> Firstly Loki, thank you for the constructive feedback. The image looked
> better on my monitor than on others (on some you cannot even see the
> sail boat in the background), so I have a lot to learn about getting the
> lighting right, so it looks good on all monitors. Your feedback will be
> very helpful to me.

There's a sailboat?! ;) Sure, I hope you take something positive from this.
I'm sticking to what I said and not responding to any other statements (but
perhaps that's troll behaviour to some people too... I'm beginning to think
opening my mouth is enough to qualify me ;) ) but regarding your image, I
do think it's primarily let down by the lighting and composition.  One of
my gripes generally is that people spend days, weeks whatever modelling and
texturing their scene, but then don't take the time to compose and light
the thing effectively and an otherwise strong image is let down.  I suggest
you consider these things before you settle on a final render:

Subject lighting (Is the focal point of the image actually lit as if it is
important? Badly placed lights can draw attention away from your best
model)

Fill lighting (Soft- or no-shadowed lighting to illuminate the recessed
areas a little, but weaker than the key light above)

Back lighting (Usually from above and behind the image.  Picks out specular
highlights) (Radiosity lighting is often unneccesary if you light a scene
this way)

Camera direction. (Look out for the presence of strong parallel lines which
can draw the eye along the image.  If there is something important at the
convergence of the lines this can be a positive thing, but it can also be
distracting.  For example, imagine a perspective shot of a station
platform.  The eye follows the convergent lines of the tracks, platform
edge, roof etc to a point at the far end of the platform.  Affective
composition means there should be something over there, like a train
pulling in or a man with a gun or whatever.  If there's nothing there,
consider shooting the scene from a more sideways angle so the lines are
parallel, not convergent.)

Angle of view. (Strongly zooming in on a scene destroys perspective and
distance (but makes lateral movement across the screen appear very fast -
just in case you ever do an animation.)  For small objects this might be
desirable, as it makes them look genuinely small.  Wider lenses exaggerate
fore/aft movement and distance but can cause perspective distortion and
make lateral motion very slow.  Consider the difference between moving the
camera closer compared to zooming in.)

Focal blur (This is a great indicator of scale and shouldn't be thought of
as just a special effect.  Strong zooms and tight focus makes everything
look compressed and claustrophobic.  Wide angles with strong blur can be
very artistic for still-life type shots.)

There are loads of good books on film and photography composition that are
worth getting out of the library.  Some of the more technical ones are
useful too because they go into a lot of detail about lens types, light
temperatures (colours) and so on.  Most of it can be at least approximated
in POV.

L
-

Post a reply to this message