Digital Art Zone

 
   
10 of 13
10
Carrara Portrait Lighting
Posted: 14 September 2012 11:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 136 ]
Active Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  303
Joined  2006-08-21
Rashad Carter - 13 September 2012 11:34 PM

I’ve read over the past couple of pages and find myself generally in agreement with JoeMamma. Not only are there rules, but no one can claim to know all of them, there are so many. Rules are always at play. Lets consider another form of art to explain this.

In music we have Music Theory. There are many successful composers who have never had the benefit of formal music theory training. I will use Michael Jackson as a perfect example. Lack of training doesn’t guarantee failure, nor does receipt of training guarantee success. Still, not everyone is a genius, and for the non genius a few rules can be very helpful. Even Michael Jackson had to have his work checked over by those who did have the theory background.

The point is, there is a reason why certain pieces of music are written in particular key signatures. There are right and wrong ways to write chords. One ‘rule” of music theory is to avoid parallel octaves whenever possible. Another rule is to avoid open 4th and 5ths as they dont produce harmonic tones.

Music theory tells us that in the key of C an E is a leading tone that resolves into F. Also in the key of C a B natural is a leading tone resolving into C.

Further music theory tells us that if a musical phase ends on a leading tone then the phrase will likely be immediately repeated and the second time it will resolve onto a more stable pitch.

Now lets try this leading tone ideal on a song everyone knows. How about the “Happy Birthday” song.

If you will, have a quick little hum to yourself of the Happy Birthday song.

In the first phrase “Happy birthday to you…” the word “you” ends on a leading tone. This leaves the listener with an innate feeling of being unsettled and unfinished. Notice that the phrase is repeated a second time but this time the word “you” ends on a stable pitch called “do” (aka the tone for whom the key signature of the song is based). So the first instance of Happy birthday to you basically ends by asking a question, and the second time we hear the phrase it is like the answer to the previous question. This is all based on solid research into human perception of music. it is foolproof.

Using the rules of music theory, one can write a song that is happy, sad or whatever. The rules help the composer to affect his audience in exactly the way he desires. But as stated, rules can be broken if you are in control and happen to understand how to PROPERLY break the rule. For example, we all know that songs written in a minor key are considered to be more serious and sad. Yet, there are exceptions when rather happy songs are written in a minor key. A good example of this is “God Rest ye Merry Gentlemen.”

As someone stated earlier, it is all based on human nature and tweaked by cultural experience. Native English speakers will tend to evaluate a work of visual art based on the way they read. English speakers tend to read images from left to right. This is a fact, whether an artist knows this or not when he is making his art is anyone’s guess, still these rules are operating at all times whether he intends for them to or not.

Using the rules of music theory computers have been taught how to compose music people will like. Isnt that amazing?!!!!

All Joe is saying is that in the end it isn’t all trial and error. A good render shouldn’t require a visit from the Good Luck Fairy. There ARE rules. Whether or not we choose to focus on the rules is our own choice. And again as I stated earlier, because this is all based on human perception, many of the rules are not even yet known to us, yet they are still operating and affecting our decisions about what we like and don’t like.

Booksbydavid says he spends time with pros and that they seem don’t stand to any rules, but I beg to disagree. Like most people when they get to the level of being professional they have already internalized the rules aka basics. The rules no longer require conscious thought, we follow them automatically. We think of it as being natural, but in fact we have been conditioned over the years.

To me this is a moot argument, JoeMamma is simply taking the mystery out of it all. I like that. I dont like having to rely on luck so applying skill seems like the right option. Skill to me is a set of rules that help me accomplish my goals.

Okay, back to the piano. Need to resolve a phrase in a piece I am writing and I cant decide which way to go with it. I’m just a hummin’ away over here. Dont mind me….....

Well said, Rashad. I think you may had misunderstood a bit of what I was trying to get across, but that’s OK. I was a bit upset when I typed it all. There are many ‘rules’ in music and art. While nothing blatantly untrue has been espoused here, I have to take issue with the word ‘rule’. Of course there are things you need to know to be able to take your art, in whatever medium, to the next level but one point being made in some posts is that if you as an artist don’t know the ‘rules’ you can’t expect to get anywhere. One can know the principles of art without ever having any formal knowledge of them. The principles and elements of art and design are pretty much our instinctual responses to color, line, texture, etc. collected and written down through the ages. Some artists/musicians just know what’s right and what’s not. The implication being made by Joe is that the only way to get ahead is to put my head in a book and memorize the ‘rules’ or else disaster comes. I strongly disagree with that analysis. And as we know, disagreeing with anything Joe says is a personal attack on Joe. Poor Joe.

