 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
What do you make of this? Only changed the light's position.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'poserfiguretest.png' (421 KB)
Preview of image 'poserfiguretest.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 17.12.2012 13:40, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> What do you make of this? Only changed the light's position.
Now it's the other side not looking right :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17-12-2012 16:11, clipka wrote:
> Am 17.12.2012 13:40, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>> What do you make of this? Only changed the light's position.
>
> Now it's the other side not looking right :-P
>
Go fly a kite, my friend! :-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 17.12.2012 16:36, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> On 17-12-2012 16:11, clipka wrote:
>> Am 17.12.2012 13:40, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>>> What do you make of this? Only changed the light's position.
>>
>> Now it's the other side not looking right :-P
>>
>
> Go fly a kite, my friend! :-)
For some reason I suspect that won't fix the Satrap's clothing problems :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/12/2012 3:36 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 17-12-2012 16:11, clipka wrote:
>> Am 17.12.2012 13:40, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>>> What do you make of this? Only changed the light's position.
>>
>> Now it's the other side not looking right :-P
>>
>
> Go fly a kite, my friend! :-)
>
> Thomas
>
Anyone know of a good second hand eye shop? Because it looks good to me.
Although, maybe a fill in light on his RHS (left as you look at it)
might help.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> Anyone know of a good second hand eye shop?
Don't discard the old eyes until you're sure the difference it
not from the monitor. Actually mine is very old and poorly calibrated
but I'm sure Ive has gamma correction at hand-counted photon level ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/12/2012 8:30 PM, Christian Froeschlin wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>
>> Anyone know of a good second hand eye shop?
>
> Don't discard the old eyes until you're sure the difference it
> not from the monitor.
I won't discard them but I do wish I had younger ones. :-)
> Actually mine is very old and poorly calibrated
> but I'm sure Ive has gamma correction at hand-counted photon level ;)
I am not a betting man but I bet you a Mars bar that he has. ;-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: James Holsenback
Subject: Re: Another portrait from Gancaloon
Date: 17 Dec 2012 17:09:55
Message: <50cf9833@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/17/2012 04:12 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 17/12/2012 8:30 PM, Christian Froeschlin wrote:
>> Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> Anyone know of a good second hand eye shop?
>>
>> Don't discard the old eyes until you're sure the difference it
>> not from the monitor.
>
> I won't discard them but I do wish I had younger ones. :-)
>
>> Actually mine is very old and poorly calibrated
>> but I'm sure Ive has gamma correction at hand-counted photon level ;)
>
> I am not a betting man but I bet you a Mars bar that he has. ;-)
>
LOL ... raise ya a Snickers ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
