Oh oh....

SpaghettiOs!!!

I was originally going to post this in the WIP section, but I don’t think this is much else I want to do with it. Leave crits/suggestions please.

Blender 2.44. Rendered in Indigo 09t6.
Some light post pro in Photoshop.

http://home.pjwarez.com/spaghettios.jpg

They look really good…too good. If you wanted to really take it to the next level, I’d add a very VERY light bump map of some kind on the metal. That way, on the can on the right, it wouldn’t look like it was as smooth as glass.

I’d also do something with the labels. Maybe a slight tear in one, scuffs on another.

With the lighting that you have, it looks great.

Oh…I know that you are the master of tile floors, you should model a kitchen counter and tile it. Almost like a studio setup but with a tile back splash.

Looks good… BTW how long was the render time for this in Indigo?

It was an overnight render. About eight hours.

Very nice! The only thing that bugs me is that the metal is completely smooth and there is no use by date or printing on the can lid.

A price tag would be cool too!

I could do all that, but coming from an advertising background I tend to look at things as Product Shots. How a client would like to see it.

It may be fun to add some imperfections. If I did would I have to ask the moderators move this thread to the WIP section?

OK… An update.

1: Added a price tag on the cans (now you all know where a lazy, single bachelor who can’t cook buys his Spaghettios from)

  1. Redid the bump map on the tile and increased the reflection a bit. Looks more like ceramic tile now.

  2. Added a low intensity, yellow light to the left to add some warmth and bring out some details. I think the reds in the label pop a little more.

  3. Added a crease where the label wraps around the can and overlaps itself. You can see it on the can on the right.

  4. Did a network render with 3 computers and 5 threads going for over 20 hours!

Other than that I did try to add a bump to the can lids, but it ended up looking like metallic wood, so I took it back out.

Enjoy.

http://home.pjwarez.com/spaghettios2.jpg

Ok, it’s very good. But what else did you do?

I can barely see the first image, the second one is day-bright, as if you opened the room-darkening blinds!
Did you adjust the gamma for CRT’s instead of LCD’s? Either that or the yellow light was not as low-intensity as you thought. If fact, the second one has lost too much shadow for my taste, there’s barely any left.

looking nice, only its slightly too bright, darken it down just a teeny tiny bit

I quite agree with the 2 last posts…
Besides, i think i’d change the ground a little bit. For some reason it looks a bit too flat , i mean the joints between the tiles are usually 2mm lower than the tiles or so… and the edges of the tiles rounded. Right now they miss this “thickness” feeling.
Otherwise, great work.

Apart from that, i think i need to have a break away from Blender: i keep reading " Metaballs" instead of “Meatballs” !

Different people have differently lit moniotrs, you wont please everyone on brightness. A teeny bit more DOF would be good, a little bit more caustic reflections and some kind of feature to make the tiled surface look more interesting like having a working surface edge or something. I owuld also have a little bit of soft noise to simulate photograin if you want a bit more realism.

OK… I darkened this one a bit postpro. As Animal said, it’s somewhat difficult to judge monitor to monitor, but I think you’ll like this one more.

http://home.pjwarez.com/spaghettios3.jpg

Very, very nice. This balance is definitely more realistic, on my CRT at least.
BTW, I wasn’t really complaining before. It had a definite “product shot” brightness, I just wondered what you had done.

nice :slight_smile: 5 stars

I like it better before the darkening.

Looking good. Like dgebel said, I like the second one for its “product shot” look. But the third is more photoreal. It doesn’t have to be about choosing one or the other, in my opinion, since it depends on what the pic is to be used for. If piching to a client - 2nd one. If putting in a frame to decorate your home with - 3rd.
Nice work.

Nice modelling and rendering!

One crit though: the thing that’s called spaghetti in your render, isn’t spaghetti. Every Italian will get a heart attack when he sees this.

Ciao!

Its a nice job, but I do have some thoughts to ponder:

Coming from an advertising background, would you put the cans on the floor? If it isn’t the floor, it is a very wide/deep bench and the tiles are quite large for a benchtop.

The last render is spot on brightness-wise for my CRT, but the HDRI light source really is blown out which from an advertising point of view would probably be a no-no.

Finally, most but not all cans I have seen have ribbed sides which would show a little under the label. This may not be one of those cans.

P.S. Gallardo…they are spaghettiOs not spaghetti.

Goosey,

You are correct in that I’m being somewhat contradictory. If it were truly a product shot, it most likely wouldn’t be on the floor, the cans wouldn’t have price tags, and the cans would all be standing upright and facing forward.

As far as the ridges, I was going to ad those but I’m not sure how well the bump would show it in this lighting setup.

For the HDRI going to white, not necessarily. I’ve seen ads (and worked on many) were the photo does go to white. The white area usually leads to an area of body copy. Viewing it purely as a photo shot, you are correct and there should be some detail. In 4 color printing they tend to like to have at least a 5 - 10% dot in both the highlight and shadow areas.