Warehouse conversion

[daniel.reutersward]

Hi,

I wanted to do a warehouse conversion for a long time so here is my latest project called "Warehouse conversion".

[maru]

You put your scene inside your scene so you can render while you render!

Looks great, I can imagine a herd of hipsters living in there. :)

[aldola]

really really nice!! did you manage burn and contrast from vfb or in post?
cheers

[yagi]

front page stuff sir, u deserve the new gallery....i wonder what your raw renders look like ?

[JakubCech]

These are reaaly cool, very detailed and I love the scene in the scene hah!

[Juraj]

Looks very good, no crit from me !

Like the post-production, something I've been doing lately a lot, I call it crush&lift = )

[Fibonacci]

I like it ! Just only two observation...

The floor is lost the texture and characteristic. Sorry but for me it's too overexposed...
 
Another one. The glare on the monitor....The white never make any white glow effect if I have known good. Useally it's bluish, or when the sun's rays make it, then yellowish...Basicly you never see any white glow, haze..etc. The most white thing in the nature is the snow. That never make any white glowing...Maybe yust if mixing the bleu and the orange, but I think that never happen, just in some really special event...or in incident... ;)

Anyway I really like the coach and the lamps ! The colors and the reflection for those is absolutly my taste !

Should I know what was the light rig for the scenes ?

Thank you and all the best !

[AnubisMe]

You put your scene inside your scene so you can render while you render!

Looks great, I can imagine a herd of hipsters living in there. :)

lol. A hipster clubhouse

[daniel.reutersward]

You put your scene inside your scene so you can render while you render!

Looks great, I can imagine a herd of hipsters living in there. :)

Thanks! I don´t know if a herd would fit though :)

really really nice!! did you manage burn and contrast from vfb or in post?
cheers

Thank you! I managed that in post.

front page stuff sir, u deserve the new gallery....i wonder what your raw renders look like ?

Thanks! I can upload a raw render a little later so you can see.

These are reaaly cool, very detailed and I love the scene in the scene hah!

Thank you! :)

Looks very good, no crit from me !

Like the post-production, something I've been doing lately a lot, I call it crush&lift = )

Thank you! I tend to slightly change my post-production with every project, don´t know why :) How come you call it crush&lift?

I like it ! Just only two observation...

The floor is lost the texture and characteristic. Sorry but for me it's too overexposed...
 
Another one. The glare on the monitor....The white never make any white glow effect if I have known good. Useally it's bluish, or when the sun's rays make it, then yellowish...Basicly you never see any white glow, haze..etc. The most white thing in the nature is the snow. That never make any white glowing...Maybe yust if mixing the bleu and the orange, but I think that never happen, just in some really special event...or in incident... ;)

Anyway I really like the coach and the lamps ! The colors and the reflection for those is absolutly my taste !

Should I know what was the light rig for the scenes ?

Thank you and all the best !

Thank you for your feedback! Yes the floor got a bit overexposed, but I kind of liked it! :)

As light I used one HDRI, that´s all.

[Juraj]

Thank you! I tend to slightly change my post-production with every project, don´t know why :) How come you call it crush&lift?

So do I :- ) I think many people do, I often seen Bertrand refer to it as well, just keeping it experimental.

Crushed blacks (loss of detail in top lower histogram spectrum) makes for great artistic impression, they enhance the dynamic contrast look at highly exposed image, but at same time, lifting them (slight 'toe' on lower part of curve, or off-set at levels adjustments) again once the loss of detail has been achieved, makes the whole image softer, closer to analogue film look. Doing both masks heavily the CGI origins, but is often slightly unwanted in commercial work, for it's antique look. It's nonetheless very attractive.

[JakubCech]

Actually I would love to say some critic over these ones - I can observe you shifted black value up, a lot (like 27RGB values) - which makes these images washed out a bit as there are no values touching pure black as would be natural in such scene.
I tried "fixing" this in histogram and found absolute bangers in these images! This is just my personal opinion/critic - maybe it was your intention.
Jakub

[daniel.reutersward]

Thank you! I tend to slightly change my post-production with every project, don´t know why :) How come you call it crush&lift?

So do I :- ) I think many people do, I often seen Bertrand refer to it as well, just keeping it experimental.