Rashad, I have known you for quite a while and have been an interested party to, if not active participant in, many lively discussions where you have waxed almost poetic on many topics concerning digital art. I have seen your artwork and watched as delved into the bowels of Bryce to create it. In my book, you are a very knowledgeable and talented artist/technician. While I may not always agree with you, through your eloquent arguments I can see your point as truth and move on. Joe, however, is a different story. He has repeatedly made it known that we here in the Carrara forum are artistic retards with no hope of ever becoming one with artistic universe unless we follow him and do as he says. Any disagreement with what Joe says automatically, in his eyes, becomes a personal attack. He mocks us and belittles us for what he views as our very limited understanding or the greater world of art ala Joe. Joe is an irritant whose obvious knowledge is overshadowed by his poor people skills. In short, Joe is an ass.

What I would most like to see from Joe is his artwork. I want to be impressed. He obviously has access to a wellspring of knowledge, it’s too bad his lack of show sort of mutes his tell. At least for me. I have asked for proof that he actually can do what he says he can and so far all I’ve seen are simple renders any relative beginner could do. Joe implies none of us knows anything about art and how to create it. He implies that what we create is something next to kindergarten art. He also implies that his is the only true path to knowledge. He is pretentious to say the least.

I respect you and your ability, Rashad. I can’t say the same for Joe.

Oh, and good luck on that piano piece. Will we get to hear it when it’s done?:-)

 Signature 

CG and Me

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 September 2012 11:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 137 ]
Active Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  303
Joined  2006-08-21
head wax - 14 September 2012 03:00 AM

Hi Joe,

Okay, Andrew. For a brief moment I thought you wanted to engage in an intelligent conversation. My mistake.

I’m afraid that’s a sentence based on on Argumentum ex culo = specifically Generalisation from fictional evidence


Don’t be put off that I threw in Jungian Archetypes.
I happen to like them.

LOL

 Signature 

CG and Me

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 September 2012 03:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 138 ]
Addict
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4806
Joined  2006-08-27
JoeMamma2000 - 13 September 2012 08:07 PM

By the way, in your birthday candle image, what you did is exactly the point I’m making. You took advantage of some rules of how viewers perceive images, and completely changed the mood by changing four things compared to what I had:

1. Context
2. Expression
3. Color
4. Lighting placement

You added context by adding a birthday cake and candle. Instantly, it becomes a happy picture because you know we associate happy with birthday.

You changed the apparent expression on her face to a clearly happier one.

You changed the light color to a warmer one.

And you changed the light placement to be lit more from the front than from directly underneath.

Now, I could change the context of your image back to spooky, dangerous, and fearful by adding the glint of a 45 caliber gun barrel pointed at her head.

But none of that teaches us why the bare underlighting I showed is perceived as spooky by most people. Did you break the rule about bare underlighting of a character as I was showing? No, because you did something totally different. The rule still applies. If you light a character like I showed, people think it’s spooky.

Actually, everything you said in this post is nearly identical to what I said in a previous post, except that I used my post to say that you don’t have to follow all the conventional rules. You said white was hot. I said it depended on context because I could put elements to suggest cold. You said underlighting was dark and sinister. Either Booksbydavid or Roygee said it could be happy depending on other factors. There was a bunch more, but I don’t feel a quote war is required.


My point was, and still is that the so-called rules are important to understand. We’ve never disagreed on that. I also never said to break all the rules. I said that once you understand the rules you can choose your battle with the rules. In other words, if you don’t frame an image using the “rule of thirds” it’s not inherently garbage, you don’t have to go to college to understand that a yellow fire doesn’t emit a blue light, etc. Yet there could be an image that is abstract or fantasy driven that a few rules need to be broken to realize the vision of the artist.


The post that you liked so much that linked back to Cracked and the orange/teal issue is actually in my favor because it says the movie industry is following the “rules” by using complimentary colors. Actually, by such slavish adherence to the “rules” they’re abusing them.


Picasso is a great example of someone knowing the “rules” and choosing to either ignore them or turn them on their head. I don’t really care much for his work, but there’s no arguing that many people do. How many people have you seen with both eyes on the same side of the head? If Picasso followed the “rules” he wouldn’t be famous. His art school paintings seemed pretty traditional to me. There was skill of course, but nothing that would have made him stand out from other painters of the day. He studied the Masters and knew the rules, even respected them, but when he invented Cubism he broke many of the rules to suit his vision.

