Finished first *real* environment render today in Blender Cycles. Anyone wanna give me feedback or opinions?
>>579413The worst thing about it is the lighting/composition makes the focal point seem lacking, and it's nearly impossible to tell what it is from thumbnail view. I assume your focal point could be that utility box with the graffitis/stickers, but you really gotta add more light to make it read.The modeling and textures/shaders look good, but it's hard to really tell because it's just so dark. Good call on the depth of field and dutch angle, though (depth of field also lets you "hide" stuff that's rougher, like less detailed props in the background).
>dof>someone making a miniature and then photographing it instead of it being real>darkness>shit texturing in generalis this a troll? Why arent you posting in the general, kid?
>>579414Thanks! Yeah, the darkness is a rookie mistake. Was working on it in my primary display and finished, posted everywhere, all that, and then when I saw it on my secondary monitor I realized how dark it was.
>>579415Seems complete and complex enough to warrant its own thread to me.
>>579415>someone making a miniature and then photographing it instead of it being realLet's just say that...
>>579420it looks like someone made one of those wargaming environments like for a warhammer board game and then photographed it
>>579422Thank you, I guess...
>>579413Fix the tone mapping (exposure or whatever it's called) it'll look 3 times better.
>>579424Yeah, it's also a mistake since I experimented with turning down the exposure and increasing the lightsource. I'll post result unedited.
This is better? Unedited, increased exposure
>>579426keep this crap contained to the general, idiot. This is literally babby's first tier
>>579426This is what GIMP says about your image. Does it look right to you? Nevermind that is says it in italian, you've got to boost that exposure.
>>579431Wow, GIMP says that? That sucks man...
examine your camera angle,lightning and scale
>>579431This dude here. Play with exposure and contrast settings. Also might want to consider some ambient lighting or rather better... looks cool though. Maybe also play with focal length.
>>579426>3 dark 5 me.Your monitor or gamma settings are probably screwed up, consider calibrating.When in doubt, use the fucking histogram. Attached what your pic should be like brightness wise, but now that it's brighter, we get to see the famous cycles noise in all its glory.
>>579413everything in red should be fixed.>edges need to more edge loops to stop that weird normal problem>pipes in an alley that dirty should not be that shiny>the handles on the junction box are too shiny as well, even if new. junction box handles are brushed steel.
>>579545ill join and add another something to these: fix the damn camera angle. and avoid exposure settings until you can get good natural lightning
Wow didn't know this thread was still alive.Thanks for all your replies, I will consider them until next time.
>>579413the render is pretty good. a little dark overall considering you have some shadows everywhere. The camera angle could be better, look for some street photographs to help you Here's an example.
>>579420if youre gonna have hard lighting on everything, they should have crisp edges not soft light like that