Crushed blacks (loss of detail in top lower histogram spectrum) makes for great artistic impression, they enhance the dynamic contrast look at highly exposed image, but at same time, lifting them (slight 'toe' on lower part of curve, or off-set at levels adjustments) again once the loss of detail has been achieved, makes the whole image softer, closer to analogue film look. Doing both masks heavily the CGI origins, but is often slightly unwanted in commercial work, for it's antique look. It's nonetheless very attractive.

Yes, experimental was a good word :) It´s fun to experiment during post-processing!

Now I why you call it crush&lift! I agree that it masks the CGI in images pretty good but it´s not always wanted.

Actually I would love to say some critic over these ones - I can observe you shifted black value up, a lot (like 27RGB values) - which makes these images washed out a bit as there are no values touching pure black as would be natural in such scene.
I tried "fixing" this in histogram and found absolute bangers in these images! This is just my personal opinion/critic - maybe it was your intention.
Jakub

I actually never look at the histogram :) Can you elaborate what you mean about "absolute bangers"? I´m guessing that "absolute bangers" are not good? I´m always open for critic, I think that one can always improve their work.

[JakubCech]

lol - I meant moving from bangers (meaning awesome images) to absolute bangers (absolute awesome images).
The thing is that black is shifted - this means that in case of these images, it was intentionally shifted by using levels. This is however in my opinion wrong as such images need to touch absolute blacks - otherwise they look washed. They do not need to look washed at your monitor if you are using low brightness or  for whatever reason, but may look washed at other monitors - when viewing at high brightness. This is my case as well - images look washed a bit any by "fixing" they come to look better because of displaying black as black, not grey (washed black).
Jakub

[Juraj]

. This is however in my opinion wrong as such images need to touch absolute blacks

Artistic needs suddenly follow rules no one ever heard of ? Shifted/Lifted levels (particularly blacks) are just as common in color grading (of both analogue film and digital post alike) as following complete spectrum (which is far more suggested to avoid if someone needs rulebook instead of his own brain and taste). Why would it even technically be wrong ? It's deliberate choice of softer look.

The images look absolutely correct at normal calibration.

It's extremely popular and hipstery trend, but nonethless, very common.

http://noamkroll.com/why-the-milky-black-look-is-now-the-most-overused-technique-in-amateur-cinematography/

Why has this look become so popular? As we’ve already touched on, it is often associated with a more cinematic or filmic look as this technique softens up the image in the same way that certain types of older film stocks would.

[daniel.reutersward]

lol - I meant moving from bangers (meaning awesome images) to absolute bangers (absolute awesome images).
The thing is that black is shifted - this means that in case of these images, it was intentionally shifted by using levels. This is however in my opinion wrong as such images need to touch absolute blacks - otherwise they look washed. They do not need to look washed at your monitor if you are using low brightness or  for whatever reason, but may look washed at other monitors - when viewing at high brightness. This is my case as well - images look washed a bit any by "fixing" they come to look better because of displaying black as black, not grey (washed black).
Jakub

I understand now! :) Yes it was intentionally shifted slightly and I see your point that for some maybe they look washed out. However I use calibrated monitors and they don´t look overly washed out, but at the end of the day everyone has different tastes :) Thanks for you feedback!

[daniel.reutersward]

It's extremely popular and hipstery trend, but nonethless, very common.

http://noamkroll.com/why-the-milky-black-look-is-now-the-most-overused-technique-in-amateur-cinematography/

Why has this look become so popular? As we’ve already touched on, it is often associated with a more cinematic or filmic look as this technique softens up the image in the same way that certain types of older film stocks would.

I did not know that! I just went for a look that I liked :D

[Juraj]

[Sarcasm...just in case ] No worry, next time you will be smarter, and read wikipedia to follow correct rules when it comes to post-production.

Touché..

[daniel.reutersward]

[Sarcasm...just in case ] No worry, next time you will be smarter, and read wikipedia to follow correct rules when it comes to post-production.

Touché..

I should definitely check Wikipedia before I do any post-production in the future haha! :D

[JakubCech]

. This is however in my opinion wrong as such images need to touch absolute blacks

Artistic needs suddenly follow rules no one ever heard of ? Shifted/Lifted levels (particularly blacks) are just as common in color grading (of both analogue film and digital post alike) as following complete spectrum (which is far more suggested to avoid if someone needs rulebook instead of his own brain and taste). Why would it even technically be wrong ? It's deliberate choice of softer look.

