Am 17.12.2012 13:30, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> On 17-12-2012 12:11, Ive wrote:
>> I see the same effect Christian did mention - to me it looks like some
>> badly done photoshopping where the face is pasted but does not match the
>> lighting condition.
>
> Additional thought: Why is it that I do not see at all what you and
> Christian seem to see? Not because I am the maker, that is not good
> enough for me. I am truly puzzled.
>

Note that I'm not concerned about photorealism, it is the inconsistence 
that bothers me.
Given the shadow on the back wall gap and the sharp shadow line in the 
face the scene suggest to be lit by direct sunlight. But in this case 
the dynamic range between the lit/unlit parts of the face is way too 
low. The shadowed face parts are also too bright compared to the 
shadowed wall gap. In other words, the shadows in the face are way too 
bright - or the lit parts way too dark, depending on the exposure 
setting of your camera.
The only way to make the face look as soft within direct sunlight would 
be by adding a lot of reflectors as done e.g. for outdoor fashion 
photography, but in this case the veil would also look very different.
As the clothing is now it looks more like within an old master painting.
This inconsistence creates this copy'n'paste impression for me.
I think your setup for testing poser people/clothing is a bit 
unfortunate. Personally I do use two different setups for *quick* 
indoor/outdoor testing and textures are *good* when they pass both tests.

-Ive

Post a reply to this message