> "Robert McGregor" <rob### [at] mcgregorfineartcom> wrote:
>> "Anthony D. Baye" <Sha### [at] spamnomorehotmailcom> wrote:
>>> I have six light sources.  There is no difference in lighting between the two
>>> samples. Granted the part I'm wondering about is in moderate shadow, but it
>>> should be receiving some of the light.  The primary texture is at least the same
>>> color when rendered with radiosity, which indicates to me that the color of the
>>> secondary relies too much on it's ambient value.
>>
>> Adding to the finish(es) an emission value that matches the existing ambient
>> value should fix that issue completely when using radiosity.
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------
>> www.McGregorFineArt.com
>
> So I guess the question is: Does the emission keyword supercede ambient? should
> the textures in the libraries be updated to reflect that?

NO ! and NO !

>
> and thanks for the tips on HDRI.  Now I just need a step-by-step tutorial on how
> to use it in scene.
>
> Regards,
> A.D.B.
>

ambient is meant as a cheap alternative to diffuse inter-reflection that 
radiosity does.
emission is meant for textures that actualy *emit* light. Adding 
emission to most textures will wrongfully make them emit light in 
radiosity scenes.

emission never supercede ambient, they are totaly different beasts.
Most textures using high ambient are probably for simulating some amount 
of translucency. For example, PinkAlabaster is a fairly translucent 
stone and the texture for it have a high ambient. Beter done using 
subsurface that ambient, but much slower...

If you look at the metal textures, they have insane ambient that looks 
resonably good when alone with a black background. Add any environment, 
and it becomes unrealistic and often bad looking.

Post a reply to this message