Why has this look become so popular? As we’ve already touched on, it is often associated with a more cinematic or filmic look as this technique softens up the image in the same way that certain types of older film stocks would.

Again, its my opinion. As Daniel said, everybody has different taste. I expressed mine in case of these images and its not the same as yours, but its completely okay :) There is no wrong or right way anyway.

[Juraj]

I expressed mine in case of these images and its not the same as yours, but its completely okay :) There is no wrong or right way anyway.

I am done, because I don't want someone to accuse me of flamewar :- ). But perhaps better wording ? Or just avoiding taste matters, as it rarely fits as proper critique.

This is however in my opinion wrong as such images need to touch absolute blacks - otherwise they look washed.

[JakubCech]

I expressed mine in case of these images and its not the same as yours, but its completely okay :) There is no wrong or right way anyway.

I am done, because I don't want someone to accuse me of flamewar :- ). But perhaps some consistency... ?

This is however in my opinion wrong as such images need to touch absolute blacks - otherwise they look washed.

Well if I was doing images, I would treat it wrong because its against my taste - but in CG world there are many artists with different tastes and overal there is no right or wrong way. Hopefully its clear for you now :)

[Fibonacci]

Hi Daniel,

if you would like to learn something important about the color correction and histograms. Colors and black and white...Just take a time and goin' throught Steve Hullfish's videos. He will explain everything what you should to know about the histograms and the color corrections and luma...

Valuable videos!

list=PL81aNw-bjcdqA8xc-NpyYAW0gJQ9G7mIC

And this is same really informative:

Cheers!
 

[daniel.reutersward]

Hi Daniel,

if you would like to learn something important about the color correction and histograms. Colors and black and white...Just take a time and goin' throught Steve Hullfish's videos. He will explain everything what you should to know about the histograms and the color corrections and luma...

Thanks, I will take a look. You can never learn too much!

Here´s View01 without any post-production (I think someone wanted to see?).

[Dimer]

Hi Daniel!!!
My version of the post-processing. Like very much to try. Sorry if something is wrong.

[nehale]

Why is the raw so under exposed? or it was a exr

[daniel.reutersward]

Hi Daniel!!!
My version of the post-processing. Like very much to try. Sorry if something is wrong.

No worries, however on my screen your post-processing looks just wrong. The walls has a dirty green/yellow tint and everything is extremely oversaturated..

Why is the raw so under exposed? or it was a exr

Yes, 32-bit exr, the original file was not a jpg :)

[Ricky Johnson]

I very much like the staging in this scene. Especially that corner with the computer desk - it's actually interesting to take a look around the scene itself to see what lives where, if that makes sense.
Everything looks naturally placed but at the same time gives the impression that somebody has taken the care to arrange it all to achieve a good composition.

I prefer the post-processing in the original images.

[aurelarchi]

Really nice, already seen it on FB.
I'm curious about the setting to have clean result like this and your render time.

[johan belmans]

Whoop whoop well done!
Great atmosphere

[Adanmq]

Beautiful images.

In my opinion, photography its direct related to our memories, so emulate a very popular film stock works great in order to give realism to a 3D Render and you did it very  good. Not like some over-Post-produced ones.

[daniel.reutersward]

I very much like the staging in this scene. Especially that corner with the computer desk - it's actually interesting to take a look around the scene itself to see what lives where, if that makes sense.
Everything looks naturally placed but at the same time gives the impression that somebody has taken the care to arrange it all to achieve a good composition.

I prefer the post-processing in the original images.

Really nice, already seen it on FB.
I'm curious about the setting to have clean result like this and your render time.

Whoop whoop well done!
Great atmosphere

Beautiful images.

In my opinion, photography its direct related to our memories, so emulate a very popular film stock works great in order to give realism to a 3D Render and you did it very  good. Not like some over-Post-produced ones.

Thanks for the kind words guys!

I used default settings as far as I remember and the render times were about 3-5 hours per image at 3600x2400 resolution.

[MGDesignUK]

Great images as always - which HDRI did you use?

[daniel.reutersward]

Great images as always - which HDRI did you use?

Thank you! I don´t remember the exact one but I used an overcast HDRI from cg-source.

