Chaos Corona Forum
General Category => Gallery => Topic started by: thangbui2504 on 2014-11-08, 18:12:53
-
Just a small kitchen i saw in magazine and try to recreate it with corona.
-
For my taste it's a bit overexposed and lacks contrast. It's also a bit noisy but not bad looking!
-
For my taste it's a bit overexposed and lacks contrast. It's also a bit noisy but not bad looking!
Thanks very much Maru
-
For my taste it's a bit overexposed and lacks contrast. It's also a bit noisy but not bad looking!
I would say it's still under-exposed but with wrong material albedos.
This over-exposed stuff seems to be the most common comment in 3D community, I don't know why, when in architectural photography, white is almost always exposed as pure white.
It's the incorrect lighting and overbright materials that wash away all the contrast and readability.
This is extremely whitened scene, yet it's magazine norm and looks right when printed. Most renders on other hand, are just dull, because they're under-exposed and lack contrast.
(this is photo by Pato Safko, the best slovak architectural photographer, also photographer for BMW catalogues !)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfa1/t31.0-8/176727_3804414624513_1492467294_o.jpg)
-
It's a matter of post processing. I can bet that raw photo is waaay less white and contrasty :] OTOH most profesional photographers would give their left arm for ability to work with raw material that's available to cg artists.
-
It's a matter of post processing. I can bet that raw photo is waaay less white and contrasty :] OTOH most profesional photographers would give their left arm for ability to work with raw material that's available to cg artists.
Do I mention post-production anywhere ?. I was talking of under/over-exposure dichotomy between CGI and Photography. No one ever thought the photos are shot directly like that.
If you can post-produce the render to keep the same balance of tones, go forward. Matter of fact is you can't if your materials didn't even follow the natural behaviour of their physical counterparts. I agree with your last sentence.
-
For my taste it's a bit overexposed and lacks contrast. It's also a bit noisy but not bad looking!
I would say it's still under-exposed but with wrong material albedos.
This over-exposed stuff seems to be the most common comment in 3D community, I don't know why, when in architectural photography, white is almost always exposed as pure white.
It's the incorrect lighting and overbright materials that wash away all the contrast and readability.
This is extremely whitened scene, yet it's magazine norm and looks right when printed. Most renders on other hand, are just dull, because they're under-exposed and lack contrast.
(this is photo by Pato Safko, the best slovak architectural photographer, also photographer for BMW catalogues !)
[img width=1024 height=521]https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfa1/t31.0-8/176727_3804414624513_1492467294_o.jpg[img]
Nice observations Juraj. I saw you went pretty deep into the PBR stuff in another thread - what albedo did you settle upon for white walls? Normally my pure whites are around 180.
-
I have no idea anymore.
Everyone is simply doing that stupid calculation from those reflectance charts and multiplying it and using it directly as linear value in diffuse slot. I find it totally wrong.
The only materials in CGI that convince me of their looks are metals, because it's so easy to create them, they're just specular. But everything else looks off to me, like everything, it dissapoints me but I don't know what to do about it right now.
-
I have no idea anymore.
Everyone is simply doing that stupid calculation from those reflectance charts and multiplying it and using it directly as linear value in diffuse slot. I find it totally wrong.
The only materials in CGI that convince me of their looks are metals, because it's so easy to create them, they're just specular. But everything else looks off to me, like everything, it dissapoints me but I don't know what to do about it right now.
I love those threads you mention, don't get me wrong awesome if you know the theory behind it, but from the point of having to produce images at a rapid space, f*** that. My clients can't tell the difference, only you the artist can ( half the time, i'm still a n00b), its nice when doing something for yourself. But most of the time they couldn't care less. For clients its either to shiny or it needs more shiny.
And besides, when In doubt take a real picture and start eyeballing.
Unless your doing Product renders I imagine.
OP : Your kitchen is really too pale. Also i'm confused with your environment, it has about the same brightness as your interior. It should either be darker or brighter. ( if you know what I mean )
Crap i'm mumbling again, bottom line, your images feels to linear.
Other then that, nice picture!