Ok so guys I really need your help on this one, I am working on a character called Nanette, she’s a gorgeous frog, and if you have seen Gnomeo and Juliet you’ll probably recognize her.
But I have been staring at my renders for the past 5 hrs, trying to perfect the shot and eventually I lost my sense of judgment as to what’s wrong with my render and what needs to be corrected.:spin: There are things certainly “off” about the render below and I’m having a hard time finding them. If you notice any problem or artifact please leave a comment. So basically all I’m asking is a critique.
P.S. Renders are made in Blender Internal
Here’s what I’m trying to recreate(actual shot from the movie):
Nice! I think all you need is slightly better lighting(perhaps a spotlight from the left like in the original render) and you can get very close to the original render.
Awesome work! The material and texturing is very good. It’s pretty obvious though that the rosey background was just “placed” in behind her. Here’s some recommendations:
Texture the background to a plane (instead of just compositing it in) and make it’s material shadeless.
Cast dark soft shadows.
Create and add some petals on her like in the original image. Make sure some petals overlap both her and the bg.
Place a few petals a distance in front of the camera. This will allow you to add DoF.
Composite with the “fog glow” effect with the glare node.
Model and texture very good, congratulations! But in your rendering it seems that she asleep or has just woken up, and I believe that with the right look you can recreate the correct expression of character! How about there? would be enough to make her looking at camera, what do you think?
The original does several subtle things. They defined the wrist and the slight cupping of the palms. The eyes are looking straight at you and there are catch-lights in the eyes. (There are also subliminals in the nearby shrubbery!) Their arms have more-defined muscles, and yet there’s a solid-shadow thingy that took an entire bite out of the underside of the left bicep… it’s literally not-there. (Inexcusable.)
They’re using a different lighting setup, with a tightly focused key-light and a different colored fill-light. All of their lights are colored. It’s a three-point setup with a very tightly focused hair-light that’s falling across the nose. The lipstick probably has a hand-painted lighter line in it, unless that’s coming from the hair-light.
… and, I must say, I don’t particularly care for the look. They “Disney-fied” it.
Actually, I like your interpretation better, even though the character is not looking straight at me and has, if I may cautiously say it, at least in the small renders a slightly “stoned” expression; slightly cross-eyed. (Set some explicit on- or off-frame point for both eyes to be focused on, using an empty and constraints.)
In the original, they used a too-tight bullseye spotlight with unrealistic falloff, and they dumped a bucketload of blur onto it. Yours, on the other hand, are sharp, and more realistically illuminated. I like yours better.
Thanks for the response guys. @xy.exe the roses are actual geometry that I modeled, I didn’t what the bg to feel flat but now I’m having a hard time creating the lighting. I’ll work on the shadows
@ sparazza now that I look at it she actually looks sleepy. Thanks
@ sundialsvc4 Thanks for pointing out what I missed in the lighting. I’ll work on the hair light and show my progress
in the meantime here are screen shots from my scene
so I made many adjustments until I finally got a render I am fairly pleased with. I added the shadow, adjusted the eyes bit and did lots compositing in GIMP
Everything is great, I think she should be a little more “plump” - the proportions aren’t exactly the same as on the reference. Otherwise, very impressive!
