Daz Can someone set up some lighting for me?

[noping123]

The title is a bit misleading, but whatever I suck at titles.

I'm still trying to work on not being shit at lighting (it's a work in progress. what can you do) - but I've mostly reached my personal limit of what I can learn/improve on by stuff like reading stuff, etc, at this point its mostly just a matter of practice, plus trial and error.

One thing I think would help though, is seeing what other people are doing, which is this entire thread. Yes this will take you a little bit (not much) of time to do, so obviously I'm not asking anyone to waste their time who isn't willing, but I digress.

Basically, I've already done this for my game (current scene I'm working on that I just finished building all the renders for actually). Here's the asset in question:

https://f95zone.to/threads/retro-arcade.19201/


Basically I'm wondering how other people would set up lighting in that room- so I can compare it to what I did, which is the easiest way for me personally to compare them and understand why one works better than the other, what other people do differently, and what I can look for in the future when I set up new stuff.

(While the scenes I did obviously involved figures in the room, the overall lighting can be mostly figure independent, as long as the entire room is properly lit).

What I'm looking for is someone who has some free time to kill, to set up lighting in that room and send me the finished DUF - this way I can at least compare the different ways of doing things, and hopefully learn how to do things better in the future. I won't actually use the setup, mostly because I've already rendered quite a bit, and redoing it would set me back too much, but personally it'd be real helpful to be able to compare and contrast so I can better figure this shit out.

So if anyone does feel like wasting 20 min or so to help me out, I'd appreciate it!

 

[MissFortune]

I'm using the 4.20.02, so the ghost lights will likely be off if you're using a different version, but all of the ideas are generally the same. The roof lights are all turned off and replaced with Square Lights from

You must be registered to see the links

. They're doing a fair bit of the heavy lifting here. Then I just used a standard Three-Point Lighting with regular spotlights and a Bulb-shaped ghost light (from the linked asset) to give a (very) faint, faux glow from the screen off to the right. The better the model's texture/skin, the better it'll likely look. I used the base G8 model with the Starter Essentials clothing and hair, so you should be able to see/use it.

You must be registered to see the links

This was done quickly. Spending more time with it would likely give better results but it's good enough to get an idea. If you're running 4.20, it should look something like this - depending on your monitor. Hopefully it can help you out a bit.

 

[Deleted member 1121028]

No addtional spotlight/ghostlight.
Main light is provided by the default HDRI (DTHR-ruinsB500.hdr).
Main camera is parented to an "Iray Camera" with the top Iray setion plane hidden :





-Rotated HDRI to 90°
-changeded RA lightening surface to 4000k / 2500kcd/m^2
That's about it.

Since it was a too lazy even for me I made "Arcade Mania" surface emissive for purple neon vibes and increased eyes cornea reflection \o/

 

[noping123]

I'm using the 4.20.02, so the ghost lights will likely be off if you're using a different version, but all of the ideas are generally the same.

My face after doing a test render in 4.16 without making any changes:




The different approaches are interesting, and I'll have to delve into them a bit more when I have some time. (I did adjust the values and did a 2nd render to see what it *should* look like).

What I did was somewhat similar - though still quite different. The approach I took was to keep the ceiling lighting emissive - though I changed the value quite a bit. I forget what it was at initially - though I put it at 1000 kcdm. (I also had to adjust the surface of the hockey table, since it reflected WAY too much light in this case). I then added spherical point lights at all 4 corners of the room to fill in the darkened areas of the room. Finally I added a spotlight on the figure in the scene - I decided not to use any sort of 3pl, I tried it but with the lights I already had, it seemed to be too much. I ended up going with a single rectangle spotlight alongside the camera at a slight angle. And of course I also made the "Arcade mania" sign into an emissive - though I kept the color the same, and didn't go with any neon purple.

The result was this:




While I'm *mostly* happy with the results (Not completely, but enough that I don't want to go back and redo it all), I appreciate you both taking the time - it gives me a few things to look at. Neither of those approaches are ones I would have really considered - while they both create a totally different aesthetic, it gives me something to look it. I've looked at other lighting setups before, but it's a bit harder when you just take a setup in a random environment - it's a lot more helpful to look at a totally different setup in an environment I've actually worked with to be able to directly compare different methods and how they look, the ability to compare and contrast is a lot more helpful to me. My biggest takeaway without spending much time actually thinking about it yet, so far, is I need to be less reliant on enviromental lighting. Way too often I just sort of leave them in (things like the built in ceiling lights in this asset), maybe editing the values a bit, but that's it. I should definitely spend more time just considering completely scrapping them all and using my own.

Also, probably be more willing to utalize 3pl setups. They're not the be-all end-all, but I almost never use them - which is funny, I always *try* to use them, then end up scrapping it entirely and going for more of a global lighting solution (spherical point lights and targeted square or disc spotlights have become my goto lately) - basically illuminating *everything* as opposed to focusing on the figure in question.

