just read a yet another “lighting tutorial” for DS

The author spent a lot of time explaining what to click where, used words like “key” and “rim”, but totally failed to even mention the most important parameter: shadow softness.

But he suggested dialing shadow intensity down.


That darned shadow intensity, along with shadow colour, is something that should’ve been disabled years ago! It’s so unphysical it hurts!

Okay. I should probably back off and realise that not every DS user thinks that one day they may end up doing CG for a living. And they aren’t technically required to approach this all like a pro would.

But they are trying to do exactly this. To replicate ancient arcane techniques of the pros involved in mid-90s CGI production: all those tricks with shadows (intensity! colour! no-shadow lights!..), fudging around with incorrect workflow, yadda yadda yadda.

One thing that could curb this misinformation creep is a series of clear, concise and authoritative (“no-bullshit” (c) Wowie) tutorials coming straight from the source of the scene setup software we’re using here…

But it’s not something DAZ3D can do. For one, they don’t have the human resources to handle this sort of task. Good thing they are still developing said scene setup software (c).

If I ever become big as a TD or a lookdev or whatever. If DAZ3D still exists at that moment and does not change its ways. I promise I will come back and hit the community on the head with a series like that, leveraging whatever professional credibility I may have acquired by the time.

Incredibly unlikely from the get-go… but just in case the Heart of Gold passes by…


16 thoughts on “just read a yet another “lighting tutorial” for DS

    1. You don’t have to be intimidated. The point is simply to look elsewhere for ‘lighting advice’, not the DS/Poser community in general that is unfortunately largely the blind leading the blind when it comes to rendering. Traditional art and photography for the ‘artistic’ part, big name CG (up-to-date publications) for the technical side – these are ‘primary sources’.

  1. Of course, it somewhat depends on the shaders used…if all that’s being used are ‘old school’ shaders without falloff, then the old tricks are what are needed. But applying the old tricks to proper lights is just asking for a mess.

    I may go off on the next one that whines about all of that as being too technical.

    A camera with ‘auto everything’ does not make one a photographer…

    1. I hate not being to edit WP comments, forgot this sentence in the first paragraph.

      Then again, things like falloff, linear workflow, proper specular settings and such are too ‘technical’ for many of them.

      1. I bet these are the same people whose idea of anatomy and perspective is all off in their traditional pieces.
        // okay, I do realise these are damn off in my trad works, too, but that’s due to lack of practice not lack of theoretical ‘technical’ knowledge //
        Oh wait, half of them ‘can’t even draw a stick figure’ ™ and their only foray into the world of actual art was their high school ‘world culture’ class.
        Supposing there are compulsory ‘world culture’ classes in high schools outside Russia, that is.

        1. There are…but in the US it tends to be more ‘pop’ culture or ‘culture-lite’ than the real thing. Remember the US is the land of the violent and home of the prudes…so if she isn’t bearing a
          sword she’d best not be baring a breast…and there’s too ,much art that shows more of the latter than the former.

            1. For the most part…no, human figures are not usually drawn. Now private (pay for schools) tend to be better about that kind of stuff. But the general, run of the mill schools…forget it. They go by the ‘make everything not offensive to anyone’ which usually comes out to least common denominator and very offensive to anyone with more than one active brain cell.

              1. I’m scared to imagine what human anatomy classes must be like, then. Let alone sex ed. Although Russian schools seem to have lost sex ed lately, due to the ‘moralists’ pressure. Shame; may well lead to a rise in STDs and unwanted pregnancies.

    2. But why the hell teach oldschool stuff in 2015 at all? I’d rather see n00bs teach each other Iray; at least, when their renders are horrid, they might realize it’s not their ‘unbiased’ renderer’s fault but their own.

      1. Because it HAS to be the ‘crappy’ render engine…it can still do all that ancient stuff, so it must be at fault? Not the fact that the shaders used are the same damn code as was ‘new’ for 3DL 8.5…there’s STILL some (PA’s included) that are recommending DSM for regular use!

        And I still haven’t seen a single full-length film (doesn’t even have to be major studio) that uses Iray in it’s pipeline.

        1. And do they explain how to ‘fix’ self-shadowing with DSM and what the ‘fix’ may entail? Do they explain that using DSM efficiently means using a good load of very carefully placed spotlights so as not to waste map resolution?
          Or better yet… do they know these things at all?

Comment here

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s