Tips to improve my renders?
Add variation and detail to materials.
>>709127It looks too washed out/flat.
Don't use blenda
>>709127Do better models.
>>709127Don't suck as much.
How long have you been modeling, OP?Honestly, I think this looks great for a beginner/starting intermediate level.
>>709127I think most of the problem in this render could be resolved with better lighting.
>>709127Find the mood you want your render to reflect.Look for references in paintings and movies, copy that lighting.
>>709283If op is beginner level then I might as well just stop and never try.
>>709127get the three point lighting right
>>709283About 6 months>>709297Dont give up man>>709303I only used 2 point lighting. Next time I'll use 3 point>>709348Damn that looks nice. Bloom and Depth of Field?>>709257>>709281>>709282Suck my cock faggots
>>709359>Bloom and Depth of Field?-light desaturation on the two dudes at the back, to emphasize the front dude-vignette and tint light on the edges to make the middle come forward-a negative zoom blur from a corner to pull the dark background over the figures, with 10% overlay (to add fake shadows, which increases depth)-gamma correctionFor your render:depends on what you want. Do you want the dudes appear like miniature soldiers? (i.e. photorealism on a small scale object)Or do you want to make it look like a scene from a game/movie? (i.e. dramatic light, illusion of motion, effects)
>>709368they are renders of eldar minies for warhammer that I 3d printed. Honestly though I want something GOOD to lure in potential companies that want to hires me as a job because programming is boring as shit. I get 6 months is not a lot just want to know what I should do for good renders later
>>709371I meant it more like:In which direction do you want the render to improve?-Photorealism of three toy soldiers? (e.g. you want to join a product visualization company and want to focus more on technical aspects)-Stylized, cinematic shot? (e.g. you want to join a game/vfx studio and want to present your artistic, cinematography skills)
>>709372Stylized. My fiance worked for infinity ward for the first CoD games but I want to up my skills before I call that in
>>709373just a few ideas:- lower the camera (about the height of their dick) and let it look up (looks more imposing and heroic)- position the right dude further behind to add depth.- remove the shadow casting from all but one light (so it does not look like a studio light)- add motion blur to the front guys leg (by keyframing + motion blur or just in post)- add some very light normal map pattern to the armor, so it does not look like a walmart toy. Increase metallic, if you work with PBR materials.- add textures on soldiers (e.g. abrasion), floor, background pattern- make light setup more interestingpersonally I would invert the colors of the pic:Make the armor dark gray and the background red.Not sure if it looks good, but worth a try.
>>709376thank you. I will try those ideas when Im sober. As for the last point heres the actual reference. I tried to remain faithful to that
>>709377the beige and gray background fits the red.you could add some beige/orange dunes or just a dust cloud in the background. (just make sure to add some shadows behind the beige stuff at the shoulders, so it doesn't get lost)make the armor a bit darker in the render.good luck.
>>709359Dude. 6 months? I salute you. Don't waste your time asking for criticism on /3/, since they will just shit on anything. Nothing satisfies them. Keep up the good work, OP.Is there anywhere where I could follow your progress?
get more interesting lighting ye
>>709127Your render is super boring because 1) The Base Mesh ItselfMinis straight out of the box (with no extra kitbashing or grebils or from forgeworld), are pretty plain and these are especially plain.These models are meant to be viewed in large numbers from high up, so it'd be like if you did a render of a phone game (or let's say warcraft 3) modelYou didn't add any extra detail or variation, all of them are identical, the Material you used was extremely plain; I understand that you maybe wanted to show what the printed thing would look like, or maybe you wanted to "capture" the extremely boring minimalistic red and white paintjob but your Materials are even more lacking in complexity than their real world counterparts. Even in your super boring reference image you have hand painted highlights and things meant to bring out edges, you have baked in specularity on the jewels (effectively), you have the actual specularity on the feet and arms from the actual plastic material themselves, and the painted details are meant to mimic the real world materials: metals (some rough, some smooth, some patterned) ceramics, etc2) The CompositionThink of your render like a painting, like a piece of art, art should make you feel something. You've basically produced one step up from like a soulless architectural blueprint or something, like at least the figures aren't in a T-Pose but they're not far from it.As others have said, three point lighting (which won't do shit if your Materials have no complexity) is a must, but also you need an actual sceneMaybe you don't want to model any extra shit (which is a mistake, you should build up a reusable library of simple shit) so consider using a simple 2d background or something, there's a lot of shit you can do to avoid just the front view render lookThey're also extra faceless since they're all identical with zero extra detail, their poses don't really tell us anything and are slightly nonsensical / random, etc
>>709414oh god. The schizophrenic is back again!Every single time your smug wall of text has zero practical tips for the given situation, but is insulting, emotionally loaded and can be shortened to:"Everything is worthless and suck, so redo everything. Just be better."Not sure why you love to demoralize people so much. Is your life so worthless and you want other people to suffer as well?Get psychological help.
