Show Us Your Iray Renders. Part III
This discussion has been closed.
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
If the lines you want to glow are a separate surface you can do it really easy. Go to the Iray shaders, find emissive and apply it. Easiest way to set the color is to 6500 (which is whiteish) and then put the color in emission color. You may want to adjust the luminance if it is to bright or not bright enough after a test render. Pretty sure you can use a map in the emission color where black is no light if the lines are not a separate surface.
After long journey swimming and climbing, rolling and climbing, joy and tear, 8 hours of trial and error. I got this render result which I still considered far from the real full potential of Daz3D iray.
What could I do, only have gtx 660 for my card.
I don't know why the render is bit blurry
If the lines you want to glow are a separate surface you can do it really easy. Go to the Iray shaders, find emissive and apply it. Easiest way to set the color is to 6500 (which is whiteish) and then put the color in emission color. You may want to adjust the luminance if it is to bright or not bright enough after a test render. Pretty sure you can use a map in the emission color where black is no light if the lines are not a separate surface.
Thanks so much for the info Khory! :-)
Here is my latest render with iray... having to spend most of my time creating content and rendering promos, I haven't had a great deal of time to work with iray and tweaking materials, etc. This is some skin settings I came up with for this particular image.. not sure if it would look good in another scene or on another skin texture, but for this it works quite well. I am also very happy with the hair shader I made for this image. Again, I want to apply the settings to some other hair to see if I get the same nice results.
These HDR sets look very nice...but is it only me that notices this?...
I can not see specularity/reflection in the characters eyes...isnt this supposed to be on the eye map?...
I have used HDR maps and i always get specularity in my characters eyes...
does it have to do with these sets...or does this particular character eyes lack specularity maps...or was this rendered intentionally like this?...
In my opinion its the one little detail that adds to the realism...nice eyes that reflect the environment!...these eyes are just dry walled!...
these are the sets:
https://www.daz3d.com/daz-studio-iray-hdr-interiors
Any thaughts?...
You have to set the map setting to reflectivity and make sure cutout opacity set to 1. You also need to use ior of 1.44. Then set the specular to scatter and transmit.
Thanks
The background image came in a set I downloaded at rendo call NLPIX Perfect Backdrops.I think it was in set 002 in the freebies section.
Beautiful render Glenn, I really like the background image too, very realistic. May I ask what background you used in this render ?
Cheers :-)
There has never been anything realistic about pre textured highlights. I loath the things and have for years. Getting real highlights is easy as long as the surface's on the surface of the eye have reflection and there is something in the scene that is bright enough to be reflected as a highlight. If you use an HDRI image where the main light (say the sun) is not facing the eye then you won't get a reflection of it. You can always add a photometric light to give you those highlights. Next time your watching tv look at the highlights in peoples eyes. Often they are square or rectangular. That is because what they are really reflecting is the large reflector lights used to light the scene. Changing a photometric light to rectangular will give you that exact same sort of highlight as long as the light is placed where it would be reflected by the eye.
Farting around... here's Logan with Ninive 6 skin.
One thing I'm realizing is that with the liberal ability to apply skins across genders, I essentially have 'even delicate skin textures' and 'rough, raw skin textures' rather than female and male.
Which is cool, because sometimes I want women to not be made up dolls, and sometimes I want men to be.
That's really gorgeous Cath. WOW!
Been working on this for a while- I believe his Iray shaders are finalized. Cropped for TOS.
Nimue really reminded me of hair in renaissance portraits, though .a bit less ridiculous than Botticelli. A really fun render to do.
I really like it. Very moody.
Check your old real-world photos. How many eyes have highlights? Unless it is a close-up portrait photo, I'm guessing very few.
I keep wanting them as well, but realistically speaking a real camera at a distance wouldn't pick up any obvious eye reflection, would it?
What you'll find in most photos is the infamous red-eye reflection of the flash off the retina..
If anyone wants a simple fog camera for IRAY..here you go
http://rawart3d.deviantart.com/art/Raw-FogCam-535959358
This camera has separate fog settings for fore-ground, mid ground and background, with the fog getting progressivly thicker the further away you get.
Simply load as a camera from your "Camera Presets" folder and set up your shot as you normally would.
Parented to the camera is a set of cubes that create the fog effect....simply adjust the cubes along your z-axis until they cover your scene the way you would like to see the fog (furthest cube in the background).