 Signature 

I find it somewhat liberating not to be encumbered by accuracy.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 September 2012 04:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 139 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1059
Joined  2007-10-15
evilproducer - 14 September 2012 03:56 PM

....except that I used my post to say that you don’t have to follow all the conventional rules. .

Come on, Evil, let’s be a little bit reasonable here. Nobody did, or ever even suggested, that you need to follow all the conventional rules. If that’s what’s griping you, then it’s not an issue. Nobody in their right mind would ever tell anyone to follow all the rules, all the time.

The point is extremely simple: you learn the rules, because that’s how people respond to images. That’s a fact. You will never change that. It’s then up to you to decide HOW you will operate within those rules. You obviously can’t apply every single rule of composition to every image. It’s impossible. Your image would explode. Instead, you choose how to frame and compose and light and color each particular image, knowing that if you do something that is probably not go over too well with people then you might lose them. I can’t get much simpler than that. If you still don’t get it, then you probably never will.

Of course, some guys decide to operate outside the rules sometimes. And with it comes risks. If you take the risks, and it doesn’t work out, don’t be surprised if people walk out on you. Or maybe if you do it right you make a new rule. 

evilproducer - 14 September 2012 03:56 PM

You said white was hot. I said it depended on context because I could put elements to suggest cold. You said underlighting was dark and sinister. Either Booksbydavid or Roygee said it could be happy depending on other factors..

I never said white was hot. I said the sun is what’s called “white hot”. In fact it gives off a spectrum of colors because of the temperature of the burning gases in the sun, as does any light source, and the net effect with the sun or a CFL or a bonfire is either white or blue or yellow or whatever. But none of that matters, it’s just a side issue. 

I never said underlighting was dark and sinister. I said underlighting as shown in the image is sinister. Do you disagree with that, or are you just trying to argue so you can be right. Come on dude, you cannot be serious that you don’t comprehend this stuff. I actually have to argue with supposed artists that there are rules that describe how people respond to images?

What, is it the term “rules” that brings up some ghastly ogre in your subconcious and freaks you out? Okay, call them “true-isms” if that makes you feel any warmer inside.

evilproducer - 14 September 2012 03:56 PM

...if you don’t frame an image using the “rule of thirds” it’s not inherently garbage, you don’t have to go to college to understand that a yellow fire doesn’t emit a blue light, etc. Yet there could be an image that is abstract or fantasy driven that a few rules need to be broken to realize the vision of the artist..

The problem is, and what I’ve been addressing this whole time, is that most of the people here never even consider whether their fire emits a blue or yellow light. Most people here never even consider that blue light gives things the appearance of brightness and clarity. Stuff you learn about in classes on color theory. Stuff you learn in classes on composition. Stuff you learn in classes on cinematography. Stuff you learn in classes on photography. Stuff you learn by doing art in a professional environment, surrounded by other artists. Stuff you learn by showing your work to the public and getting feedback. Take every single example of stuff I’ve mentioned, and most people here have no clue about it.

Instead, they get furious at the mere mention of the fact that there are “true-isms” about how others respond to their images. And they will argue and argue and argue and argue and argue for days and weeks, in spite of clear evidence, instead of taking a few freakin’ minutes to just learn some of it.

Stop arguing and read a freakin’ book and learn some stuff. It won’t freakin’ kill you, and it might even make you a better artist.

When you have to drag people, kicking and screaming, just to learn stuff, you wonder what they really care about. Incredible.

 

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 September 2012 05:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 140 ]
Addict
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4806
Joined  2006-08-27

Joe…Joe…Joe… You’re assuming I haven’t read any books or done any other studying- either on-line or from other artists. You also apparently don’t like it when someone agrees with 98% of what you say and dares disagree with the other 2%. That’s fine as most of what we’re arguing about could be considered by the average reader of this thread as a matter of semantics, and maybe it is.

 Signature 

I find it somewhat liberating not to be encumbered by accuracy.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 September 2012 05:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 141 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1059
Joined  2007-10-15
evilproducer - 14 September 2012 05:12 PM

....what we’re arguing about could be considered by the average reader of this thread as a matter of semantics, and maybe it is.