[michaltimko]

Actually I would love to say some critic over these ones - I can observe you shifted black value up, a lot (like 27RGB values) - which makes these images washed out a bit as there are no values touching pure black as would be natural in such scene.
I tried "fixing" this in histogram and found absolute bangers in these images! This is just my personal opinion/critic - maybe it was your intention.
Jakub

Awesome images! Really like contrast and tonality.

And i tend to agree with Jakub. Blacks are little bit washed out (to my eye). 

[agentdark45]

Nice set of images! Would you mind giving a quick run down of your post processing workflow for the image you showed? It looks extremely dark - I'm quite amazed how much you managed to brighten it up.

Any advantages of rendering darker and then brightening up in post as opposed to rendering something that's closer to the desired final look?

[daniel.reutersward]

Awesome images! Really like contrast and tonality.

And i tend to agree with Jakub. Blacks are little bit washed out (to my eye). 

Nice set of images! Would you mind giving a quick run down of your post processing workflow for the image you showed? It looks extremely dark - I'm quite amazed how much you managed to brighten it up.

Any advantages of rendering darker and then brightening up in post as opposed to rendering something that's closer to the desired final look?

Thanks guys! I like to render out images without any overexposed areas and then bring back as much exposure as possible. I tend to change and experiment with post-production but here´s a short breakdown of the post-production for these images:

01 Raw render, rendered out as a 32-bit exr-file.

02 ArionFx settings.

03 Result after ArionFx.

04 Camera Raw settings.

05 Result after Camera Raw.

06 Final adjustments and final image.

[fLuppster]

Wow, i always tried to get as much brightness as possible in the raw rendering.
But this way looks way more accurate. Thank you for sharing, i will try it this way next time. ;)

[Ondra]

since several sampling parameters in corona are derived automatically from image brightness, you should always render with image exposure close to final result

[daniel.reutersward]

Wow, i always tried to get as much brightness as possible in the raw rendering.
But this way looks way more accurate. Thank you for sharing, i will try it this way next time. ;)

No problem :)

since several sampling parameters in corona are derived automatically from image brightness, you should always render with image exposure close to final result

Thanks, that´s good to know! Will rendertimes go up a lot when rendering images darker? Will try to render with brightness close to final result!

[Ondra]

different scenarios can result in different problems when using too much or too little exposure. Point is, using about the same exposure will give you predictable and optimal results.

[Juraj]

You can always lower your exposure in CameraRaw or just general in PS to have the same starting point. You will just get correct brightness since MIS won't cut too much out of it when rendering at correct exposure.
It's linear file so it doesn't matter.

btw it's the same thing with modern DSLRs like D800 or any other. To recover highlights, it's not longer necessary to under-expose, since the dynamic range allows you to better recover highlights at right exposure, without sacrificing blacks to be too noisy
when under-exposing. You then under-exposure in post-production and then do the color grading.

[daniel.reutersward]

different scenarios can result in different problems when using too much or too little exposure. Point is, using about the same exposure will give you predictable and optimal results.

You can always lower your exposure in CameraRaw or just general in PS to have the same starting point. You will just get correct brightness since MIS won't cut too much out of it when rendering at correct exposure.
It's linear file so it doesn't matter.

btw it's the same thing with modern DSLRs like D800 or any other. To recover highlights, it's not longer necessary to under-expose, since the dynamic range allows you to better recover highlights at right exposure, without sacrificing blacks to be too noisy
when under-exposing. You then under-exposure in post-production and then do the color grading.

Thanks for clarifying! :) Will try to render closer to the final exposure next time!

Does it matter where I change exposure? In HDRI, cameramod, VFB? Didn´t know this so I got a little curious..

[Juraj]

Does it matter where I change exposure? In HDRI, cameramod, VFB? Didn´t know this so I got a little curious..

Myself I am not 100perc sure. but in Vray Vlado clarified it doesn't matter at all. It will simply break your "physical" (mind the "". it means it doesn't matter) setup of shutter speed/aperture.

Anyway, since Corona uses MIS in this way, you have to hit render with already correct exposure. So if you set in correctly in VFB by sliding it up, then hit re-render to sample with correct MIS.
Then the same thing, highlight clamping (reinhard in fact) at 1.0 to keep linear file.

Make sure you don't use CameraRaw twice. Actually you can, but keep it mind, the first time you use it, it will clamp your file, so you won't recover exposure next time you use it.

