Genesee Lighthouse

[sboerner]

The image for this year's holiday card. Finished it early this year.

Lighthouse built in 1825 at the mouth of the Genesee River in Rochester, NY.

[Dune]

I like the setup, but (sorry) I know you can make this better! Clouds are too grainy, IMO, and there's a shine on the lighthouse stone, which is distracting. Sorry for the bluntness, but I wanted to write this quickly and without deeper thought about subtleness before I have to attend to dinner

[sboerner]

No worries. I appreciate the direct feedback. (And there's no point in being late for dinner! )

I'll take a look at the roughness on the lighthouse walls. I had attributed that to the light snow covering (which has a low roughness value) but maybe there's more at work there.

Not sure I see any graininess in the clouds, though. Atmosphere and cloud render layers show very little grain, even when I apply an extreme contrast curve to them. I did tweak the clouds in Lightroom to add contrast/detail. Too much you think?

I may kill the transparency on the cabin windows, just go with reflection. The interior is empty and it shows.

[masonspappy]

If you have the time, it might be fun to see what this looks like after the sun sets, when the sky is a much deeper blue. Maybe add a few exterior lights to highlight part of the house and the light house.

[Dune]

Here I am again, looking at your render with a fresh view (and more time). With graininess I actually meant the way the clouds look overall, very patchy, with lots of small 'grainy' parts. Not soft, if you get what I mean. I think if you work on the fractal's densityy roughness (lower it) and/or decrease base wispiness, you can get a nicer cloud.
Perhaps I've mistaken some snow remains on the bricks for shine, but that's only a minor point.
But another thing I notice are the stars. I think they wouldn't be so clear with a sky this light, so Masonspappy may have a point in trying a somewhat darker sky.

But I like your card!!

I don't know how your POV is, but try this, if you like. You can see where it comes from

Something different than the cloud photo, btw.

[Hannes]

Actually I have to agree with Ulco. Your previous renders were somehow more "finished". Looking forward to your next steps.

[sboerner]

Thanks, guys. First though I need to say that I don't have a lot of time to spend on this. It was meant to be a quick project for our Christmas cards; final result will be printed about 4 x 3 inches, quite small. 

I did take a look at a darker sky (lower sun) and did not care for it. I could darken the sky in post but then it would not seem right to me. I exaggerated the brightness of the stars (to make sure they appear in the final printed image) but those can be dialed back a bit.

The clouds are another matter. I can see how they appear patchy and too rough.

The clouds I am trying to show are the winter lake-effect snow cumulus clouds that often form over the Great Lakes. They aren't nice clouds, necessarily. They can look threatening.

Examples here. The second one is an especially good model:
https://www.mlive.com/weather/2021/11/lake-effect-snow-just-cold-air-over-warm-water-right-nope-heres-a-deeper-dive-into-lake-effect.html

Here is the second one if you don't want to click on the above link:




If you look at the shadow area in the lower left, you'll see some of the roiling granular detail that I'd like my clouds to  have. 

I'm trying something a little different and will take a look at your file, too, Ulco. Thanks for that.

[mhaze]

Excellent setup but I find the models too clean - they need roughing up or/and dirt added.

[sboerner]

New file.

New cloud layers and the roughness on the tower snowcover has been increased to make it less shiny. Made the cabin windows opaque.

Mhaze, I appreciate your comment and understand your thinking. But the scene is set just 3-4 years after the structures were built. Why would new buildings in 1828 look less nice than new buildings today? If the scene were set 30-50 years later, maybe everything should be roughed up. But not right away!

(I did knock off some of the parge covering the walls of the tower to expose the stone beneath. So it's not quite "like new."  )

[Dune]

The cloud is much better now. I know you don't want to spend too much time on this, but I keep on nagging   Nit-picking perhaps, but I'll mention my thoughts anyway; do you think snow will remain long on a domed black roof? If snow is still there, I would expect it on the off-sun side of the house as well.
And I find the snow on ground very reflective, even the fence is reflected, like it's ice. But that can happen after thaw and refrost.
And I would make the smoke out of the chimney more subtle/thinner, perhaps blowing off to one side, and fading faster. It almost looks like a rocket has taken off (sorry).
Lighthouse walls are great now!

[sboerner]

New version with less reflective snow and more dispersed chimney smoke. The clouds are now V3 and clumpier . . . not sure but I think I might prefer the wilder clouds in the previous version (those were V2).

Regarding the chimney smoke, it does come in all shapes and sizes, no? If you google "cabin chimney smoke" it will include some examples of vertical, dense columns on still days. Having said that, I like the more dispersed look here and appreciate the suggestion.

Bit tired of looking at this. It would be nice to be able to put it down and revisit it in a couple of weeks, but time's pressing. Need to get the cards printed and sent, and other projects await.

[Hannes]

Wow, I'd say, the clouds in the background are fantastic!! The chimney smoke is better, and to my taste it's a finished version.

[sboerner]

Thanks, Hannes. I'm going to do one more rendering of this version with the V2 clouds, just for comparison. 

I usually use V2 clouds because they render faster, but am experimenting more with V3 because I understand they are supposed to be more realistic. Seems strange that you can't just swap in V3 for V2, using the same settings (as much as possible) and the same density network, and get similar results. The resulting shapes are much different, at least in this case.

[sboerner]

BTW the star positions are correct for the season and time of day.

NASA updated its deep star maps a couple of years ago and they are very nice. (Hannes, I can see you using these for some of your space scenes.)

[Hannes]

(Hannes, I can see you using these for some of your space scenes.)

Actually... no. I'm using some self made artificial stars map and occasionally a milky way texture I found somewhere. Maybe it's similar to what you posted, but it's not exactly this.

Seems strange that you can't just swap in V3 for V2, using the same settings (as much as possible) and the same density network, and get similar results. The resulting shapes are much different, at least in this case.

Indeed. Too bad. But I think, in your image the V3 clouds look way better than V2 ones. V2 clouds are very good for anything else but clouds like smoke, dust, mist, rain... whatever. I mean, they look also good as clouds, but V3 clouds look much more realistic in most cases. Just my opinion...