 at 75% reflection strength
refraction colour 255 255 255 at 99.6% refraction strength
refraction index 0.14%
lightning model glossy plastic
what I found usefull and I applied that for this render as well is setting the max raytrace depth to 4 in the render settings
I don't say that I understand the workings behind everthing (eg why the heck ist the bottom of that thing ist still dark) but maybe its a ground to go on from.
I believe one critical difference ist to keep refraction below 1 If you dont wnat the impression of a full glass body.
However I don't thinks this applies to your problem Fiona as I have the impression your lamp is already thinwalled glass, then a refraction index of 1.4 to the glassbody would make perfekt sense
Lord . . . have mercy!
I mentioned this as a piece inspired by this contest and the Lenten season. I also made reference to it as a tribute to allegory in art. In "light" of the intent of this contest, that is learning and growth, the story being told here is this:
"I am the Lamb of God, the Bread of Life, who willingly gives up my Sacred Heart, in order to wash away the sins of the world. Have mercy on your children dear Lord!"
I have modestly followed the comments of recent posts and have several observations to share.
1. I am a newcomer to this process and was drawn to it for two reasons. First, I wanted to see if this was indeed a good place to learn. Second, I was interested in receiving feedback regarding my submission. The answer to the first is a resounding yes, this is a great place to learn! The second, not so much. Unfortunately I have received only rare commentary from fellow participants.
2. There was a remark concerning someone winning without having participated in the WIP forum. Whether or not someone actively participates in the discussion does not presume that that individual was not reading and absorbing the education gleaned from the forum's discussion. Some of my best students over the years were those who sat "quietly" and attentively in class, absorbing the knowledge and ultimately earning an "A". In other words, they won the contest without ever uttering a word.
3. DAZ3D is a powerful tool, especially in the hands of artists who are trained formally or informally or both. Even if one has "vision," DAZ cannot replace the foundational knowledge required to execute that vision. For the serious artist, study is a life long pursuit. Participation in this forum is a positive step, ignoring requests for "help" is not.
4. Finally, I was pleased and relieved to hear that "tweaking" the brightness and contrast was an acceptable practice. In the limited time I have rendered images using DAZ3D, I have found that the renders are, most of the time, low in contrast and saturation. So, I give them that needed bump, as I have done with the revised image below.
Feedback and comments are always welcome! :-)
Giovanny, I fear you are drawing conclusions a bit to fast, especially those about your fellow paricipants.
For one, many of us are new here as well and still learning for one thing the "etiquette" around this forum. So I at first was hesitant to comment on other participants renders. Especially when it comes to knowlege about the tecnical details of the program, as we all are trying to learn that.
On a secont point, your comment about people coming along without an artistic background isn't really encouraging for fellows like me to even start commenting. I am but an hobbyist, well I guess than i'm not entiled to make my art at beautful as I can?
Furthermore, well yes I guess you have a far better understanding on things concerning the art as you obviously have a huge background on that, what do you expect one hobbyist ore another can even find to make a point about?
As well you need to consider that many of us do this in their spare time, and real life has a first grab on us, so yes sometimes it takes time to respond.
So please have patience with everyone around here. There even might be another silent "A" student sitting among us.