[daniel.reutersward]

Myself I am not 100perc sure. but in Vray Vlado clarified it doesn't matter at all. It will simply break your "physical" (mind the "". it means it doesn't matter) setup of shutter speed/aperture.

Anyway, since Corona uses MIS in this way, you have to hit render with already correct exposure. So if you set in correctly in VFB by sliding it up, then hit re-render to sample with correct MIS.
Then the same thing, highlight clamping (reinhard in fact) at 1.0 to keep linear file.

Make sure you don't use CameraRaw twice. Actually you can, but keep it mind, the first time you use it, it will clamp your file, so you won't recover exposure next time you use it.

I read, I think a long time ago, that V-Ray could even render faster if you render the images a little darker. Could be that together with wanting to render out the image without any overexposed areas that kept me with this workflow :)

So render at the correct exposure (no matter how overexposed some areas get) it´s mainly to have correct MIS? And to avoid any problems?
I did some tests and it seems changing the exposure doesn´t affect render times, at least not with this particular scene.

UPDATE: I do see some incorrect behaviour now when I render underexposed. I didn´t get that when I rendered out the images before... But the good news is I can continue with my workflow but just add a negative exposure in PS :)

Exactly, I noticed that you can´t use Camera Raw twice, the result is not pretty :D

[Juraj]

I read, I think a long time ago, that V-Ray could even render faster if you render the images a little darker. Could be that together with wanting to render out the image without any overexposed areas that kept me with this workflow :)

So render at the correct exposure (no matter how overexposed some areas get) it´s mainly to have correct MIS? And to avoid any problems?
I did some tests and it seems changing the exposure doesn´t affect render times, at least not with this particular scene.

Ok, each issue separately :- )

Vray does (in bucket mode !!) take into account the intensity to decide how much sampling is necessary, and slightly under-exposed image thus render fasters. But what that in actuallity means, if you need to drastically recover blacks,
they will be noisy, since not enough samples were used.
Vray Progressive, does uniform sampling, just like Corona, so it pretty much doesn't matter. But since Vray 3.0+ also uses MIS (by default on=20, can be off), correct exposure is necessary to keep correct brightness, otherwise the MIS will cut away too
many bright primary rays, not just caustics, the whole image will have lesser contrast with brightest parts simply clamped down.

In Corona progressive sampler, the exposure shouldn't affect render times (as in render speed in rays/s) but since it affects MIS, it can introduce more noise to be sampled. But you won't end up with clamped highlights from MIS (mostly visible in brightest reflection and white walls).

[Fibonacci]

Just a small opposite of me...

Well...for me is missing the rich blacks. On the end you almost lost all shadows. If you have a lot light on the scene ( you have an big windows), than you have to get much rich shadows. Because this light is strong for me...and... The floor to overexposed (for what ?) and you missied to correcting the shadows. On the first pic you have shadows under the table, but the final, almost all lost.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think you have to strech the lights and the shadows (white and blacks) more widely... Just always check the histogram...And on the Camera Raw, use the white and blacks's clamp options. Is there on the corners of the histogram. This is good way to avoid the flat renders.

Keymaster have right, you try to achieve the final render with correct exposure. That's more valuable. Just equalize the cam's setup with your lights intensity. If you have brigter light, than this one, that's good...Than you render should be underexposed with 2-3 stops.

When you feel the HDRI goin' to "rainbow" ( if you have full HDRI ), just use some color correction on it, and If you want to  use the background in render, than just put the background in light material and use like the lighting, make color correction and equalize with the other lights and exposure...Playing...you know !? ;)

[agentdark45]

Thanks for your post processing run down Daniel! I might have to look into Arion, I like what I'm seeing.

As for the other replies in this thread about keeping the exposure closer to the final desired look, am I correct in stating that to use this kind of workflow the highlight compression spinner in Corona should be left at 1 and only changes I should be making is to the exposure value? What is an "acceptable" amount of burnouts, or does it not really matter if I'm saving the file as a 32bit exr?

