All posts related to V2
By emarvets
Did the materials not get sent with the file? That's obviously not the gold material and even the aquamarine is different.

What do you mean by other scene setup?
By emarvets
I've collected a number of hdr's from the forum. The first render I posted used one of them. Haven't had much luck with any of them for scenes like this.
User avatar
By Mihai
If you say watts for emitters, it doesn't say very much how much light they actually put out. What's the efficiency of the lights? I usually like to work directly with lumens, it makes it more straight forward.

I think you need to be a bit more sensitive with adjusting light position/size/strength. Why don't you compare an existing photo of a model you took with a render and try to reconstruct that? If the shape of the jewelry changes so much, one setup will hardly be suitable for the other.

Regarding exposure, you can cheat a bit and save out two different exposures of the same render, for example.
By RichG
emarvets wrote: RichG, sorry, but no. A) seghier had a good render, but it did not have a diamond and it was not on a white background. B) In the real world, I have a default light setup.
Wow, your attitude baffles me! "This is the light setup I want to use but I want a different result" You talk about the real world, in the real world a photographer spends a lot of time putting lights and flags where they need to be based on the shape of the thing he's photographing. If you were shooting or rendering a very diffuse surface you could get away with a default light setup (though it's still bad practice). Your rings are defined almost completely by their reflections and refractions so they're just showing you the things that you plopped down around them. Also in the real world, Photoshop is your friend. If you insist on lighting for a bright white floor, it will reflect in your rings and blow them out, render a mask and strip back the floor in post. If your diamond is "overexposed garbage", mask it and take down the exposure in post. That's the real world and then your render will blow away that photo you posted. I see the same thing all the time with car renderings. So many people say "just stick it in a studio setting and put a big white panel above - job done". I could show you real world car shots where I'm given a hard drive full of shots where they have separated out the lighting of every plane of the car, the tyres, the rims, lights, windows plus many extra layers of accent lighting to catch shutlines and creases. Not saying you need to go to that length with your image but there's no point saying Maxwell doesn't work - you just need to put in some effort at your end.

And I'm not trying to convince you to buy HDR Light Studio, just offering you a quick solution to your problem. Good luck with it.
User avatar
By Mihai
It would be better if you post the MXS file not the 3dm, maybe more people can join in and give it a shot. We can also see how you've set up the lighting and materials - maybe there's something obviously wrong in there.
By emarvets
Let me be clear on something. This is not something I spent 5 minutes on and gave up. To the real worldness of photography, I'm not working with a car. I can't use a dozen lights to illuminate the top of my subject. This is macro. The light is physically 100 times larger than the subject. I get one light per side and have to use a 32 fStop and remote shutter to keep it in focus. I have 3 choices for each side, direct, indirect, diffuse. I use a standard setup for each type of object: rings, bracelet/chain, pearls. Send it to Lightroom to tweak the RAW levels and remove dust particles.

Mihai, I posted the scene. You are welcome to show me how it's done. But to answer your questions, it's the default which is 17.6 I believe. And I've tried with lumens, HDR based emitters, etc. Nothing works. I have adjusted the position and size. I try every combination of strength with multilight when I'm done. Doesn't work.

RichG, my attitude is to find something that works. I have tried hundreds of combinations of lights. None of them work. If HDRLS works, I'd buy it. I want it to work. If I have to cheat and setup hundreds of lights to get a good render, I would.

I'm glad Maxwell works for cars. It works really well for high polished metal rings too. But if you were to pave either of them in diamonds, it'd look like crap. I say that, because I've spent hundreds of hours trying.
User avatar
By seghier
The three most effective ways to whiten your background:
-Camera exposure - increase the exposure time
-Photoshop or Elements - adjust "levels"
-Photoshop or Elements - remove the image background
you find more here ; very useful link ... background
i will create scenes for jewerly and test them
By emarvets
Mihai, I will post the MXS after lunch. The first one from the gallery, if you look at the small diamonds closely, they are milky. No blacks, just kind of greys. The second one is not using dispersion. I can accomplish that result.

All the large diamonds in the gallery are shot with underexposed scenes. Great for artistic shots, but not for a product catalog.

seghier, as you and RichG say, I will mask out the ground plane and deal with it separately.
User avatar
By Mihai
emarvets wrote:The second one is not using dispersion. I can accomplish that result.
Whether it's using dispersion or not wouldn't make a difference in regards to what you're trying to accomplish.

Can you show me any renders you consider ok?
hardware question :)

1080 TI have 11 GB GDDR5X memory. I use 4 of them[…]

For me a lot of Maxwell is about the time saved se[…]

Materials translucent with V5.1

We would need a little more info. Wich engine are […]

New podcast - CG Talks

Hey guys! We have just finished the second season[…]