"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> "Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> wrote in message
> > I think that this is looking better and better.
>     Agreed. It really is an excellent image and idea which is *well*
> executed imo. (Nice one Bill).

Thanks Steves. :)

> > But thinking about it, it seems to me that the ghost is emitting too much
> > light and you can see too much from here glow.

It was difficult achieving a brightness balance I was happy with. I agree
she emits quite a lot of light (although why shouldn't she?), but I didn't
want the surroundings completely indistinct either...

>     I wonder what would happen if that uplight was used instead for the main
> lighting, and the intensity of the lady ghost was turned down a little? My
> point being that the uplight would mostly be on the ceiling, casting light
> over the ceiling and some of the room, but the lady ghost may 'stand out'
> more as a ghost (not that she doesn't now).

The look I was going for all along, before I even knew if the ghost would
work or not, was of the ghost being the *only* light source in the scene, a
proper pitch-black environment. I guess this variation would make her look
more ghostly in a kind of indistinct way - she should probably be
transparent if I tried this version... hmm, perhaps I will give it a go.
Render times for the large version (4800x2000) are only a day or two and
this would probably be quicker because I wouldn't need big fat area_lights
any more. Although I would have to crank up the radiosity settings a bit.
I'll get back to you!

I have done a daylight version too, although I used a 'live' subject in that
and not a ghost.

> (She must have over done her
> > Weetabix:)
>    LOL!  :)  Did you mean her 'Ready Brek'?
Yep, she died of a breakfast cereal overdose. You heard it here first. :)

Bill

Post a reply to this message