[daniel.reutersward]

Ok, each issue separately :- )

Vray does (in bucket mode !!) take into account the intensity to decide how much sampling is necessary, and slightly under-exposed image thus render fasters. But what that in actuallity means, if you need to drastically recover blacks,
they will be noisy, since not enough samples were used.
Vray Progressive, does uniform sampling, just like Corona, so it pretty much doesn't matter. But since Vray 3.0+ also uses MIS (by default on=20, can be off), correct exposure is necessary to keep correct brightness, otherwise the MIS will cut away too
many bright primary rays, not just caustics, the whole image will have lesser contrast with brightest parts simply clamped down.

In Corona progressive sampler, the exposure shouldn't affect render times (as in render speed in rays/s) but since it affects MIS, it can introduce more noise to be sampled. But you won't end up with clamped highlights from MIS (mostly visible in brightest reflection and white walls).

Ok got it! Thanks for the info :) You can learn something new every day!

Just a small opposite of me...

Well...for me is missing the rich blacks. On the end you almost lost all shadows. If you have a lot light on the scene ( you have an big windows), than you have to get much rich shadows. Because this light is strong for me...and... The floor to overexposed (for what ?) and you missied to correcting the shadows. On the first pic you have shadows under the table, but the final, almost all lost.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think you have to strech the lights and the shadows (white and blacks) more widely... Just always check the histogram...And on the Camera Raw, use the white and blacks's clamp options. Is there on the corners of the histogram. This is good way to avoid the flat renders.

Keymaster have right, you try to achieve the final render with correct exposure. That's more valuable. Just equalize the cam's setup with your lights intensity. If you have brigter light, than this one, that's good...Than you render should be underexposed with 2-3 stops.

When you feel the HDRI goin' to "rainbow" ( if you have full HDRI ), just use some color correction on it, and If you want to  use the background in render, than just put the background in light material and use like the lighting, make color correction and equalize with the other lights and exposure...Playing...you know !? ;)

Thanks for you feedback. I don´t understand everything you said though... However I do agree that the floor is slightly overexposed and some shadows could be a bit stronger but everyone has different tastes :) I never use full HDRI and the background buildings are 3D.

Thanks for your post processing run down Daniel! I might have to look into Arion, I like what I'm seeing.

As for the other replies in this thread about keeping the exposure closer to the final desired look, am I correct in stating that to use this kind of workflow the highlight compression spinner in Corona should be left at 1 and only changes I should be making is to the exposure value? What is an "acceptable" amount of burnouts, or does it not really matter if I'm saving the file as a 32bit exr?

No problem! The demo version has watermarks all over the image so it´s kind of hard to see what you´re doing though..

Keeping highlight compression at 1 is correct for linear workflow and saving out 32-bit exr-files. You can compress highlights and save out what you see in VFB as a png,jpg or something else. I´m not sure so if someone knows for sure please correct me :)

[Juraj]

It doesn't matter because with 1.0= linear file, you're able to recover everything, and do your own tone-mapping in post-production. Open such file in any post-production tool, and keep sliding exposure slider, you will understand the literal meaning of "linear" :- ) and its benefits.

You can also do it lazy way, and do some tonemapping in Corona (1.01-999) and still save as 32bit .exr, you will still be able to recover stuff and make some exposure adjustments within limits.

[daniel.reutersward]

It doesn't matter because with 1.0= linear file, you're able to recover everything, and do your own tone-mapping in post-production. Open such file in any post-production tool, and keep sliding exposure slider, you will understand the literal meaning of "linear" :- ) and its benefits.

You can also do it lazy way, and do some tonemapping in Corona (1.01-999) and still save as 32bit .exr, you will still be able to recover stuff and make some exposure adjustments within limits.

Exactly, the same it you open up a good HDRI and change the exposure, really easy to see benefits of linear and 32-bit exr :)

[daveyt]

excellent work thanks for sharing your post production workflow..

[snakebox]

Images doesn't seem to load anymore?

Awesome images! Really like contrast and tonality.

And i tend to agree with Jakub. Blacks are little bit washed out (to my eye). 

Nice set of images! Would you mind giving a quick run down of your post processing workflow for the image you showed? It looks extremely dark - I'm quite amazed how much you managed to brighten it up.

Any advantages of rendering darker and then brightening up in post as opposed to rendering something that's closer to the desired final look?

Thanks guys! I like to render out images without any overexposed areas and then bring back as much exposure as possible. I tend to change and experiment with post-production but here´s a short breakdown of the post-production for these images:

01 Raw render, rendered out as a 32-bit exr-file.

02 ArionFx settings.

03 Result after ArionFx.

04 Camera Raw settings.

05 Result after Camera Raw.

06 Final adjustments and final image.

[Image Box Studios]

Awesome images! Really like contrast and tonality.

