Problems with Textures
geoffmccabe
Posts: 39
1. My first problem is getting the face and neck seam correct.
You can see from the photo that they look like very different colors. Yet, in photoshop, the two textures are perfectly matched.
I have checked every single setting in the Surfaces tab between the two, such as the bump, spec, all colors, reflections, etc, and they're all identical. Yet they look totally differnt on the screen.
What am I missing?
2. Second problem is the eyes. You can see they're all black, but the texture is Green. There's also a white line around the eyes. Any idea how I can get the correct eye color texture to appear?
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
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Here's the screen image.
Are you sure head and body are using the same shader?
They both say Shader: AoA_Subsurface at the top of the Edit tab.
The white rings in the eyes I was able to fix by changing the texture for the Sclera. The holes in the texture for the eyes was too small, so the "Sclera" texture was creating a white ring. In Photoshop, I used the "Spherize" filter to distort the texture so that the hole was smaller, and voila, the white rings disappeared.
Still hoping to hear from someone about what's going on with the face and neck textures and why they don't match. I've been able to get them to match fairly well, by using Photoshop to shift the color of the face texture, but I'm worried that upon rendering or export, they won't match anymore, because the two textures are clearly not the same colors in photoshop. It does seem to be that there's some control somewhere that I can't find, that's causing the face texture to be duller/greyer than the neck and abdomen, but so far I can't find it, and don't know where to look for further help.
Sometimes it is of value to make a screenshot of all your surface settings for one surface (remember to scroll down, some of them are off the bottom of your window) and then compare it side-by-side to the settings for the other surface. Whichever parameter is different will then visually jump out at you.
Yes I have carefully checked all the settings on both to make sure they're all identical, and they are.
However, of course the bump and spec maps are different of course, could that make such a difference? The bump and spec maps are standard that came with the original figure and it seems that they shouldn't be causing a problem like this. None of the other regions of the figure have this problem... only the face vs neck.
Are there any settings anywhere else that affect the appearance or way light is scattering off the two textures?
It is certainly possible. For example, perhaps negative bumps might create microscopic shadow patterns, thus darkening the material. While one would expect this to not be in a commercial product, commercial products do periodically have errors so it is possible, although I bet the issue will turn out to be something else once you get it solved.
One possibility is the accidental overwrite of one of those original images, although I don't know how likely that is, but if that were the issue a simple product reinstall would fix it (but back up those images first, in case you actually needed them wherever they were supposed to be saved if that's it!)
Another possibility is that you somehow confused the materials for two different products. I've miscategorized things before, so I it is possible to do. For example, maybe there are two products or two materials within the same product with slightly different settings, and faces to go with each of the two bodies, and you have one of the faces that goes with the other body material. I have at least one product that had 2 VERY similar materials, and at first I thought I was seeing exactly what you describe until I realized that there were 2 sets, not 1 set, of materials included in the product.
I've check carefully and it can't be the bump or spec maps. The neck and face ones are nearly identical in grescale tone for both.
About the product switch, why would it matter what product they're from, if all the settings are identical, and the two textures are the same colors and thus should react the same to light? Unless there are secret settings/controls somewhere else that need to be changed also?
It would only matter if they were different. If you say the those two differences aren't the cause, then I do not know the answer. Hopefully somebody else can suggest something we are both overlooking.
Two different products while having the same settings/lighting/etc won't have the same rendered look. There are many different reasons...but most of them are in the fact that even if the two texture sets started from the same resource package, everything done to them to make the finished product is going to build differences...even the simple fact that both vendors used different color profiles in Photoshop would throw the end results off enough to not match.
Select the face or the body in the Surfaces tab (whichever one you want to keep), then right click and copy. That will copy the settings...then select the other one...and paste. You will need to reload the diffuse map (just the map). This will make sure that every thing else...SSS settings, IOR, etc are the same.
That's actually a very good reason not to have identical other (non-map) parameter settings for the two surfaces. Look at the actual texture images, and you'll see a difference in scales — if the face texture were created to the same scale as the rest-of-the-body texture that it joins on to, it would be tiny. In fact, the face is usually the largest-scale texture used on a human-ish figure, because most of the viewer's attention will usually be on it. This mismatch in scale must be allowed for in the parameter settings that define how the texture maps are applied to the figure. E.g. the bump maps; if both surfaces used the same bump values for similar-toned maps, there would be a visible seam at the join when you render, because the small-scale neck bump wouldn't match the large-scale face bump.
Thanks, this makes a lot of sense. So in this case, noticing that the face texture is appearing more grey/dull, how would you recommend I shift the settings, and on which maps? Perhaps reduce the bump map on the face and it will look more saturated and less grey? If you could give me a starting point to think about which maps to adjust and why, it would be helpful to me and others who may discover this problem in the future.
Thanks.
Much headscratching here; I think I might have been going on no longer accurate info (it was from someone here on the forums a few years ago) — I just went over the face and neck settings on V6 and the base G2F with a fine-tooth comb, and they are identical, so all the differences must be built into the texture maps.
How exactly did you get to the different-looking materials in your first post? Note, incidentally, that you're looking at the Viewport there, which will not reflect the fine details of the finished render. It looks almost as if there's something odd about the glossiness, the ambient, or both.
Another thought, this time about the eyes; have you tried rendering yet? Because that area of "all black" and "white line" is where the Cornea material is. And the Cornea very definitely falls into the category of "might look very different when you render". If you've tweaked the sclera texture to get rid of the white — it isn't, it's the thin shaving of actual iris colour without the cornea in the way — then the eyes when rendered might look a bit weird.