What's more important when creating a series of images

[Anonymous No.594595]

1. Keeping the lighting consistent across all images...at the expense of some images being imperfectly lit.

or

2. Having each image lit perfectly...at the expense of losing a consistent look across all images.

Pic related

[Anonymous No.594605]

>>594595
>lit perfectly
so.. pic definitely not related

[Anonymous No.594607]

>>594595
2.

perfect lightning all day errday my nignog

[Anonymous No.594609]

>>594605
pic was example of the imperfect

[Anonymous No.594616]

You can bet your ass there's no such thing as "imperfect lighting" in the entertainment industry.

Just think of a film - they change the lighting and post on a shot-per-shot basis to ensure everything always looks perfect. As long as you have control over where the viewer will look, you should strive to do the same.

[Anonymous No.594621]

>>594616
Perfect is relative

[Anonymous No.594635]

>>594595
lighting is irrelevant if you're just making 3d pron.
nobody that cranks it to 3d is gonna lose out on a nut just 'cause the lighting was a bit off.

[Anonymous No.594636]

>>594635
wrong!

[Anonymous No.594638]

>>594635
true
3D porn is retarded and made for basement dwellers.. nobody gives a shit about lighting for this kind of thing

[Anonymous No.594642]

>>594635
>>594638

Neckbeard money is money. Anyway, you really think so about the lighting or is this the equivalent of advising me to System32?

[Anonymous No.594644]

>>594616
Usually I don't need to change the lighting for each pic since I usually make stuff in a room with lighting set up so there's no dark corners. However this time the action is outdoors and there's only one light, the sun. I just feel that if I move the sun around it'll irk some people like "what? they've been fucking for 7 hours?!?!?, why is it dusk now?"

Maybe I'm overthinking it.

[Anonymous No.594650]

>>594642
I really think so
I'm a rendering artist btw so don't get me wrong, I give a shit about lighting, but when it comes to porn i'm convinced it doesnt matter much: even if you go for the artistic pron vibe, it's still a 3D cringefest made solely for profit, for which I have nothing but despise

[Anonymous No.594652]

>>594650
I respect your honesty.

[Anonymous No.594653]

>>594644
> ... there's only one light, the sun ...
If I recall correctly, light disperses in the atmosphere, causing things to be lit from a wider angle than just relative to the sun's position. I don't know what program you're using, but I think you would want to use a skylight/ambient light/hemi lamp (3ds Max/Maya/Blender) in addition to a directional light/sun lamp (3ds Max & Maya/Blender)
You should also account for light that bounces off the environment; but if you don't want to spend extra rendering time on global illumination computations, you could probably get away with a low intensity point light, that you could position wherever as the scene requires, to fill in any unwanted shadowed areas.
If done correctly, you probably won't need to change the lighting at all since your subjects would be lit like real people are in an actual outdoor scene. You would only need to move the point light around if you do decide to go that path.

[Anonymous No.594687]

>>594653
That's really good advice

[Anonymous No.594688]

>>594653
That's correct. Basically the default way most pros light (outside of realtime game engines that might not support it) is HDRI + additional lights as needed.

You don't even need to add a sun, because your HDRI should have one by default (you can always add one to boost it tho).
HDRIs get you nice lighting with minimal effort, so it is basically the shortest and easiest path (sometimes even easier than placing a sun and trying to make it work).

[Anonymous No.594705]

>>594688
The reason I don't use HDRI's in my current setup (software, render engine) is that the light seems to be very "flat" and doesn't show up high specular/glossiness settings on skin so I can't make stuff look oily or wet. Also it restricts the angles I can use otherwise the HDRI image would be visible in the image.

The sun in the engine I'm using has a unique look that I've tried replicating with lights set to the rgb/kelvin values for actual sunlight (I literally looked those things up on the internet). But it looks crap because the sun thing has settings for real world things like atmospheric turbulence which regular lights don't.

I have no formal training in 3d, I admit that. I "tunnelled in" to this. Figured out how to mod/re-sculpt existing models in zbrush, fluid simulations in Realflow, etc. If I want people to give me money for the stuff I make I want to give them the best that I can make...even if that best is being put in porn. Know what I mean?

Sorry for the blogpost, it may be a cringefest but I like this stuff.

[Anonymous No.594706]

>>594705
>The reason I don't use HDRI's in my current setup (software, render engine) is that the light seems to be very "flat" and doesn't show up high specular/glossiness settings on skin so I can't make stuff look oily or wet.
well for one, you're using an outdated workflow. Spec/gloss is done. Throw it in the garbage.

>Also it restricts the angles I can use otherwise the HDRI image would be visible in the image.
this...this doesnt make any sense.

>I have no formal training in 3d, I admit that. I "tunnelled in" to this. Figured out how to mod/re-sculpt existing models in zbrush, fluid simulations in Realflow, etc.
Thats obvious.

No one uses zbrush anymore, we use blender dynotopo and houdini to sim.

[Anonymous No.594712]

>>594706
>No one uses zbrush anymore, we use blender dynotopo and houdini to sim

[Anonymous No.594713]

>>594712
>no args
off yourself

[Anonymous No.594715]

>>594706

whoops forgot I was on 4chan! cuck, soyboy, patrician, goose, meme etc

[Anonymous No.594717]

>>594712
>>594715
samefag

[Anonymous No.594734]

>>594717
Nope, OP, try again.

[Anonymous No.594737]

>>594706
Keep telling people to give up zbrush and put no effort into lighting their porn you retard. Is this what using Blender does to people?