 

[Rich]

One of the things I think you should consider is the fact that lighting draws the eye. In the image in the post just above this, there are a LOT of bright... things in the background. The bright white air hockey table. The bright yellow video game. Those tend to pull your eye away from the female who, I presume, should be the focus of the scene. So, cutting down on the overall lighting on the background objects a bit and then bumping up the lighting on her would tend to draw your eye toward her. (The DOF certainly does help with that.)

Also, at least to me, lighting looks much more interesting when there are non-trivial shadows. They give a much more "3D feel" to objects, since that's a big factor in how our eyes interpret 3D shape from the (effectively) 2D image our retinas gather. Some people tend to light the snot out of their scenes with ghost lights, etc. Always makes the scene look flat to me. So, for example, I tend to prefer lighting that lights one side of a subject noticeably more than another, so that there are visible shadows (or, at least, darker areas) on one side of the face or the other. If you've studied "three point lighting," remember that the key light is the dominant light, and the fill light is just to make sure the shadows on the other side of the character aren't too deep. (Although, depending on the mood of the scene, sometimes you want that.)

A couple of tricks:

1. If you use large rectangular spotlights, you get softer edges on your shadows. I frequently use rectangular lights that are 100x100 to avoid really sharp shadows.
2. Sometimes, the reason that objects jump out is because they reflect too much light. One way of handling that is to go into the object's "surfaces" tab and, on the xxx setting dial down the color from pure white to more of a grey. This combines with the image that's applied to tone things down a bit. Nothing in real life reflects 100% of the light that hits it, but PA's persist in creating things that are pure, pure, pure white or yellow or whatever.
3. Sometimes, when you want serious shadows, this gives iRay an issue converging. (iRay hates unlight areas.) Solution to that is to brighten up everything in the scene, but then, in the render settings, change one of the exposure settings (e.g. shutter speed, exposure, etc.) in order to darken the image back down. The exposure "stuff" is done late in the pipeline, so iRay converges well because it sees light everywhere, but then the brightness gets dialed back down to where you have shadows again.

Bottom line is that there is no "perfect" lighting for a scene. It depends a lot on the mood you're trying to convey, as well as, well, "eye of the beholder."

 

[noping123]

One of the things I think you should consider is the fact that lighting draws the eye. In the image in the post just above this, there are a LOT of bright... things in the background. The bright white air hockey table. The bright yellow video game. Those tend to pull your eye away from the female who, I presume, should be the focus of the scene. So, cutting down on the overall lighting on the background objects a bit and then bumping up the lighting on her would tend to draw your eye toward her. (The DOF certainly does help with that.)

I tend to go for... or at least *ATTEMPT* (jury is out on my success levels) "realistic" lighting, as opposed to artistic. That is, I'll use arcades I used to goto as a kid. (Haven't been to one in a long time, but hey). They were very heavily and brightly lit with overhead fluorescent lighting. There was never a dark corner in those buildings. So when, for example, setting up the above room, I wanted to achieve that. I lit it in a way to try to eliminate darker areas of the room, just like what I remember, without making things too bright, or drawing too much attention away from her. It's why I heavily edited the hockey table surface, for example. With the default settings it reflected WAY too much light, and was super super bright. I edited the surface quite a bit to dampen the amount of light it reflected, so it *didn't* draw too much attention. Seriously, if you saw it before I changed it, you'd have thought it was a giant emissive.

Some people tend to light the snot out of their scenes with ghost lights, etc. Always makes the scene look flat to me.

I agree on this point. I know some people swear by it - I know some people even prefer it. I personally don't like it. I try to avoid it.

If you use large rectangular spotlights, you get softer edges on your shadows. I frequently use rectangular lights that are 100x100 to avoid really sharp shadows.

Mine are usually around 50x50, sometimes 75x75. I think the one in the above scene is 50x50.

Sometimes, the reason that objects jump out is because they reflect too much light. One way of handling that is to go into the object's "surfaces" tab and, on the xxx setting dial down the color from pure white to more of a grey. This combines with the image that's applied to tone things down a bit. Nothing in real life reflects 100% of the light that hits it, but PA's persist in creating things that are pure, pure, pure white or yellow or whatever.

I try not to do that. While sometimes it'll work, some assets are created (in fact, more than I'd like tbh) where editing the surface colors will drastically change the appearance. I normally mess with glossy and refraction settings to adjust that stuff - top coat if applicable (Although I frequently forget about top coat settings and it takes me like 20 minutes of fighting with things to remember they exist).

Sometimes, when you want serious shadows, this gives iRay an issue converging. (iRay hates unlight areas.) Solution to that is to brighten up everything in the scene, but then, in the render settings, change one of the exposure settings (e.g. shutter speed, exposure, etc.) in order to darken the image back down. The exposure "stuff" is done late in the pipeline, so iRay converges well because it sees light everywhere, but then the brightness gets dialed back down to where you have shadows again.

