I haven't seen many outdoor environments in KS, so I figured I'd try my hand at it in KS. This is still a WIP, but I've been staring at it too long and need some fresh eyes on it. Feel free to tear it apart.
Ok, for me (amateur landscape photographer) a few things don't add up.
With such a sky, the sun is just above the horizon .. in fact, in height, between the cloud base and the horizon. With the mountains you have, there will not be much other than shadow in your scene. I can notice shadow below the pine-trees and around the rocks in the foreground.
Also I can notice light hitting the mountain at the far top left ... that's not logical since the sun should be behind that mountain ridge. Dito for the grass around the pine-trees.
Also the overall color tone of the landscape doesn't match the lighting you would get with such a sky overhead.
In fact, you could make this work, but just with a different backplate (sky) ;)
Wow. This is cool. I don't have the tools to do this, so I feel unqualified to give criticism, but as a photog, here's my two cents:
1. Road is a bit too reflective.
2. The highlights on the leaves in the foreground look a bit extreme/too shiny.
3. The pine trees in the midground look a bit sparse and evenly-placed.
4. The rocks in the foreground look a bit soft/waxy. I'd rough them up a bit.
5. Globally speaking, I'd up the contrast a tad especially if the sun is setting.
That said, this looks quite fantastic! Kudos.
Quote from: PhilippeV8 on November 23, 2015, 07:03:42 AM
Ok, for me (amateur landscape photographer) a few things don't add up.
With such a sky, the sun is just above the horizon .. in fact, in height, between the cloud base and the horizon. With the mountains you have, there will not be much other than shadow in your scene. I can notice shadow below the pine-trees and around the rocks in the foreground.
Also I can notice light hitting the mountain at the far top left ... that's not logical since the sun should be behind that mountain ridge. Dito for the grass around the pine-trees.
Also the overall color tone of the landscape doesn't match the lighting you would get with such a sky overhead.
In fact, you could make this work, but just with a different backplate (sky) ;)
I agree 100%, I threw the backplate in this morning and didn't think about the things you brought up. I will definitely keep those in mind when choosing the final backplate. Thanks!
Quote from: willgibbonsdesign on November 23, 2015, 07:08:41 AM
Wow. This is cool. I don't have the tools to do this, so I feel unqualified to give criticism, but as a photog, here's my two cents:
1. Road is a bit too reflective.
2. The highlights on the leaves in the foreground look a bit extreme/too shiny.
3. The pine trees in the midground look a bit sparse and evenly-placed.
4. The rocks in the foreground look a bit soft/waxy. I'd rough them up a bit.
5. Globally speaking, I'd up the contrast a tad especially if the sun is setting.
That said, this looks quite fantastic! Kudos.
Agreed! Will incorporate into version 2. Thanks!
Here's a couple of pano's that show the lighting you get with such a sky ... mind you these are shot in RAW and edited to bring up the shadow/blacks. I would need a gradient gray-filter to take this show without having the need to edit in post.
Quote from: PhilippeV8 on November 23, 2015, 07:21:13 AM
Here's a couple of pano's that show the lighting you get with such a sky ... mind you these are shot in RAW and edited to bring up the shadow/blacks. I would need a gradient gray-filter to take this show without having the need to edit in post.
I think I may abandon that choice of sky as a backplate, it would be more of a sunset/sunrise and as you said, would produce dark shadows rollling off of the hills and ultimately a darker scene. Maybe I'll go with a darker blue cloudy sky....and obviously rework my lighting to work with my backplate that I choose.
Love seeing the progress and agree with the comments made. I wouldn't abandon the sunset.That was looking really interesting. I like the new version too.
To me, the sunset one is nicer and more interesting. Something to consider... photographers often use multiple exposures (some for sunset/sky) and (some for foreground) then comp them up since we know that the sky/clouds remain much brighter than the ground. For that reason, I think you can dismiss the fact that with a sunset, your foreground would be mostly cast in shadow. Something else to consider... I didn't notice it much on the sunset one, but with the stormy one, the clouds look a bit too sharp/in focus. You may get some better results with some lens blur/depth of field and or motion blur to the clouds as to simulate a long exposure, which is often used to shoot landscapes with such a long DOF.
Just some stuff to consider. I think you can dial this rendering in with just a bit more work.
True .. those are called HDR (or HDRI) photo's. And you are right that it is possible to stick with the sunset sky, but as I said, the mood (hue/saturation) of the landscape then must match the sunset better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-dynamic-range_imaging (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-dynamic-range_imaging)
Still with the sun behind the mountains you can not have (sharp) "shadows" ... your scene would be evenly lit in a diffuse manner coming from light reflected from the clouds.
Other than having different sharpness in the sky vs landscape, as mentioned by Will; keep an eye on sky (cloud) perspective vs landscape. In your images the clouds don't "shrink" enough with distance compared to the landscape.
PS: if you can/are willing to share the scene, I'd love to have a play with it myself :D Is this KS5 or 6 scene ?
