[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k] [s4s] [vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/3/ - 3DCG


Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 11 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]



File: back3d.png (1.9 MB, 1920x1080)
1.9 MB
1.9 MB PNG
Finished first *real* environment render today in Blender Cycles. Anyone wanna give me feedback or opinions?
>>
>>579413
The 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 general

is this a troll? Why arent you posting in the general, kid?
>>
>>579414
Thanks! 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.
>>
>>579415
Seems complete and complex enough to warrant its own thread to me.
>>
File: 3333.png (1.39 MB, 1905x1025)
1.39 MB
1.39 MB PNG
>>579415
>someone making a miniature and then photographing it instead of it being real

Let's just say that...
>>
>>579420
it looks like someone made one of those wargaming environments like for a warhammer board game and then photographed it
>>
>>579422
Thank you, I guess...
>>
>>579413
Fix the tone mapping (exposure or whatever it's called) it'll look 3 times better.
>>
>>579424
Yeah, it's also a mistake since I experimented with turning down the exposure and increasing the lightsource. I'll post result unedited.
>>
File: back3d-2.png (2.92 MB, 1920x1080)
2.92 MB
2.92 MB PNG
This is better? Unedited, increased exposure
>>
>>579426
keep this crap contained to the general, idiot. This is literally babby's first tier
>>
File: hist.png (41 KB, 466x534)
41 KB
41 KB PNG
>>579426
This 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.
>>
>>579431
Wow, GIMP says that? That sucks man...
>>
examine your camera angle,lightning and scale
>>
>>579431
This 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.
>>
File: 1503785046810.png (3.81 MB, 1920x1080)
3.81 MB
3.81 MB PNG
>>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.
>>
File: Capture.png (3.09 MB, 1920x1080)
3.09 MB
3.09 MB PNG
>>579413
everything 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.
>>
>>579545
ill 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.
>>
ayy
>>
>>579413
google tilt-shift
>>
>>579413
the 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.
>>
>>579420
if youre gonna have hard lighting on everything, they should have crisp edges not soft light like that




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.