Oh trust me, I've done this a plenty. Pretty much every night scene I have for example, is pretty heavily lit, with a high exposure value and modification of the white point. I think my highest one I used was something like 22. In retrospect it was probably a mistake, but hey. My light values were completely obscene too - like 16-20 million. I forget why I did it this way. I know there actually *was* a reason, but this was months ago hell if I can remember.

Bottom line is that there is no "perfect" lighting for a scene. It depends a lot on the mood you're trying to convey, as well as, well, "eye of the beholder."

Yea sure, I agree. In fact, some stuff people praise as good, I personally think look like trash. I'm not saying I'm right or theyre wrong or whatever - it comes down to personal preference. I'm not saying my stuff is great either, and while I'll admit there are things that could be done better, a lot of what I do is because I "prefer" the look I'm going for (even if I don't always get there). But this wasn't about achieving "perfect" lighting - a single scene could be lit 15 different ways, and all of them "correct" depending on the mood of the scene. It's about me wanting to look at different ways other people would approach the exact same thing. The 2 methods provided? They're way different than the way I approached things, and they're different than any way I have approached things in the past. Both have value, and my intention was just to be able to compare - the setup, and the result, and see what I could learn from it. I'm well past the point where I'd make any changes to what I've already done, but I did want a comparison to look at for stuff I'll do in the future.

 

[Deleted member 1121028]

Some thoughts on "IBL rendering" (Iray section planes+Hdri), never knew how to call it.

The main point is not to be better or worse than traditional lightening, but to send an astronomical amount of bounces to the void. It's by far the best way to crank rendering time while keeping decent quality. It's something to consider if you need an industrial amount of renders, own a not so good card or not at all (CPU rendering). That said it should not replace a well micro-managed scene if you have time for it.

As figures are generally the main focus, not all HDRIs are good for it. Most are not well balanced, preference should go to anything that has been build for portraiture or almost pure neutral ones. Portraiture HDRIs can have multiples source of lights (some have 'build-in' 3 point-lights, but there is infinty of variantes). Neutral ones have mainly one neutral source of light (illuminate without creating shadows/highlights), are mean to be used with additional spotlights.

Generally my workflow is like this:
- First built the scene, all lights off
- Place my camera mounted with Iray section planes (hidding the top one)
- Focus on my figure and test HDRIs that match what I have in mind (could hide or not more section planes)
- Place a second cam that will be used for my shot.

In practice it looks like this, it's a dummy skin/model and a not finished bedroom, so don't mind:


A look at my HDRI:


With environement hidden :


Raw result:


Lightroom go-to filter:


Normally before rendering, I would just "dress up" rest of the scene with unused lights (TV, desk lamp, chandelier, candle, etc) that were turned off, or create them if they don't exist. Mostly just as a secondary visual effect, without really impacting the figure.

There is few downside to this method tho:

-Anything reflections (mirror, glasses and so on) as we send a lot into the void
-Lack of consistency between shot can be tricky
-Some HDRIs are too soft to fully kick-in eyes reflexion (either use a spotlight or/and increase cornea reflection)

 

[Rich]

I tend to go for... or at least *ATTEMPT* (jury is out on my success levels) "realistic" lighting, as opposed to artistic. That is, I'll use arcades I used to goto as a kid. (Haven't been to one in a long time, but hey). They were very heavily and brightly lit with overhead fluorescent lighting. There was never a dark corner in those buildings. So when, for example, setting up the above room, I wanted to achieve that.

Hey, I get it. We each have different visions of what certain scenes "should" look like. Lighting is a tool. Me talking about "make this character pop" is using the tool to a different purpose than what you're using it for.

I guess my only reaction is that I tend to approach my images with a bit more of a "cinematography" mind set - I'm trying to tell a story in the same way that a movie does, and sometimes "100% realistic lighting" isn't the way to do that. For example, it's actually very common in movies for lighting to deviate from what it might be "in real life" because it gives the effect that the director wants in the scene.

Note: I don't mean that in any way as criticism of what you're doing or how you're approaching things - merely as an illustration of the point that different people approach the problem with different... "requirements," and thus end up with entirely different outcomes.

 

[Fatalmasterpiece]

This is a tricky room and is unlike how you would render say a bedroom or a kitchen.
There are no windows. Many lightsources (game screens). In theory the ceiling lights would be off or used sparingly to set a dark mood.
For most interiors I would typically suggest go with an HDR to light the windows, add a ghost light to the ceiling, then a low fill or three point as needed but again that won't work here. This place is practically a basement.
The default cameras kind of suck IMO. Something is broken with the default carpet so I replaced it with a plane.

Here's my take. Went for a cyberpunk vibe and throw realism out the window. Darken the room via tonemapping, push the lights on the machines by increasing emission. Add some colored spotlights to accent the neon vibe. This has no post processing btw.



Here are some fancy volumetric lights made in scene, probably a bit heavy handed.