Edit: updated work
Does the grape look fine? How is it composition wise?
5 Likes
I like the top one better. More colorful, and interesting to look at. The bottom one looks a little flat in comparison.
1 Like
I like the depth of field on the second one. That background on the first is a bit too bright. But the second I think misses a bit of light from behind and the sky looks a bit dark and you have too many reflections. It makes it difficult to see the wine.
Ist one is better on multiple levels, IMO.
Thanks! For the second one I wanted to make an overcast look. @Modron @Magnavis
@Calandro Thanks! That’s the HDRI. How to dull the background but keep the HDRI light info?
You can use a Light path node as a factor to mix a dull version of the ambient with the normal one. Use “is singular ray” and put the dull version on the second slot of the mix node. This way you reduce the reflections but keep the lights.
But be careful not to make it look unreal.
Really? Comparing from different angles with different sizes of image? (Following the glass material thread right now by the way…) … okay from a material noop 
and you are asking more about the impression:
The first maybe has to bright background… i almost want to squint my eyes to see the bottle… Maybe it’s also to centered?? (I found this wonderfull wine tasting advert example https://www.romeanditaly.com/accessible/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2019/12/Wine-Tasting-Experience-02-min.jpg .)
One the second i recognise: the bottle neck seems to be… weird ? Slidly wrong proportions ? And maybe also the botom of the glass… (and now i see it in the first one too). Anyway also nice composition maybe to sharp??
(I found also an example but with rosé here https://www.besthealthmag.ca/list/wine/ it seems to be less sharp)
The grapes i guess are photos and they blend in perfectly.
Again just my two cent 
.
1 Like
The grapes are not photos. Thanks for the feedback. I traced a photo for the bottle.
I have also made the background a little dull and changed the HDRI on the second one. “is Camera Ray” worked @Calandro @Magnavis
3 Likes
WHHAAAATTT ??? 
The surface alteration because of the touched locations are perfect…
2 Likes
Now the reflection lets us see the wine. Did you see what a bit of light coming from behind gives to the appearance of the wine? It’s a bit more vivid, but not too much. I like the surface imperfections on the surface of the glass, but you need to remember that this kind of thing is acceptable in a situation where you reproduce a daily scene, but if that is for advertising purposes you should not use that or make that so soft that we could almost not notice.
Another suggestion I would make is to work on the roughness of the wood I believe that is a good situation where you could use a soft touch of what is being discussed here: Micro/angle dependent Roughness & Iridescence
And the node group to help with that you can find here: https://blendswap.com/blend/19982
Thanks a lot for the feedback @Calandro
I tried the Micro Roughness shader but couldn’t see any difference. is there an ELI5 for that? From what I understand, at grazing angle, the wood texture and color should disappear?
Not exactly. Basically, materials like that should apparently show more sharp reflections as the relative angle to the camera becomes closer to 0. It’s a bit like the freshnell effect but it affects the perceptible roughness of the material. There’s a video of Chocofur talking about the principle but the node-set he uses there is a bit complicated and @moony created this node group that makes the whole process simpler.
Here you can see Cocofur’s video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KXXyPd83s0
Basically, this is the only thing you really need to use from the shader:
In the roughness slot, you connect your roughness texture or choose a value for the base roughness of your material. In softness, you connect a texture, os a color ramp node, or choose a value for the minimum perceptible roughness of the object. The one you can see when the angle is 0 degrees in relation to the camera. Falloff, you use the slider to control how the two roughness values are mixed.
I thought the values used by Mooney were the default values not to be tempered with? And you just control the roughness with Power math node?
I think you linked the wrong video. Chocofur node setup is just 2 simple nodes and I found it much simpler and better to understand.
Chocofur’s ,method
Money’s (I am not sure what values are to be considered in in the nominal range.
Well, Chocofur’s is simple to understand but a bit harder to control, but it’s nothing terrible, of course. The node group gives you the possibility to control more dynamically. You can reach the exact same results with both methods. You use what you think suit’s you better.
I think there is a little problem with your normals there, or are your wood pieces really round? Maybe you don’t have enough geometry to smooth without creating that effect that I believe is undesired.
When you have activated shader smooth Blender will try to smooth all the normals, so on flat surfaces like that you will need at least an extra line of faces with the same normals between your bevel and the flat part of the wood plank, or blender will bend the normals there, giving that effect you see there.
Here I made an example: On the right side the object has no extra faces to smooth the normals between the bevel and the surface, so it bends the normals and then you can see a reflection that was supposed to be straight making a curve. On the left side, it’s the same object but there I just made an inset of the faces inside the bevel areas, so I have an extra pair of faces around the corners to take care of the smooth effect. Do you see how the reflections are straight there?
Here you can see how the geometries are:
Anyway, why do you say the video link is wrong?
The wood pieces are really round.
Here is the table. I am using Bevel modifier. I have inset the faces like you did. (on the left)
Anyway, why do you say the video link is wrong?
Because you said it’s complex but he just used a layer weight node with RGB curve. Though I understand his node much better.
Ah, lol.
Not complex in the sense you need to create a complicated node-set but its a bit hard to control the curve and have a good result straight away and I think its easier to set in the node group what roughness you want at the start and at the end of the process and control the falloff with the slider. But as I said, choose what suits you better. I know both techniques and could use both, but I prefer the node group.
Oh. I get it now. However my main gist with the node one is that there doesn’t seem be any range. Like with other node we have a range of, say, between 0 to 1. So it’s like too big of a of range to handle and get the values right. I have been trying so long but unable to re-create something like this (the wood doesn’t look too glossy, and there is reflection clearly visible):
The short answer to the original question is that both of these shots are quite good. The only comment that I would make is that the backgrounds should be in focus.
1 Like
How have you been controlling that? I mean, are you in shading mode and seeing the result on the viewport as you use the slider? You know that if you are in preview mode that is like Eevee or if you are in render preview you are going to see the reflections differently, right? The “Eevee preview” always shows stronger reflections than the render preview mode, so if you try to set up anything that affects reflections, you should do that using the render preview mode.
Here:
Try in the falloff values higher than one. Actually, I think you are not going to have good results at 1. Also, the effect is very subtle and depends on the camera focal length you use and the camera angle too. If the camera is too near to the surface or if you use a lens of 50 mm or higher the effect is even softer.
I made this image with a lens of 26 mm.
The table node settings:
And the scene:
1 Like