cards (a good hand)

can’t decide if i like where this is going.
but i haven’t posted a WIP for a while.
blender 2.40 (rendered internally)

Why are some of the cards different colors? Or is there some wierd shading happening? Prehaps a larger number of chips and some wine in the glass, good start. :slight_smile:

yeah, that’s all coming.
the cards are fractal designs, and the grey gradiant area needs to be cleaned off of the texture… i just haven’t gotten around to it.

commenty on the chip

it looks a little too bright/clean/nice for the rest of the scene. Did you maybe have emit on or something? it just looks kind of unnaturally white, especially in a scene that’s so gray.

getting closer.
something went wrong with my glass… i’ll have to fix it.
and the cards are cut off or something.

The cards don’t seem to have any depth at all. Try raising the cards over each other so that they create a shadow ont he one beneath it.

they are over each other.
the dimentions are right… i’ll fool with it tonight.

When lighting a shot like this one, you need to back-off on the key-lights that are pointed at the cards. You do not want the light to bounce directly off those cards, directly into the camera lens. It needs to strike them at an oblique angle, which will also provide the shadow-lines needed to make them stand apart from one another. It will eliminate “hot spots” on the card surfaces. It will also make the poker-chip believable.

(Remember the great digital trick of the “layer light” … the magic lantern that shines only upon objects in a specified layer or layers and doesn’t “see” any others. Oh, if only we had such a thing in a studio!)

(One of) The materials that is used for the card surface needs to incorporate a slight amount of scattering for the light: the surface of a playing card is slightly buffed: it is not “shiny.”

As a general rule of thumb, “specular highlights” from the lighting should be minimized, because they create all-white areas that make the shot extremely difficult to print. And, when you do have a highlight, you want it to feel “real” and explainable, in the imagined “reality” of the scene. You do not want it to say “studio.” Certain artifacts, like the double-highlights in the eyes of a hummingbird caused by the lighting rig, cannot be avoided. And “speculars” are good for the all-important rim-defining features like the action on the lip of the cup, which you have to have so that the viewer can see the nature of the rim. These should be tiny.

The material of any water-glass is not so sufficiently transparent that you can see right through it to the boards below… especially if the glass is full of liquid. Save yourself some trouble and use a beer-mug instead. That object is simply a “prop,” not the center of attention, so we simply need “something that works,” that’s easy to model and shoot, and that doesn’t contain any visual falsehoods.

A cardinal rule of photography is: “Something that fails to ring true (upon closer inspection) is infinitely more acceptable than something that rings false.” You can easily deflect the viewer’s attention away from insignificant “cheats” that made shooting the picture much easier, but anything that his eye detects as an outright falsehood (or that destroys the “3D illusion”) screams for attention (even if the user doesn’t perceive what it is that “feels wrong”), and having done so, overpowers everything else.