Lack realism/photorealism

[MKopek]

Hello everyone. For about a month and a half, I've been learning 3D visualization for product rendering, primarily furniture. I used different software before, but despite various attempts and seeking advice from more experienced users, the results were not satisfying at all. However, last Saturday, I decided to start using 3ds Max along with the Corona Renderer. The effects were visible immediately, but I encountered a problem. My visualizations lack realism; there's something like a haze, not sharp and clean enough (?), and it just doesn't look like a photograph. What could I change, and what should I focus on? I'm using the Chaos library and free models and textures from the internet, mainly from 3dsky and Poliigon. I'm attaching my current render (white desk, blue walls, blue chair), a reference render that I found and would like to approach in terms of quality, and the render settings from Corona.

[Beanzvision]

Generally, you shouldn't need to change anything in the render settings, they should already be at their best. Lacking realism can fall on the quality of your models, the scene and environment lighting, the textures, camera placement and also how a scene is dressed. Adding to this, post processing is also a great help in most cases. Your image feels more like it was shot in a studio rather than on location. Making use of the lightmix is a fun way to play around with different lighting setups and intensities. Keep at it and keep sharing :)

[Nejc Kilar]

Yeah I would very much agree with B here and to me it seems like you are very much on the right track. Kudos!

First thing I'd maybe suggest doing is playing with the lighting a bit - right now its somewhat flat as in everything is quite evenly lit and the small bit of directional lighting you have is kind of maybe not landing somewhat awkwardly on the floor in the lower left corner. I'd personally try adding imperfections to the lighting (a tree outside the window) or a different angle but that might also be a subjective preference I have. That said I do think something less "studio like" would work better here and often that adds realism as well.

Good reference is looking at what photographers sometimes do in these types of setups.

As far as materials go I think if you spend a bit more time adding details to them you'll get more realism in there. Maybe imperfections on that chair's metal legs, some slight dirt spots (maybe also in cavities with AO) on the brick wall (which itself could be a bit more detailed with a different displacement map?) and just generally things of that nature. One thing that does strike me as unrealistic immediately is the white on the table itself. Its too dang white to me (check your albedos with the albedo render element).
These things can take a lot of time but details are important folks say :)

And as always super high quality models can help you as well. I really like that plant you have there from Cosmos but I think it can still be improved by the way of improving materials etc.

So I think you're off to a great start but maybe just keep on hammering it out.

Oh and don't worry about render settings, that's the beauty with Corona. You're not missing out on realism unless we are talking caustics (which you need to enable) but given that there are non in your scene...

[MKopek]

Thank you very much for the valuable tips, guys! I'll play around with and test the things you mentioned. As for textures, do you know any good online tutorials for manipulating textures? I'm interested in locally adding dirt or playing with the texture of flowers, for example, because since I switched to 3ds+Corona, when it comes to materials and textures, I feel like I'm "drowning" in a sea of possibilities and options, and it's like black magic to me (in my previous software, textures were limited to loading a map and two sliders - maybe that was the reason why that program was so weak).

[MKopek]

Hello again! Yesterday evening, I was working on my project. I changed the lights and some textures (including refining what I believe are the chair legs, folders, and made slight adjustments to the walls and brick texture). Due to time constraints, I haven't had a chance to add imperfections to the textures yet, but that will come later. I wanted to thank you for all the advice because, after a few tweaks, my render looks better in my opinion (LightMix is a very useful tool that I had no idea about just yesterday). However, I see that the lighting could still use some subtle improvements – it seems a bit too aggressive on the upper right part of the desk. Regarding the white color, it might be too white, but the desk is my own project created in SolidWorks, intended for production, and the white color was added according to the boss's preferences. I'm attaching the new version of the render; I've applied some of the corrections, but not all yet. If you have any new observations, I'd be happy to read them. Thanks!

[Nejc Kilar]

I'm really glad to hear you're making progress! It is looking better to me as well!

That said, if I may, I'd still look into adding sublime details (really tiny scratches and imperfections on things like the chrome feet of the chair etc.) and maybe toning down the intensity of some materials - like the paper holders etc etc.

It is really nice you go here, thank you for sharing your updates!

