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
© 2025 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Need to generate the normals though. So let me do that and I'll load up Dawn and see what I can see.....
just try the bump first.... there will be things which you can adjust...
Still not used to the new iRay settings. Bump should be set up under Bump or Top Coat Bump and set to 1.00 or 100.00??
this is the Base Bump
the value you must try.. looking on your map - 3 - 6... start with 5.
OK. Tried it at 1.00, that's good. 2.00 is really deep and you can see that it's more of an even pattern. Perhaps I need to go in and lightly and unevenly erase some of the pores on the bump map. Looks a bit too even across the skin in the render....
right - that's why i said.. first the bump...now smooth some pores partial clone some single pores... just break the pattern....
you work in the bump till you are happy - just then you convert a normal.. (which sould improve the look of the pores again...
such LARGE pores are mainly on the nose and surrounding areas of the cheeks.... some on the forehead.... smooth the other areas to the same grey level as your microstructur is (base ).
OK. Doing that. Thanks Andy!
Oh and thanks Will for the link!
I find when going 3DL > Iray, bump values are best multiplied by 5 (roughly)
But for skin, the Iray optimized skin value of 1.21 does seem to actually be about right (with some wiggle depending on bump map).
A good normal map makes a world of difference. I really like Parris' Macroskin, but the Normals are so significant I almost always have to put in a weight of .3 or so.
most daz bumps use to much contrast for small skin details.. that's why it is hard to get eyebrows poping out.... that's why my values around 3- 5 for a start look to high.... but that's about right... with a perfect bump, we have 256 distances ..
i want the eyebrows poppig out 5- 10times more then pores... so the average grey level of skin should be just 40 - 50 grey shades...
if you have a dsplacment or normal only for eyebrows..and large wrinkles .JUST THEN the bump can use full 256 for skin - which improves a lot too...
I prefer to have maps with no eyebrows and add them as either a separate layer or an actual object (like Laticis free eyebrow objects).
exactly.... it is hard for texture creators to isolate perfect eyebrows from the skin.. that's why we so seldom get that in products...
.
I just try to solve this problem myself for my texture... need to find VERY sharp image of nice eyebrows on very pale skin without specular.. and a little bit overexposure ..... hmmmm searching and searching
Also photostock shops - make me look on 1000 eyebrows.. but not one is perfect for my needs
OK. I'll try out the 1.21 bump setting but then I may not need it once I get the Normal map generated.
Pretty happy with my work here. This took a few seconds over 9 minutes to render out in DS 4.8. I have no idea what to expect when DS 4.9 hits, I don't do beta's so will have to wait for the finalized to hit.
That's why I tend to make the things I really want popping out whiter so even the Normal and displacement gives a nicer fuller effect so eyebrows, moles are examples of what to kinda going overboard with a lighter gray value works pretty well for my needs.
often you might think that the pores are way to strong - BUT it is not the strength of pores it is your skin setting ... pores ARE large on a skin.. but translucency and backscatter make them look softer.close to disapearing.. if you dont have this settings NOT right (your render looks like plastic)....then it is not the pores scales false - they are there.. and very important for a correct glossiness look.
@RAMWolff while it did improve.. you can do that still way better...
the large pores are close to not to be seen...
do not play with bump strenght.... Do play with your map in photoshop....
You want to get a feeling for how much grey does what...... set your bump strentgh to 2 (or any fix value)... and then adjust the two pore levels (large pores MORE... base lower) in photoshop till it looks perfect....
on the nose there is not such a wired thing as you have now in your render
your skinsettings:
do you use a usally not overworked daz texture,?
how is your translucency color set? single color or diffuse map plus color ?
Not sure what you meant by wired. You mean weird? Trust me it looks ALLOT better than it did! lol
weird wire thing on the nose
...
yeahh.. but dont let go to early just because it improved allready a lot - little bit more work in the bump... adjusting your translucency .. and it will look very good....
Bump - make the microbump smoother on the nose.. bring up the large pores there instead..... cheecks... same but to a lesser extend... forehead same....
Yea, copied and resized an area of the pores for the cheeks and the tip of the nose and did a bit more work on the pores map so about ready to render again.....
chin area and lower cheeks are ok,,, keep that as orientation
Ah, thanks for the pointers.
Here is a straight on shot with no expressions so maybe that gives you a better notion of what your looking to help me correct. The issues with the nose tip continues and they are part of the mapping unfortunately. I know the freckles are a distraction to all this but they are part of my characters look so we have to try to ignore them! lol
well - she looks nice.. that will be a phantastic skin with just some small things improved....
ok - the nose pores must be so strong that they break the specular highlight.... turn up the light and glossines for testing...
on the cheeks - it looks to wild to me.. (if you aim for a young women).... if i interpret your skin texure right.... it looks now wild because exactly there she had large pores too.. (many have)...
turn up glossiness and maybe light... and you see what the bump does way better.
That's looking pretty good to me. The nose looks way better that the previous render. Between the nose and the lips looks a little too smooth to me. The tip of the nose isn't bad. You could try a slight amount of dodging with a soft brush if you want it a little smoother, but still have a tiny bit of detail.
Also you did right to check her from different camera points
...
the second render improved.. i dont know because you worked between on it or it is because the light charmes now more (hides more because frontal. Or because of both factors
Glossiness you can trust me that it is way higher then on your render..go up to ..7 - 0-8 for a test . if you want that she looks right in diffuse light - glossiness must be real.. which will look as it is to much in your setting.. but it is not
this image shows what i am talking about...
..
skin has high glossiness - skin shows pores in specular highlighs even with frekles
and yep - the gap beteen upperlip and nose has also large pores...
Hmmm, Glossiness value on the Surfaces of the skin are set to 0.61 so what do you suggest from there? I'll go back and add in a stache set of pores to the upper lip area. Your right, even on women there are pores there, not sure what I was thinking! lol
i sugesst that you set glossines stronger! go up to 0.7 - 0.8... and let me see more specular... which shows the bump pores better for setting up...
then one reason why it does not look like a good real frekel photo is the final lumninance/B ratio of the skin. your image has a to low luminance... luminance does not just mean brighter.. (hard to explain quick here.. it has to do with the color space model)...contrast comes closest.
that's why i asked if you use a single color or the base texture in translucence.
I'm not seeing the Specular strength slider with this iRay set up. I did set the Glossiness to .76 to see how that looks.
Here are the settings I have thus far..
ok.. your specualr is out of human range.. one of the reason for total luminance.. set your specular colors to something like 0.52,, 0.52, 0.52 RGB ... you see now 0.13 0.13 0.13.. that should be 0.030, 0.030, 0.030 linear...
and you have a color map in glossiness.. remove the Map and set the color to pure white.
There is no slider for Specular.. you set the value with a color... and your glossiness did not react because of the color map in glossines color (must be WHITE only)
And now i think you will get a big AHA moment .. if you render
...
your setting for translucency color is very dark.... but let us first see a render with correct specular...