Right. Semantics.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 September 2012 12:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 142 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1284
Joined  2008-01-01

Just plain boring repetitious mantra spoiling another darn interesting thread.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 September 2012 01:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 143 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1930
Joined  2008-01-28

Oh, I don’t know… I didn’t think I was that bad smile

 Signature 

http://andrewfinnie.blogspot.com.au/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 September 2012 02:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 144 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1284
Joined  2008-01-01

grin:-):-)

Bloody ozzie stirrer!

It would be great if everyone would finish pissing on trees to mark territories and get back to what promised to be a very informative subject - Portrait Lighting.

By which I understand lighting the human head and shoulders in a formal studio photo-shoot in interesting ways - not monsters wearing pink underpants or the Meaning of Life, so that the great unwashed majority of us can pick up some pearls of wisdom.wink

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 September 2012 03:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 145 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1059
Joined  2007-10-15
Roygee - 15 September 2012 02:06 AM

It would be great if everyone would finish pissing on trees to mark territories and get back to what promised to be a very informative subject - Portrait Lighting.

By which I understand lighting the human head and shoulders in a formal studio photo-shoot in interesting ways - not monsters wearing pink underpants or the Meaning of Life, so that the great unwashed majority of us can pick up some pearls of wisdom.wink

Well, between the hostility, the personal attacks, and the pot shots from the sidelines, I think I’ll let you guys finish this by yourselves. You have more than enough experts here to keep you going.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 September 2012 09:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 146 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1694
Joined  0
JoeMamma2000 - 15 September 2012 03:38 AM

Well, between the hostility, the personal attacks, and the pot shots from the sidelines, I think I’ll let you guys finish this by yourselves.

Oh WHHAAAAT? You’re LEAVING???? Never to return????

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! LOL

 Signature 

320+ TUTORIALS for Carrara at CARRARA CAFE
C3DE - CARRARA 3D EXPO MAGAZINE - the showcase for Carrara Artists

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 September 2012 10:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 147 ]
Active Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  303
Joined  2006-08-21
holly wetcircuit - 15 September 2012 09:59 AM
JoeMamma2000 - 15 September 2012 03:38 AM

Well, between the hostility, the personal attacks, and the pot shots from the sidelines, I think I’ll let you guys finish this by yourselves.

Oh WHHAAAAT? You’re LEAVING???? Never to return????

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! LOL

grin

 Signature 

CG and Me

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 September 2012 10:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 148 ]
Addict
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7103
Joined  2009-07-13

this thread is very entertaining! tongue rolleye tongue wink smile

 Signature 

WARNING do not click tongue rolleye what video horrors will be seen if you do cannot be unseen.
my render thread
my gallery

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 September 2012 10:07 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 149 ]
Active Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  303
Joined  2006-08-21
3drendero - 31 August 2012 11:08 AM

Great thread and discussion and renders.
For those of us rookies that are more into buying ready-to-render items, what is there in the store in order to make a photo realistic portrait renders in Carrara?
I have only purchased Carraracters Delphinia and Elite textures Maya, that have Carrara support and include one car scene with cams and lights, but have not had the time to work with them yet.

Delphinia has an essential video tutorial that shows the trick of multipass rendering, to tweak the highlights in PhotoShop. Did not see this mentioned above, guessing it is a common trick for the pros.
Will get back with some renders…
http://www.daz3d.com/shop/carraracters-delphinia
http://www.daz3d.com/shop/v4-elite-texture-maya

Here are a couple of older (Carrara 6) character shader kits. I use them in Carrara 8 with very good results

http://www.sharecg.com/v/26659/View/7/Material-and-Shader/Endless-Eye-Kit-for-V4-for-Carrara-6
http://www.sharecg.com/v/28074/related/7/Material-and-Shader/V4-Skin-Shader-kit-and-Lights-for-Carrara-6

You should definitely read the documentation that comes with these. Some good information there. They are also a good stepping off place for learning about Carrara’s shaders and lights.

 

 Signature 

CG and Me

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 September 2012 10:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 150 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1694
Joined  0

I’ll say it’s entertaining…. It also has some very “nice” images that were trashed for not having “emotional impact” (um…, their ALL pinups, LMAO), fire burning at the wrong color, and a parade of grotesquely deformed women with painful-looking breast and lip implants, OH and blatant homophobia that we are all suppose to laugh at!

Yes, this thread is a winner!

 Signature 

320+ TUTORIALS for Carrara at CARRARA CAFE
C3DE - CARRARA 3D EXPO MAGAZINE - the showcase for Carrara Artists

Profile
 
 
   
10 of 13
10