>>7091273 point lighting with warm/cool lighting and post processingit works for hollywood
>>709435spoiler doesn't work [spoiler]on /3/[/spoiler]
>>709435this was a 5 minute edit.Subtlety and balancing the colors right will obviously take more time.But let me see, what you can do.
>>709443>do betterlearn to take criticism
>>709444just pointing out a good edit takes time.Show me what you can do in 5 minutes.btw. all-capital "WORSE" is not criticism. Look up the definition of the word, you illiterate.
>>709446>once again challenges to do bettersmmfh
>>709447>smmfhHow about you just do it? No skills? Too afraid of toxic, little fuckers like yourself?Put up or shut up.
>>709428Honest criticism is the only good thing about /3/. If you're feeling personally attacked it's because you're a retard and should be culled.Unlike you, the render can be fixed.
>>709127The render itself looks good, great job! if you want suggestions for improvement you will likely need to be more specific, what are you trying to convey with the render? What is the mood or atmosphere you are trying to create? if it's just showcasing the model then you need a bit more light, like someone suggested 3 point lighting is great for this, right now you are missing the rim light, and maybe up the intensity of the key, consider giving the light an interesting shape that might show in the reflections of the models.Aside from that, if you want to make the whole thing itself look better, materials and textures would be the next step, don't spend too much time on the render, you are already at a great step, you will improve with experience and as you do more like it, move on to the next stage if it matches your goal.
>>709458Wtf is honest criticism about shit like this:>art should make you feel something>like a soulless architectural blueprint>their poses don't really tell us anythingIt's just the typical high-schooler, who doesn't have any arguments and resorts to this feelz drivel without real substance.The rest of the comment is just "everything shit, do better".If you make a render of a puppy in a dog basket and I hate on it, because I want to see a pack of wolves standing on a mountain. That's not "honest criticism". That's just toxicity and entitlement.
>>709359That's definitely respectable progress for six months, keep doing what you're doing and learning how to improve
>>709449>you made it look worse>YEA WELL I ONLY SPENT 5 MILLISECONDS ON ITif it looks worse it defeats the purpose of doing it at all
>>709463>he render itself looks good, great job!Literally the worst, meanest, most useless post in this threadyou're unironically sabotaging OP harder than any shitposter
>>709466kay well the post actually says- it lacks detail- IRL minis are small, these particular ones are low detail- doing a close up render of 1:1ish copies of something meant to be viewed from far away in large numbers is sabotaging yourself- even the reference pics have some slight variation - even the reference pic has more detail (in the form of hand painted highlights akin to baked lighting)- the reference image simulates multiple materials (rubber or something, smooth metal, rough metal, ceramic), OP does not- lighting, which everyone else already said- it's a render of characters that are posed, as opposed to t-pose- but there's nothing going on, there's no composition to the shot- spend more time thinking about the final product, you're making art you literally do sound like a high schooler, one that got rejected from art school and blames the system rather than himself, I urge you to do the right and proper thing by self terminating A basket of puppies in a dog basket would be worlds more effort, critical thinking, and planning than what OP did and it's ironic that you actually understood and applied subconsciously while pretending to consciously miss the point with "muh wolves, muh toxic, muh buzzwords"
>>709644>you're making art>making art>artPeople are getting paid for images like pic, so fuck off with your "muh art", when he has shown his skill level.Nobody with his skills is "making art". He needs to learn the fundamentals first:1: Light setup (not advanced rendering techniques yet)2: UVs + texturing3: Improve modeling, but keeping UVs in mind.In this exact order.Your long list is complete bullshit as it presents too many vague issues without any solutions and I don't think you've done any kind of real work besides starring at cool CGI renders, reading about workflow and being an asshole to others like 90% of people around here.Stop confusing and insulting people who want to improve.Go be worthless elsewhere.>>709127Good start. If you want an easy 'wow' just add a reflection probe and make the materials more metallic and smooth.Use tri planar UV mapping or throw a procedural, 3D material on it.HDRI background and some out of focus bullshit will help as well. (hdrihaven.com is free and okay/good)Edit after render.Done.This will help you, if you want to improve the current shot within an hour.If you want a long-term improvement, use the order I mentioned above.>>709348I hope for you you have a crappy monitor, dude.The edit is technically good or at least goes in many right directions, but you have turned the saturation to eleven and the contrast is too much.If you do NOT have a cheap monitor you need to go to an ophthalmologist ASAP.You might have an onset of a medical condition, which reduces sensitivity of the eyes, which you overcompensate with saturation and contrast.That's not an insult.One of my former colleagues had this shit.See a doctor or get a better monitor.
