Playing with Post

[Fibonacci]

Hy folks,

I thought I share my new pic, and I'd like to make an measure myself about my experience for the post production.
If you don't like it, please share with me, why and if you have any advice, please don't hasitate to write here. I'll be appriciated...
I have some other raw renders of this scene, and I don't wanna make an other post, if you think I'm follow wrong way to make something good.
Maybe somebody else with fresh eyes will see it much clearer than me !

Thanks and all the best!

[romullus]

Stick with JPG, please. There's no need to waste resources.

[Fibonacci]

Fixed! Thanks the observation anyway...

[maru]

First of all, you should specify what effect you wanted to achieve. If you wanted your render to look like a photo, then, in my opinion, you have failed. Here is why:
-if it was a photo, it would be taked with an extremely wide-angle lens and such lenses do not produce such explicit depth of field effect - I would disable DOF (it looks like done in post, anyway)
-from the view behind windows, it looks like the weather is cloudy/stormy, yet there are sharp strong spots of light entering through your windows - this makes the whole image look at least uncanny
-there is some strange greenish tint in the shadows (maybe it's caused by gi)
-contrast is too high (let's say it's a matter of taste)
-image looks underexposed

I'll just add that in no case do I consider myself a professional, these are just my thoughts on how I would compare your image to an actual photo.

And here is my ultra-quick attempt at fixing brightness (curves only, it's still just my opinion :) ).

[Fibonacci]

Hi Maru,

Thanks your advices, I will keep in my mind next time.
Well, I'd like to achieve the looks like photo, but In the last week I'd learnt a lot of things about the CC and filmic look, maybe this made some mistaken in my mind. I have to clear it, because that is made this ugly DOF. I felt it's unnecessary...like the bloomish...

Basicly I don't have to much knowledge about the lens, this is one more thing what I have to more learn.
If you know something good essay about the lenses, please share with me. Or just an "simple" photography book should be enough ?

About the contrast...well, when I looking around, I see in the real life the contrast is really high, not just beetween the color, but the light and shadows too. Just I try to implementing. Like the blueish tinted shadows, because useally that tinted with blue...well ok, it's not always...

And thanks you point me about the "background", I just used it for the light, and I didn't thought about I must to lisening to the colors from the linked HDR. This is really mistaken !

I try to mixing the PASSes in the best way, but somethimes I feel I don't have to follow my experience about the VRay's passes. Tha Corona's looks much clearer and - maybe - here not necessary tweeking too much...

Underexposed, yes I seen...but on the Corona's machine was a bit correct ( for my taste).
After that when I seen on the another machine - I had copied for loading up here -, that's gone to underexposed...

Anyway, thanks your valuable response.

[maru]

Well, I'd like to achieve the looks like photo, but In the last week I'd learnt a lot of things about the CC and filmic look

I don't think this is an example of filmic colour correction. :)

Basicly I don't have to much knowledge about the lens, this is one more thing what I have to more learn.
If you know something good essay about the lenses, please share with me. Or just an "simple" photography book should be enough ?

Well, I think that if you want something to look photographic, then you should have at least some very basic knowledge on photography. Best way to learn is buying a cheap used DSLR and playing with the settings. You also have all these in Corona (ISO, aperture, speed, angle, focal distance, sensor size, etc) so you can try setting up a camera, giving it a wide angle and rendering with DOF, changing angle to narrow, and rendering, etc... For me experimenting is the best way to learn anything.

[Fibonacci]

Yeah the filmic CC is absolutely diffrent, but now I knows how  I have to read the Vectorscope and Waveform....And how I have thinking more accurate about the colors, shadows, lights and midtones, etc...What is important, and what is not really.I agreed this post is not so good implementation of my knowledge of CC, but everyday I learning something...and I fell I'm close to the end. But I'm not Steve Hullfish... ;D

But now I have to change my mind about the shades and textures...because I thought about too much the real absorption and reflections of colors... and others forexample:D

I have an Canon EOS600D, it's great, but useally I just pictureing the textures and HDR pics.That's my hobby.
Ofcourse I made a lot of good pictures, but with a good camera it's not a big deal. The bigger is to make something photographic on the screen... :)
I thought about study for the lens is something academic stuff. First to read, second to try in real lens and after implementing to CG. This is my "learn-flow", how I do it.   

Anyway, for learning I must to ask you guys to the feedbacks.

Cheers!