Forest floor

Started by Dune, April 06, 2019, 07:17:45 am

Previous topic - Next topic


I can try 1.5, but I can also raise it in post  ;) It struck me that the misty areas between the trees is a bit grainy. I suppose that's from the robust sampler.


Quote from: Dune on April 07, 2019, 05:14:29 am
Thanks Matt, I'll have another go. GI wouldn't work with Path Trace, as I understand. I did add a cirrus with quite some coverage to get more reflected light.

So it doesn't matter what the GI settings one use if using PT???
Great looking scene, but I would also try increasing the exposure.   :)

- Terje

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X
32,0 GB RAM
GeForce GTX 1060 6GB


Ulco, if you don't mind me asking I'm curious about your workflow. Do you render out to 32-bit exr? Do you use a calibrated monitor?

If you find that your renderings are printing dark then the client should be requesting color match proofs and the printer should make any necessary adjustments. Ultimately image reproduction quality is the printer's responsibility - they know what needs to go on press.


The adaptive sampler may produce grainier results in some cases, but it should be rendering faster (as you said). In that case just lower the Pixel Noise Threshold a little and you should get back to the same quality, but should also still have somewhat lower render time. That's the goal of Robust, at least.

- Oshyan


April 09, 2019, 02:13:49 am #19 Last Edit: April 09, 2019, 02:15:31 am by Dune
I sometimes do 32-bit exr for finals, or at least 16-bit tif. And I don't have a calibrated monitor, but it's an eizo flexscan (S2431W), which is supposed to be good by itself. I found that with some printers the result is matching very well with what I see, so I thought it to be okay, but other printers print my work too dark. I suppose it's their fault, but every time something like that happens, I doubt my delivery.
I know from one occasion that the printer forgot to use an icc profile, and in a second edition they did and it looked much better. Anyway, I often remind my clients to not print it too dark, so they can think for themselves and take steps if needed. I also ask for a pdf of a page or cover or so, to check if it looks 'kind of' okay. Like this one...

Thanks Oshyan, I'll keep that in mind.

Here's an iteration with exposure set to 1.5. Low cloud without shadows. DOF by depth pass.


The Dutch page seems well printed, I really like that windmill/lock thing a lot and it looks good and photo-real small..the main image must make them think (the general public) that you have a time traveling camera.
something borrowed,
something Blue.
Ring out the Old.
Bring in the New
Bobby Stahr, Paracosmologist


Yes, this one is well printed.


Quote from: bobbystahr on April 09, 2019, 02:27:13 am
The Dutch page seems well printed, I really like that windmill/lock thing a lot and it looks good and photo-real small..the main image must make them think (the general public) that you have a time traveling camera.

Same what I thought :)
Just great!


The brochure is nicely done. I really like the way the designer juxtaposed your images with current photos. It's hard to tell the difference!

Thanks for the details and indulging my curiosity. Many of us work alone and it's interesting and helpful to learn how experienced artists do their work. Just IMHO down the road you may want to consider a display that can be calibrated with a hardware kit. The quality and scale of your work certainly warrants it.


I *really* like the way the ferns look in the latest image(s). The DoF is also nice. Personally I'd prefer it without the human figure, but I know it's relevant for a lot of work (is this a client piece?).

Eizo's can definitely be calibrated. They come "out of the box" reasonably more accurate than many others, but there is I think a somewhat common myth that a high quality monitor *capable* of accurate output is inherently more accurate. This is not the case. You *must* calibrate - *and* do so *regularly* (at least once a year) - to keep your display accurate! There are lots of reasons for this, things can shift over time as the hardware ages, or if you change some other part of the hardware pipeline like the GPU, and also there are environmental factors (for example if you move your computer setup into a different room with different lighting or even notably different paint color on the walls reflecting more or less light). It seems like these should not make much difference, but they do, especially in aggregate, i.e. considered all together.

- Oshyan


No, it's not for a client, but started as just a test of a 'moist leaf' texture from Quixel Megascans. Added 2 trees, 2 grasses, a fern, a leaf and a mushroom to make it look a bit nicer. And added the figure as an afterthought, as that would maybe sell to my clients  ;)

I know what you're saying, Oshyan, and I agree, but never took the steps to do it. Overall the colors of my printed work came out well (never had any complaints by clients), but only occasionally too dark.