>>709466>toxicity>entitlementnice buzzwords you have there
>>709660isnt that just smart material with some litlle touches here and there?baka i want my 3rdmodelinggamedevelopment money now
>>709722>smart materialThere are like ten different things that are called smart material by different companies...>procedural, 3D material:'Usually' it's just a material that 'generates' it's maps based on some 3D vector (e.g. world space) instead of relying on the 2D UV.
>>709127more samples per frame
>>709127>You can tell the topo is bad without even seeing the wireframe. Good luck UVing that. >Center model kneepad looks like it's cutting into/ wrong angle. Fix it.>Need to differentiate materials. The Green jewels need to have glassy refraction and reflection traced. You're 90% towards something really good, don't fag out on the last hurdles.
>>709815>You can tell the topo is bad without even seeing the wireframe.>Good luck UVing that. What is component unwrapping and texture atlas? For 200.
>>709660>"this not art pic" has guy posed>has three point lighting>has scenery>has snow>has grim scowl of scowling grimness letting you know he is a grim scowling space marineIt *is* art, and it's what OP needed to do and what I said>vagueBecause it LITERALLY takes a book for each idea, I already wrote a really long thing meant to point OP towards things to research / learn Fuck off with your hugbox shit, I know you're just memeing for (You)s because your own art gets no hits on twatter or deviantart, but fuck off.>>709722>>709798At the risk of over simplifying (and thereby inviting autists to attack me for simplifying) in this thread when somebody says "material" they mean whatever combination of textures / maps / data / programmatic shit your software is using to describe how light should interact with the mesh.I mean OP could use a shadeless texture if he wanted, as long as he hand painted or baked from a high poly, the point is his models look really uniform as if they were made out of all one kind of plastic or whateverWhich would actually be fine if he wanted to show what the 3D printed thing will look like (though I dunno why exactly you'd want to do that instead of take pictures)
>>709829>It *is* artlol.>has three point lightingCan you describe them plz?>OP needed to do and what I said"Suck less and do everything better"cool suggestions.>At the risk of over simplifying (and thereby inviting autists to attack me for simplifying)He stated 'smart material' and I pointed out that there are different definitions based on software, while I meant the very specific family of materials which take e.g. 3D world position instead of UV.Btw. That's why you are listing off the most generalized, most useless definition of 'material'.Your lack of knowledge and skills translates into an extreme form of anxiety.To avoid being criticized you list as much as you know just to avoid missing an important part.Additionally you are really hostile, to fend off potential aggressors beforehand.Don't be afraid, little one. No one wants to hurt you and with a year or two of work experience you'll learn what is more important, so you can just name the critical information instead of listing off your entire knowledge about a topic.Maybe you'll even manage to be less vague, because you've got a few slaps from your boss for wasting everybody's time with ineffective drivel instead of precise suggestions.
OP again, materials. Should I realistically look into something like substance painter at this stage or am I ok with blender?Are there any good books or videos for learning nodes for blender? I feel that might help my materials look better because they are kinda basic.
>>709859stay with blender first.No need to buy a racing car, when you can't drive.
>>709466>Posts three things that say add more variety and visual interest. >Complains that they have no clue what the criticism is. >Posts the words toxicity and entitlement. Ok zoomer
>>709919He's right though. All these points are art school bullshit.Op is like "How can I improve my apple pie recipe?"And the points are: "You should make it more tasty. Food should taste good, so you should make it more yummy. Finally you need to make the flavor better."That's like food critic talk, while OP needs "less sugar, bake longer, use braeburn instead of mcintosh">Posts the words toxicity and entitlement. What? I don't even
>>709660>If you do NOT have a cheap monitor you need to go to an ophthalmologist ASAP.>You might have an onset of a medical condition, which reduces sensitivity of the eyes, which you overcompensate with saturation and contrast.Shit. I hope you are wrong. I'll get it checked.Thank you.