And i tend to agree with Jakub. Blacks are little bit washed out (to my eye). 

Nice set of images! Would you mind giving a quick run down of your post processing workflow for the image you showed? It looks extremely dark - I'm quite amazed how much you managed to brighten it up.

Any advantages of rendering darker and then brightening up in post as opposed to rendering something that's closer to the desired final look?

Thanks guys! I like to render out images without any overexposed areas and then bring back as much exposure as possible. I tend to change and experiment with post-production but here´s a short breakdown of the post-production for these images:

01 Raw render, rendered out as a 32-bit exr-file.

02 ArionFx settings.

03 Result after ArionFx.

04 Camera Raw settings.

05 Result after Camera Raw.

06 Final adjustments and final image.

Hi can you re-post these images again..the images are not showing properly.

[daniel.reutersward]

Yes, I see that too. Will check why and fix the images.

[daniel.reutersward]

I´ve attached the post-production images below.

[Alexp]

Great images, but for me the left chair are floating. I think it needs a bit of contrast or reflection on the floor.
And the images looks a bit washed.

Anyway for me your images is 9,9/10 this coment its only for that 0,1/10

Best regards

[daniel.reutersward]

Great images, but for me the left chair are floating. I think it needs a bit of contrast or reflection on the floor.
And the images looks a bit washed.

Anyway for me your images is 9,9/10 this coment its only for that 0,1/10

Best regards

Thanks for you feedback! The chair seems to float because of the high exposure of the floor.

[Tetsuoo]

o_O I didn't read every post but to me there's nothing wrong with blacks or whatever. This looks so real ! (the bag is a photo right ? Right ? x)
I need to understand how it works, I have to work harder x)

[snakebox]

I´ve attached the post-production images below.

Actually a surprisingly simple workflow... not the tools I would have used, but it certainly works!  If the base is good, less really is more.

[daniel.reutersward]

o_O I didn't read every post but to me there's nothing wrong with blacks or whatever. This looks so real ! (the bag is a photo right ? Right ? x)
I need to understand how it works, I have to work harder x)

Thank you! No, everything is 3D... ;)

Actually a surprisingly simple workflow... not the tools I would have used, but it certainly works!  If the base is good, less really is more.

I tend to experiment with my post-production with almost every project. This particular workflow would perhaps not work with another type of image. Yes, sometimes less is more and if you have a good base you don´t need a complex time-consuming post-production :)

[Tetsuoo]

ok so I tried the tone-mapping method with 32bit EXR  (darker, but not too much). And it's pretty nice !!..even if I still don't know what to choose when saving the file: gamma 1.0 or 2,2, with good tone-mapping, both look nice in the end x)
...and then I realize that I'm just stuck with a 32bit file that I can't convert to jpg or png so I can't share it. Then I convert it to 8 bits. Then I have to tone-map again and the result is totally different of course, what a nightmare xDDD

[Juraj]

Then I have to tone-map again

Photoshop makes this slightly un-obvious but this is the procedure:

CS6 (or older) --) HDR Toning; select method: "Exposure and Gamma" Leave at default to keep identical image

CC (newer ) ---) In settings (preferences) you can decide if you want to use 'HDR Toning' or 'CameraRaw'.
                           If you choose HDR Toning, same as above, choose Exposure and Gamma. If you have few layers, it will simply ask you to merge, say no. No need to select anything.

                           If you select 'CameraRaw' instead, go to 'Camera Calibration' tab, and choose "2010". The default is 2012, which will try to 'equilize histogram' by default for 32bit files. It doesn't know you don't want it, it's stupid thing from Adobe.

Gamma: 3dsMax 2013 and older : 1.0
              3dsMax 2014/2015: Automatic (which is 1.0 for 32bit OpenExr./Hdr.)

{note: The first time you use CameraRaw, it will clamp the image, so you will loose dynamic range, and cannot do actual tonemapping second time, even if you stay in 32bit mode. You will simply be in linear mode, with 32bit color depth, but with clamped file, so you might as well just go lower to non-linear 8/16bit and continue post-production there}

[daniel.reutersward]

CC (newer ) ---) In settings (preferences) you can decide if you want to use 'HDR Toning' or 'CameraRaw'.
                           If you choose HDR Toning, same as above, choose Exposure and Gamma. If you have few layers, it will simply ask you to merge, say no. No need to select anything.