Quote from: PhilippeV8 on November 25, 2015, 04:36:32 AM
True .. those are called HDR (or HDRI) photo's. And you are right that it is possible to stick with the sunset sky, but as I said, the mood (hue/saturation) of the landscape then must match the sunset better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-dynamic-range_imaging (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-dynamic-range_imaging)
Still with the sun behind the mountains you can not have (sharp) "shadows" ... your scene would be evenly lit in a diffuse manner coming from light reflected from the clouds.
Other than having different sharpness in the sky vs landscape, as mentioned by Will; keep an eye on sky (cloud) perspective vs landscape. In your images the clouds don't "shrink" enough with distance compared to the landscape.
PS: if you can/are willing to share the scene, I'd love to have a play with it myself :D Is this KS5 or 6 scene ?
Thanks, I have no problem sharing the scene once I'm done toying around with it. Its a KS6 scene. I'll will post the scene file once I'm done and let anyone interested play with it.
I haven't had much time to jump back on this but toyed with the mood/lighting a bit.
This is the last render I'm doing for this and I am moving on. Was fun to play around with an outdoor environment in KS. There are many things I would've done differently if this was being rendered in Maya/vray (Fluids for clouds, atmospheric fog, godrays, Vray grass instead of geometry for grass, etc) but I wanted to have a render that was 100% from Keyshot. Also, I am still learning Keyshot as well. :-\ I made a few tweaks in post and added a subtle lens flare.
Ahhh.. nice. Refreshing. Never seen outdoors from ks so its a good post! Now .. you nailed the fantasy look for sure. But realism is lacking. But i like it.
Quote from: syrom on December 03, 2015, 05:28:03 PM
Ahhh.. nice. Refreshing. Never seen outdoors from ks so its a good post! Now .. you nailed the fantasy look for sure. But realism is lacking. But i like it.
Thanks! I agree the realism is lacking, but not everything has to be photoreal ;)
I like that last rendering. Nice work.
Wow nice :) Great improvements there. I like it !
I've hesitated commenting on this thread for a rather strange reason, which I'll explain.
But first, your last rendering is simply, IMO, one of the best I've seen! Stunning, in an odd way, which I'll explain. I hope!
We're used to seeing CAD + KeyShot for cars, boats, trains, planes and product design. But I've noticed that many artists are now working in CG, to great success. I also have been experimenting in CG for the creation of abstract art, which I have not yet shared as I'm "not there yet". Still trying to get my head around the possibilities.
You see, CG landscapes and abstracts can, and I think should, have an edgy quality about them. Otherwise just take a photo and call it a day. Much like an automobile rendering. If it's "perfect", you might just as well back it out of the garage and take a photo of it. But in CG, we have the ability to capture the design intent and, usually, the needs of the advertising agency. But what more can we say if we work in CG? A lot! Your last image is a perfect illustration- it has an edgy quality about it, is not quite photo-realistic, and you, as the artist, used this to draw our eye into the image and share your vision.
The abstract work I'm playing with is much the same- there's just no way you can capture the artistic intent except by using "impossible" designs and concepts that defy the laws of physics and realism. The "edge" so to speak.
We're moving into uncharted territory, and I'm really glad you have shared your ideas with us! Keep it up!
Hope any of this makes sense- like I said, it's difficult to explain.
Bill G
Well said, Bill!
Justin, this has been a great process to see and the result looks beautiful!
Quote from: PhilippeV8 on December 07, 2015, 01:53:17 AM
Wow nice :) Great improvements there. I like it !
Thanks PhilippeV8 for the feedback!
Quote from: Speedster on December 07, 2015, 10:22:37 AM
I've hesitated commenting on this thread for a rather strange reason, which I'll explain.
But first, your last rendering is simply, IMO, one of the best I've seen! Stunning, in an odd way, which I'll explain. I hope!
We're used to seeing CAD + KeyShot for cars, boats, trains, planes and product design. But I've noticed that many artists are now working in CG, to great success. I also have been experimenting in CG for the creation of abstract art, which I have not yet shared as I'm "not there yet". Still trying to get my head around the possibilities.
You see, CG landscapes and abstracts can, and I think should, have an edgy quality about them. Otherwise just take a photo and call it a day. Much like an automobile rendering. If it's "perfect", you might just as well back it out of the garage and take a photo of it. But in CG, we have the ability to capture the design intent and, usually, the needs of the advertising agency. But what more can we say if we work in CG? A lot! Your last image is a perfect illustration- it has an edgy quality about it, is not quite photo-realistic, and you, as the artist, used this to draw our eye into the image and share your vision.
The abstract work I'm playing with is much the same- there's just no way you can capture the artistic intent except by using "impossible" designs and concepts that defy the laws of physics and realism. The "edge" so to speak.
We're moving into uncharted territory, and I'm really glad you have shared your ideas with us! Keep it up!
Hope any of this makes sense- like I said, it's difficult to explain.
Bill G
Thanks Bill!! Well said, makes perfect sense. I was a little hesitant myself about sharing this at first. As you said, you see mostly cars, boats, trains, planes and product design on the forum. But I figured I'd share anyway and see what other KS artists thought. Its very refreshing to hear comments like yours. Thanks again!
Quote from: Josh Mings on December 08, 2015, 07:33:54 AM
Well said, Bill!
Justin, this has been a great process to see and the result looks beautiful!
Thanks Josh!