That is the question.
Which illumination works best? After TG2, both were run through the demo version of PhotoMatix and then tampered with in Paint.NET for varying values of Curves and Levels.
depends on the conditions your trying to represent, if its like a mars like place I would go for the first if its like an earth like pace I would go for the second.
I feel like the second pops out the highlights a little too much.
Thanks guys. I should mention that the ground is supposed to be lava-like, but it shouldn't matter. The sun in both cases changes dramatically as do the shadows and highlights, based on some of my changes.
I've had some trouble getting an EXR from TG2 to work with PhotoMatix. Not sure why, but it errors out every time.
1st one looks fantastic to me Oo
could we get a HQ render ?
Seth, I'll look into it, but these took three renders each to run through PhotoMatix. How large I go might depend on how much time I get to do this. ;D
I prefer the first !
agree Phyllo :)
the first one just look amazing to me this size... the light, the atmo, the pov...
i hope calico will do it bigger just to see how it looks in HQ render...
I go for 'not so bright'. It seems more realistic, having less light in a scene, and still be able to see all the details.
It may help to see the original unaltered normal exposure image for comparison. On the whole I prefer the first one but it does have that flat look often created when adjusting brightness curves.
The second one is just more interesting in my opinion but with things like this, you ask ten people you get ten answers. It's a matter of taste with these kinds of images
I prefer the first one as a composition, but the second one points more obviously to other interesting techniques that could come from this such as lava, etc. :)
monks
This is a bit difficult to chose, the second image has to strong contrasts and looks a bit saturated compared to the first one.
The first one has more realistic, softer and subtle lighting. Better contrasts. Though the background mountain in the second image is better than the first, in my opinion.
A bit of both would work best :)
Thanks for your opinions. I'll think about all of these things. It helps to get a rounded perspective this way. I'll try to re-render it this week.
I agree with you to ask for 'help'/opinions, but in the end the only thing that counts is what you think about it :)
Looking forward to see where you're going with this and to see the final result!
Quote from: Tangled-Universe on June 01, 2008, 04:34:59 PM
I agree with you to ask for 'help'/opinions, but in the end the only thing that counts is what you think about it :)
Looking forward to see where you're going with this and to see the final result!
agree with that !
Quote from: Tangled-Universe on June 01, 2008, 04:34:59 PM
I agree with you to ask for 'help'/opinions, but in the end the only thing that counts is what you think about it :)
Looking forward to see where you're going with this and to see the final result!
I second or is that third that.
By all means ask for help or suggestions but in the end its your image so you will need to decide what you do with it. If we all did the same thing we would all end up with similar results and where would the fun be in that?
Comments are welcome. I rendered this three different times with different settings and then used PhotoMatix to blend these three together.
Lo! For this is very nice. I like how you can kinda see the sun's disc, but not really.
You really should not need to render this 3 times. Photomatix works with the EXR images from Terragen 2 in my experience.
- Oshyan
Oshyan, you mean I don't need three light samples (-1, 0, +1) to get the best use of the EXRs from TG2? Really? Geee.
The EXR should contain a pretty wide range of exposure data to play with. I've had good results just using them directly in Photomatix. You do need somewhat different settings from what you might use with a merged set of non-HDR images (BMPs), but it works well with the right settings. And saves lots of render time. ;D Unless you were just outputting 3 differently exposed images from the same EXR and then using Photomatix to combine those, but that seems unnecessary too (at least it saves the render time though).
- Oshyan
Thanks Oshyan. I was making three different renders from TG2 to use in Photomatix by using different exposures with the camera. This could be useful in certain situations, but what I am doing here isn't that broad of a range of exposure values.
Quote from: calico on June 07, 2008, 10:03:39 AM
Thanks Oshyan. I was making three different renders from TG2 to use in Photomatix by using different exposures with the camera. This could be useful in certain situations, but what I am doing here isn't that broad of a range of exposure values.
This would only be useful if your images are low dynamic range. EXRs have enough dynamic range and colour resolution that you should never need to render more than one image, even if you want to change the image enormously.
Matt
I re-rendered this, after taking out the image map for my stones and rearranging the terrain by eliminating repeating patterns. This is all TG2, but I readjusted the EXR in PhotoMatix and then adjusted levels and curves in Photoshop.
I have to say the lighting on the left part of the image and especially on the fake stones looks really good!
I'm not fond of the texturing of the soil/ground, to be honest I think it should really need some work to get this image really working.
The atmo is nice also. In overall good work.
What did you do in Photomatix? I'm not familiar with it, can you do things you can't in Photoshop?
Martin
Thanks for your comments, Martin. PhotoMatix appears to me to work with images better than Photoshop. The light range and manipulation capabilities seem to far extend PS, when I am playing around with PhotoMatix. I'm still learning. You can try the demo. It's fully working, but has a watermark on the exported image.
Quote from: Tangled-Universe on June 08, 2008, 06:32:00 PM
What did you do in Photomatix? I'm not familiar with it, can you do things you can't in Photoshop?
Martin
Quote from: calico on June 09, 2008, 07:28:04 AM
Thanks for your comments, Martin. PhotoMatix appears to me to work with images better than Photoshop. The light range and manipulation capabilities seem to far extend PS, when I am playing around with PhotoMatix. I'm still learning. You can try the demo. It's fully working, but has a watermark on the exported image.
Quote from: Tangled-Universe on June 08, 2008, 06:32:00 PM
What did you do in Photomatix? I'm not familiar with it, can you do things you can't in Photoshop?
Martin
Well, the big difference between PhotoShop and Photomatix is that PS can only adjust the light range, the exposure, while PM can adjust colour and tone, as well as change the exposure of parts of the image like highlights and shadows only. Also saturation can be controlled better in PM.
So I would choose Photomatix to adjust my exr's over PS anytime...