Post processed in an image editor to adjust colours/BW and added a little noise plus a slight vignette etc. I could have done the post in Blender, but it was quicker without.
Of course the biggest tell-tale is that I doubt anyone was dropping the suspension in the 50’s, but then again who knows
Beautiful render!
I’ve noticed that model feeling too and I was wandering why… and I think Farmfield is right!
It makes sense! When you see a strong DoF you know your looking at something small.
I’m always afraid of that model look when I render my works.
Now I’m aware that DoF causes it.
Thank you Farmfield!
It’s pretty simple. You get short DoF when; 1. You use a macro lens
You use an extremely fast normal lens (like a 50mm f1.2)
You use a tele lens (>135mm)
You can get images with short DoF to NOT look miniature by matching the real world lens. So, use a 200m and that will compress the depth and make short DoF look ‘normal’.
And a fast 50mm can be used to create the miniature look in real life photos, so no sense in duplicating that as you will get that look… But good to know what do do when you want to make something look small, especially if it IS something small, hehe…
And it’s extremely helpful to know photography when working in 3D as you’re actually mimicking optics and how they behave. I myself started out with photography years before I started using computers, it’s why I started using Photoshop back in 1991 and from there became a graphic artist…
I was going to say it might look less like a toy if he adjusts the focal length. Photos too clean to be from the 50’s might want to grunge it up a bit in post to get it to look like it was from the 50’s.
Maybe one of the old farts around here can tell us if anyone was dropping their VW vans back in the 50’s… lol
I realise the shallow depth of field is a bit heavy, it was a bit of a compromise as I wanted to add a fair bit of shallow DOF so that I could blur the background and the edges of the ground - as I didn’t use any compositing in the scene, i.e. shadow pass etc - it’s too difficult at the moment in the compositor, at least for me - I think this is more like my 550D with a 50mm lens - which I know is more for portraits, anyhu.
I agree that I could have added a slight tinge of sepia or blue to the BW, I guess I did say “photorealistic” when I should have said “Filmrealistic” (is that a word? - it is now lol) that’s why I didn’t crop it to 4:3 - I just love certain BWs from the 50’s and early 60’s which are quite subtle in the contrast and a bit washed out - but yeah, it should really be emulating a photo as that’s what people would expect, so yep - noted
I must say there’s a tendency for DoF-porn nowadays, it’s amazingly overused due to Iphone apps faking it a.s.o… And nowadays an image isn’t if it doesn’t look like it’s a bad photo from the '60s, hehe… That’s pretty weird…
I would suggest doing this in full color then compositing it with a converter node to black and white. It just looks a little modely. this way you still have all the color there and it accurately shows what black and white would be.
Awesome render tho, it looks great!
Though that is not how black & white film works. In B&W film the different colors can have different impact from type to type, brand to brand. For a real B&W conversion on actually work on the channels separately, then combine them to a B&W image, a sh*tload of work if you do it in the compositor, hehe… I’d rather go PS for something like that…
theres also no tread on the tires, might wanna change that, also some light shines through the underside of the car, as its not fully resting on the ground…
I actuially think there’s even nomenclature on the tire sides, so I bet there’s threads to.
And I don’t get what you mean with light under the car, there’s of course some bounce light, bit I feel the tires look absolutely connected to the ground…
I’ve tried to push the post as much as I know how for a retro BW 35mm film look, there’s still some Shallow DOF, but it’s just the distant background that’s slightly blurred, more in keeping with a real camera lens I think. The blacks are black and the whites are white, plus theres a little over exposure, film noise and a tiny vignette - oh yeah, it’s now 4:3 and has a slight warm tint.
Personnaly I love using a shallow depth of field when I take pictures, even after having my canon 550D for 2 years, I’m still loving that look. I know over use can make it look like it’s a macro shot with a small toy, but subtly it really draws your attention to the subject.
Anywayz, I’ve also included a studio render - nothing excitting here, it just shows the details that are lost in the post with the BW version.
Aaah, the B&W one is much better with a bit less DoF but I just love that last one - though it makes me think about what I wrote yesterday, hehe, about good photos needing to be bad quality to be good nowadays…
That BW version is gorgeous! It’s so alive, you really hit the mood! Only thing that is disturbing is the sharp horizontal border between blured background and not-so-blured ground plane. (it’s visible in front of the car). Otherwise it’s just awesome
Thanks guys for you comments, I quite liked the studio post render too myself, only took a couple of minutes to do.
I agree, bad quality photo styles make renders look a lot better - someone said a while ago - rendering isn’t trying to recrete the real world, it’s trying to re-create what you see on film/screen.
But I’m pretty pleased with how it turned out, might not fool us modellers/renderers, but it’d fool the average guy on the street if you didn’t tell them it was fake.
I would have added more detail to the ground plane, i.e. more objects to simulate the environment, barrier, concrete wall etc. As with most of my stuff, it was just a proof of concept for myself and just wanted to share it, I expect others will do better than me if they take the notion and time.
Hehe, but what I ment, or rather reflected over, was how we’ve come to a point where bad quality somehow have become ‘artistic’ thus ‘good’. By that logic any old photo is cool just because it’s worse quality. It’s just such a weird phenomena, hehe…
And a render should of course be the way it’s intended by the artist. If it’s intended to be photorealistic it’s a failure if you can see it’s a render…
I really love the way old photos/films look, whether it’s wrong or right it doesn’t matter - personnaly I love to watch old movies, BW or ealry colour, they seem so peaceful, and focussed on what is important, composition and the story etc. compared to a lot of modern day stuff the way they are shot, (I think I watched too many old films as a kid - what else was there on TV in the 70’s and early 80’s?) - colour really does detract from the subject sometimes - I’m probably rambling, it’s friday night and I’ve had a few shots, anyhoo
Also I think a photo tells a story whatever the quality, same as a painting. I think there’s too much emphasis on making things look hyper real, a little bit of an artistic theme - if you can achieve it, is the obvious route. What’s the point in making renders look perfect, when you can make things have an ambience and an artistic style in some way, even if it’s an old photograph - I think that’s what I should aim for in the future.
If it’s a phenonema/trend to like old style photography such as poor quality lomo style toy cameras, or polariod instants, so be it I say, I love it
I set out to make it look like a 50’s style photo (eventually) - without doing the obvious warn edges, and scratches etc, did I accomplish anything? I’d love to see others take on this topic and try something similar, you don’t see this very often in blender or other 3D apps that much.
If anyone is interested in the VW bus, I’ll be uploading the studio render to blend swap over the next few days
)
- I think this is more like my 550D with a 50mm lens - which I know is more for portraits, anyhu.