Make sure your camera is still OUTSIDE of any of the cubes, and render
Rawn
Thank you!! It's a very elegant solution.
well...a simple one at least, until someone much smarter than me can make a "proper" one ;)
Rawn
What you'll find in most photos is the infamous red-eye reflection of the flash off the retina..
This is why I think aiming for "perfect photorealism" is overrated. Most photographs we see and want to emulate are "Photoshopped" (they even managed it in the 30's). Photoreal doesent mean it looks good either, there are plenty of photographs that look like complete crap, I know I've taken a lot of them.
There was a thread on one of the blender forums, someone made an image that looked completely photoreal, unfortunately that photo was a crappy polaroid with flash. It was an excellent technical experiment, but not a compelling image.
As far as I'm concerned, don't worry too much about whether something is perfectly photorealistic, just worry about whether it looks good.
@RawArt Thank you! looks great and dead simple to use.
Bless you, Rawn!
I've tried to play with that effect, but I was never able to make it work. Now, I'm impatiently waiting for an image to finish rendering so I can try out your camera.
Thank you. Many times, thank you.
...if it's an outdoor daylight scene.using available light there should be no "red eye".
I rarely used flash even for interior photos as I was totally into "available light" photography and would instead use higher speed professional film.
My first render posted here;-
Iray, Iray HDR Outdoor, slight post processing adjust light.
Glad to say 4.8 successfully updated my Studio 4.7 installation with no problems, and installed all my plug-ins. So here is my first render with the new Daz Studio 4.8 Pro.
Hope the Iray threads continue to grow and blossom now we are out of the beta stage and in full flight. :lol:
Cheers :-)
...if it's an outdoor daylight scene.using available light there should be no "red eye".
I rarely used flash even for interior photos as I was totally into "available light" photography and would instead use higher speed professional film.
Yeah - and if I couldn't work with available light I used a bounce flash. (My flash unit had a tilting reflector).
This is why I think aiming for "perfect photorealism" is overrated. Most photographs we see and want to emulate are "Photoshopped" (they even managed it in the 30's). Photoreal doesent mean it looks good either, there are plenty of photographs that look like complete crap, I know I've taken a lot of them.
There was a thread on one of the blender forums, someone made an image that looked completely photoreal, unfortunately that photo was a crappy polaroid with flash. It was an excellent technical experiment, but not a compelling image.
As far as I'm concerned, don't worry too much about whether something is perfectly photorealistic, just worry about whether it looks good.
@RawArt Thank you! looks great and dead simple to use.
One of the most eye-opening articles I ever read on photography was on Creative Pros. A commercial photographer showed us how he went about creating an image for a beauty product advertisement. There were several bottles set side by side. The final image was a composite with all the bottles looking uniformly lit, and an equally uniform reflection on the table. IIRC, he even used a mask to fade the reflection to nothing at the bottom of the image. You couldn't tell the final image was a Photoshopped composite.
The lesson I took away from that article is the end result isn't about being true to the camera image, but rather true to the subject.
Or in other words, "just worry about whether it looks good." :-)
One of the most eye-opening articles I ever read on photography was on Creative Pros. A commercial photographer showed us how he went about creating an image for a beauty product advertisement. There were several bottles set side by side. The final image was a composite with all the bottles looking uniformly lit, and an equally uniform reflection on the table. IIRC, he even used a mask to fade the reflection to nothing at the bottom of the image. You couldn't tell the final image was a Photoshopped composite.
The lesson I took away from that article is the end result isn't about being true to the camera image, but rather true to the subject.
Or in other words, "just worry about whether it looks good." :-)
Yes, except that "not photoreal" often means that some degree of detail is missing, and that is what I think of when I see "photoreal" or "not photoreal". Clearly great art does not have to be photoreal, and vice versa.
First is original image (from my webcomic), second is with experimental postwork.
This is why I think aiming for "perfect photorealism" is overrated. Most photographs we see and want to emulate are "Photoshopped" (they even managed it in the 30's). Photoreal doesent mean it looks good either, there are plenty of photographs that look like complete crap, I know I've taken a lot of them.
There was a thread on one of the blender forums, someone made an image that looked completely photoreal, unfortunately that photo was a crappy polaroid with flash. It was an excellent technical experiment, but not a compelling image.
As far as I'm concerned, don't worry too much about whether something is perfectly photorealistic, just worry about whether it looks good.
@RawArt Thank you! looks great and dead simple to use.
So true...Kamion99!...at the end of the day it just has to look convincing and good.
Olympia at the Beach :)
They souped up the Iray renderer somehow. This finished in 20 minutes and I only have CPU.