[Beanzvision]

So I had a go at something similar also. Less prominent displacement from the bricks, more items scattered around the room as well as outside. Trying to give it a more ''lived in'' feel. I hope this may help :)

[88qba88]

I think there might be a problem with materials albedo. I think your whites are too white (I try not to make white whiter than 210/255).
In real world almost no materials are brighter than 210 (lets consider that it is pure white snow, even white paper looks a bit gray on such a bright material). It dramatically changes how light scatters on the whole scene.
PS. same goes for blacks - usually I try not to go below 40/255, usually around 50/255) for blacks, unless it's Vantablack paint or something).

[MKopek]

Hi, thanks to everyone for the advice. I created a second visualization, this time of a coffee table. I designed the table myself in SolidWorks and imported it directly into 3ds Max. Unfortunately, due to a lack of time, I haven't experimented with adding dirt to the textures yet, and the scene is still quite simple. I'm working with pre-made models as I don't have time to create everything from scratch. What do you think? In my opinion, the background is at an acceptable level, but the foreground, specifically the table (and the rug, which has already been changed), seems to completely ruin the realism. I feel that the table looks very artificial, and I'm not sure if I can improve it without remodeling it (the table and the cabinet in the background are real products currently in production). Now, I also realize that I would definitely add a subtle roughness to the black legs and change the color of the rug. I also have a question: is there a simple way to add furniture edges to my finished table? The table is made of particleboard, and the lack of edges makes it look like it's made of HDF or a solid piece of wood (I have edges added in SolidWorks, but in 3ds, it's just a piece of board). Thanks again for all the advice; I'll try everything when I have a bit more time to watch tutorials on what you've mentioned. So far, my skills are limited to what I've learned in SolidWorks, discovered on my own, and learned from short tutorials during my week working with 3ds and Corona.

I am also attaching the latest version of my desk visualization. I changed the colors a bit and slightly redesigned it in SolidWorks.

[Brovar64]

yes, google "particleboard edges texture", there're lots of images. Make a multilateral, assign one ID to wood and a second to edges. Then make UVW Map only for selected edges and fit it to your size. I can make a fast how-to video if you don't get it :)

Also. I'd experiment more with lights. The shadows are too plain, try to play with different angles and colors of the sun, it's not necessary to make it physically realistic, nobody will mock you if the low sun is not orange-ish :) Try adding some fake invisible lights to emphasize elements. Also, avoid pure white color on textures (RGB 255 255 255), limit it to RGB 210 210 210 max. then white objects will not pop out and get more shape.

The displacement on bricks is too high, try decreasing it 2-3 times.

Camera height is a game changer too, you set the camera at the eye level of a gnome, from this height almost no one will see these objects, so looking at these shots it seems as if something is wrong there. Try putting it on human eyes level, like 150-160cm, and if necessary - lower the camera target and apply "vertical tilt" on the camera, it will compensate perspective distortion.

[James Vella]

Camera height is a game changer too, you set the camera at the eye level of a gnome, from this height almost no one will see these objects, so looking at these shots it seems as if something is wrong there. Try putting it on human eyes level, like 150-160cm, and if necessary - lower the camera target and apply "vertical tilt" on the camera, it will compensate perspective distortion.

While true, too low can be a problem. 150cm is far too high in most cases. Ive worked on site with photographers doing architectural shoots and typical height is between 110-120cm for a nice interior photograph. Sure you can deviate but just giving my 2c.

[Brovar64]

While true, too low can be a problem. 150cm is far too high in most cases. Ive worked on site with photographers doing architectural shoots and typical height is between 110-120cm for a nice interior photograph. Sure you can deviate but just giving my 2c.

hm, good point.
We do offices and always put the camera on 150. Most likely because the height of our ceilings is usually 3 meters or more. Indeed, with a camera at 150 for 250-270cm ceilings the space may look cramped, so 120 would be a good height. I should watch some videos on how real estate photographers take pictures :)

In any case, the OP's pictures don't even show the desk top, which means the camera is somewhere around 70-80cm, which is still too low

[James Vella]

Yep I think you are correct, its far too low when you cant see the table top.

And yes sometimes when you have a high ceiling you have to deviate a little or pull the camera back to capture more. One of the things ive noticed when working closely with photographers is that we often cheat and pull the camera 2-3 meters back through the wall with clipping to show the ceiling, which is a bit unfair for the customer since they get an unrealistic view of the space but it does tend to sell well... Im not in the marketing game but I have some understanding of their requirements lol.