The *most* photorealistic skin/settings

Leonides02

davidtriune said:

Leonides02 said:

lilweep said:

Leonides02 said:

I import my rendered exr's into Blender specifically to take advantage of the filmic color space. Then I export to Photoshop for final touches.

 

I think I am fundamentally misunderstanding some of these concepts.

Does importing to blender make a difference? are you just importing the exr to blender and then exporting a new exr for photoshop?

Yes. I import the exr to blender in order to take advantage of the "filmic" colorspace (which even Photoshop doesn't have), and then I export a PNG for any Photoshop manipulation.

 

 

davidtriune said:

Here is more info about ACES tone mapping. It compares the old tone mapping technique (used by DAZ) vs ACES tone mapping 

https://docs.unrealengine.com/en-US/Engine/Rendering/PostProcessEffects/ColorGrading/index.html

I just found an easy way to apply ACES tone mapping to an exr render in photoshop. I must say, it does make quite a difference. Notably, reds are much more muted and this does make the render appear more real. 

I have also been applying the filmic blender preset to these images, but I don't know if I'm "double-dipping." davidtriune would you happen to know? You seem quite knowledgeable here. 

I've also been experimenting too. I just found out how to apply it recently.

I would guess you are double applying it. A good way to tell is if you crank up the exposure a lot. If the highlights become more and more desaturated, then it is correct. If it becomes more saturated, then it's probably wrong. (Except when the only lighting is a single spotlight. I don't know why, but sometimes highlights become more saturated regardless)

Blender's filmic mapping seems to look a little different from ACEScg. When I compared them, Blender seems a little more saturated. I prefer ACEScg a little more. See pics.

Also, I've read in different places that you need to convert all your textures to ACES, not just the final render. Although when I do this my renders often turn greenish. So I'm still figuring out things here

Thanks for the comparison pics. I also prefer the ACEScg. For those who'd like to see a DAZ "out of the box" render vs one color graded with ACES, here you go. The change is subtle but, to me, the ACES looks more photo-real. 

 

 

fred9803

Excuse me for saying you might be looking in the wrong direction for the Holy Grail of photorealistic skin. Skin tectures/shaders come a poor second to your lighting environment. What looks great in one environment may, certainly will, look entirely different in another lighting situation.... skin hue, satuation, details, veins, moles, freckles and pores change in appearance depending on the lighting set-up. There is no one-size-fits-all with regard to the appearance of human skin as any photographer working with real skin and lighting knows already. So.set up your skin in the lighting enviroment in which you intend to use it, tweak it from there and not the other way around. 3D rendering 101.

sterlenejc

Leonides02 said:

davidtriune said:

Leonides02 said:

lilweep said:

Leonides02 said:

I import my rendered exr's into Blender specifically to take advantage of the filmic color space. Then I export to Photoshop for final touches.

 

I think I am fundamentally misunderstanding some of these concepts.

Does importing to blender make a difference? are you just importing the exr to blender and then exporting a new exr for photoshop?

Yes. I import the exr to blender in order to take advantage of the "filmic" colorspace (which even Photoshop doesn't have), and then I export a PNG for any Photoshop manipulation.

 

 

davidtriune said:

Here is more info about ACES tone mapping. It compares the old tone mapping technique (used by DAZ) vs ACES tone mapping 

https://docs.unrealengine.com/en-US/Engine/Rendering/PostProcessEffects/ColorGrading/index.html

I just found an easy way to apply ACES tone mapping to an exr render in photoshop. I must say, it does make quite a difference. Notably, reds are much more muted and this does make the render appear more real. 

I have also been applying the filmic blender preset to these images, but I don't know if I'm "double-dipping." davidtriune would you happen to know? You seem quite knowledgeable here. 

I've also been experimenting too. I just found out how to apply it recently.

I would guess you are double applying it. A good way to tell is if you crank up the exposure a lot. If the highlights become more and more desaturated, then it is correct. If it becomes more saturated, then it's probably wrong. (Except when the only lighting is a single spotlight. I don't know why, but sometimes highlights become more saturated regardless)

Blender's filmic mapping seems to look a little different from ACEScg. When I compared them, Blender seems a little more saturated. I prefer ACEScg a little more. See pics.

Also, I've read in different places that you need to convert all your textures to ACES, not just the final render. Although when I do this my renders often turn greenish. So I'm still figuring out things here

Thanks for the comparison pics. I also prefer the ACEScg. For those who'd like to see a DAZ "out of the box" render vs one color graded with ACES, here you go. The change is subtle but, to me, the ACES looks more photo-real. 

 

 

Oh yes, the second picture is much more natural looking