                           If you select 'CameraRaw' instead, go to 'Camera Calibration' tab, and choose "2010". The default is 2012, which will try to 'equilize histogram' by default for 32bit files. It doesn't know you don't want it, it's stupid thing from Adobe.

Exactly! I usually choose "Exposure and gamma". Switching Camera Calibration from 2012 to 2010 was new to me. Is that something you should do when opening Camera Raw with 32-bit exr-files? Or only when you switch from 32-bit to 16/8-bit?

[Juraj]

Exactly! I usually choose "Exposure and gamma". Switching Camera Calibration from 2012 to 2010 was new to me. Is that something you should do when opening Camera Raw with 32-bit exr-files? Or only when you switch from 32-bit to 16/8-bit?

You can do it always. You might have noticed when you open true linear file, it will equilize the histogram without asking you, depending on how dynamic your image is (if you used highlight clamping in corona or not).
Selecting 2010 method avoids this in 95perc. of cases. The difference is mostly controls, it's not big thing. The 2010 might be slightly more obvious for 3D because of its naming.

[daniel.reutersward]

You can do it always. You might have noticed when you open true linear file, it will equilize the histogram without asking you, depending on how dynamic your image is (if you used highlight clamping in corona or not).
Selecting 2010 method avoids this in 95perc. of cases. The difference is mostly controls, it's not big thing. The 2010 might be slightly more obvious for 3D because of its naming.

I have noticed that if you only open Camera Raw it changes your image slightly without even changing any parameters, but I didn´t know that it equalized the histogram. Next time I will try and change it to 2010, thanks!

[Juraj]

Most people actually like what it does, it generally brightens it up a lot and pushes up contrast (also local contrast).
I've seen it generally being adopted to be part of workflow :- ) Open it up...like what you see ? Lottery.

[daniel.reutersward]

It´s mostly the contrast I´ve seen changing and it hasn´t bother me much, more of a notice that something changed.

I tried switching now between 2012/2010 and I could clearly see how the highlights were clamped when using 2012, so it´s good to now how to change that :)

[Juraj]

I tried switching now between 2012/2010 and I could clearly see how the highlights were clamped when using 2012, so it´s good to now how to change that :)

Just to further comment on this, technically this isn't clamping yet. When opening linear file (in 32bit PS mode), the default 2012 will do its automatic adjustments, but you keep your dynamic range and can reverse correct it, or further tweak it.
The moment you save this changes, the layer is clamped. Even if you're still in 32bit mode.

When you change PS mode from 32bit to 16/8, and use CameraRaw instead of HDR Tonemapping, the mode only affects those visual changes, 2010 will keep it intact, but afterwards, it's clamped and even if you change PS mode back to 32bit, the layer is clamped under any condition and can't be reversed.

So the mode, doesn't affect clamping, the CameraRaw itself always does.


This is also important to keep in mind when using different tools together. For example CameraRaw + MagicBullet. If you need glows, use MagicBullet first (it keeps the file non-clamped and linear), and then CameraRaw.

[daniel.reutersward]

It looked like the highlights were clamped but I understand that they were not now, thanks! :)

[Tetsuoo]

Hey thanks Juraj for clarifying ! Like most things, it's so simple when you actually KNOW about it ^^
I have CS6. I'm not familiar with Camera Raw but I've found out that it's possible to download it as a plugin from Adobe website, will have a look at that too.
...so maybe later I can be confused about using HDR Toning or Camera Raw haha xD I believe photographers use CamRaw a lot in Lightroom... For now 32 bits is another world for me to check on :)

[nacho_grande]

I used default settings as far as I remember and the render times were about 3-5 hours per image at 3600x2400 resolution.

Can I ask what is your system config?

[daniel.reutersward]

Can I ask what is your system config?

Sure, I´m using 2x Xeon 2697 v3, 64gb ram and a Geforce 980 Gtx graphics card.
Hope that answers your question, otherwise I´ll will give you the complete spec.

[speltospel]

something that reminds
http://blog.paulinaarcklin.nl/2013/10/renees-loft.html