Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2026 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
I don't disagree with tone/exposure adjustments - I only mentioned the techniques I thought were extreme. "ghost lights, making walls invisible (or section plances), lighting up the entire ceiling (or large emissive planes) are going to result in unrealistic lighting for the scene."
It'd be ideal to have the scene set realistically with lamps (and the entire room props) offscene to allow the scene to be simulated as accurately as possible (shadows cast in from offstage etc)- but a few single poly light sources with the correct light temperature would do in order to reduce scene processing overhead.
What others have not pointed out for interior scenes is the default light temperature of 6500 is also an outdoor daylight setting - so adding indoor lighting without adjustment to this value is bringing the Sun into the room.
That's like comparing a quickie lunchtime visit to a MacDonalds with an evening at a Fine restaurant.
Sometimes even a visit at a MickyD does the job, when it's only about not being hungry anymore.
And not all "artists" that post here are so artistically inclined that they bother with "perfect lighting". When I can see all that I am supposed to see, then that's enough lighting for me. Especially if it keeps my render time low.
Who said anything about 'perfect' you can chase perfect and go mad, everything is a trade-off between convenience and time. I was talking about more realistic light.
And you can't really say 'artists' here aren't bothered about realism since Iray is so popular.
LOL
It all depends on your definition of "realistic" lighting, and the results the artist(s) want to achieve. Removing walls, or using sectional planes to improve interior lighting is certainly a valid method, unless your going for a cell phone flash type image. From everything we see on TV and the cinema, we have been trained into thinking the world is ideally lit. So having lighting (regardless of source) that fits with the image, yet "guides" the viewer, seems normal to most people. So removing walls (or using a sectional plane) and using an appropriate HDRI is certainly a valid technique. Keep in mind, not all HDRI images are done outdoor in strong sunlight, there are a lot of very good indoor HDRI images that can create, or aid in creating, the perfect lighting for an indoor scene. Additionally, by using an HDRI, even at very low intensities, can improve render speeds if it provides a sort of ambient light to a scene that is primarily lit with other light sources (doesn't take as long to resolve the dark areas).
I realize all this may not change your opinion, and that's OK. I just felt I should at least further express my point of view so others may have a chance to hear the the reasons for my suggestion, and make an informed decision on their own. I use this technique a lot, but I also to scenes where most of the light is coming from "known" light sources as well. It all depends on the desired end product. But regardless of techniques used, as others have mentioned, getting comfortable with the Tone Mapping settings will help a great deal.
The attached images wre done with the technique I mentioned (Iray Section Plane, HDRI, and scene lighting). For the first image I could have used only scene lighting (there are a lot of light in this model), or scene lighting plus a spot rim light and a plane emitter for the key light, but I chose to use the HDRI because I liked the result (you may not, and that's OK, that's kind or what "art" is all about). Besides, in this case, I really like my Micky D's (but to be honest, It probably would have taken less time to set it up with one of my light sets to make it a "fine restaurant"
). The second image used an HDRI, plus four spots for rim lights. Is it perfectly realistic? Probably not, But is does what I wanted, highlight the figure in the foreground and have the background fade into darkness.
Yeh, remove the ceiling and use an ambient HDRI for quicker rendering, with a ghost light next to one wall to give sideways shadows as if coming from a window. You will need to place a primative plane along the top of the walls so that the light doesn't come straight down them and look unrealistic.
I'm really impressed with this if I understand you correctly - the background room (including the ground she appears to be standing on) is HDRI, not mesh objects, right? The shadows are cast nicely and it all looks realistic to me. Did you use a commercial HDRI or create one yourself - perhaps using the 360 spherical camera in IRay? I'd love to know the details of how you used the HDRI.
Thanks! Actually it's a prop/scene from here (I don't remember which one, if you want to know I'll look it up when I'm at the computer) just lit with an HDRI. IIRC the HDRI I used was the default HDRI in DS Iray (ruins ??). I don't remember if I used an Iray sectional plane on this one, or if the model was open ended (I kind of remember that it was open ended but I could be wrong). But it provided the effect I wanted. I could have gotten similar results by using a couple of large planes as emitters, but the advantage to an HDRI is that it gives something for surfaces to reflect where two mesh lights would just be two white light (or whatever color I used) light sources. But I could have used an image in/on the planes to give something interesting to be reflected other than a solid color had I used mesh lights instead. I've used that trick on interior images that I needed a large mesh light for soft shadows, but the reflective surfaces on things in the image just looked wrong with large a solid colored light.
I once was talking to a movie lighting engineer, and he very quotably said, "light motivation is overrated."
Ahh, ok - apologies as I misunderstood your use of HDRI - I though the room was an HDRI image as the Environment in the render tab. Nevertheless, impressive still and I do agree about using HDRI to bring up reflections and specularity. Just a pity that HDRI is so difficult to use with interiors so you are compelled to remove walls or use a sectional plane. That's why I was considering projecting a render of a room scene on to the environment dome as a background image and lighting set up.
I think in this thread we have two different goals being discussed. Both are valid but often in conflict with each other.
The OP wanted to create an interior image that looked good. Several suggestions were offered about how to do that. Most of them sacrifice "reality" in order to achieve the look and effect they wanted. This is exactly like a movie lighting designer or a photographer adding reflectors and other ancillary lighting (even outdoors) in order to achieve the image they are trying to capture. Or even more extreme, a movie set within a sound stage, typically is not an enclosed environment. It often IS missing the ceiling and 1 (or more) walls and the lighting designers take advantage of this.
The second goal which @GafftheHorse brought forward is to create a real world based lighting solution. If the scene is too dark, add additional light sources that make sense for the scene to fix any exposure and quality issues that simply adjusting the exposure setting won't accomplish. Gaff's goal is to have the lighting in the scene be consistent and logical as if you were walking through the scene in real life. You wouldn't expect to see a missing ceiling or large panels of light that didn't make any sense for the room you're in.
I think the challenge to using the 2nd approach to accomplish the 1st goal is that we don't have the tools necessary to make it work yet. If you read interviews with any of the current Physically Based Rendering (PBR) engine devs, they will tell you that they have attempted to simulate light to a degree where it was "good enough". None of them (if they are being 100% honest) will claim to have scientifically modeled exactly how light works in the real world. In particular indirect lighting and bouncing from surface to surface is still WAY behind what real light can accomplish.
For example, the light sources in my living room at home are basically one floor lamp and my TV. I could setup my Nikon D700 DSLR camera and take a photograph of my daughter on the couch and it would work just fine. However trying to emulate that in Studio and expecting Iray to bounce all the light around the room to make that happen would require a LOT of patience while the image converged, and even then may not end up working at all because the engine just isn't able to simulate real world light well enough (yet) to accomplish that goal.
I'm a HUGE fan of 3D Lighting. If I were at a point in life where I could start a new career, that would be what I would choose to pursue. I've read Jeremy Birn's book on lighting multiple times and study all the topics on it that I can. It's why so many of the tutorials on my blog are about explaining how light interacts with surfaces in the 3D world.
But my goal with lighting in my images is to make it plausible and pleasing to the eye. I get the feeling that's what most of us want. Which is why we use all these "tricks" to fool the rendering engine into giving us what we wanted in the end.
+1
That is theoretically possible, and there are (external) tools around to accomplish that, but it's quite a bit of work, and you may end up with parts within the HDRI that are hard to use in your renders. A bit of digging around on these forums should yield some helpful threads.
I generally add an emissive plane at the ceiling to add ambient light, and then add emissives to all the light fixtures as if they were in the real world. Then the sun casts light in from the outside and it all looks more or less accurate.