I can’t believe you didn’t model this yourself. I was going to say this was really really really really great. It’s only really really really great. Better luck next time Jeff.

I already gave props to Jeff about his render work. I also know that he didnt have time to make a car himself. He wanted to comment on the subject of me responding to another reader about my opinion. We figured out that we couldnt come to an agreement. I called a truce and he agreed. Its the end of the so called “venting” that others think we are doing.

“car so what, the car would have still been copied, its a SLR.  “

Of course it would have been copied, but using reference pictures to build your OWN SLR is a hell of a lot different. Youre literally building an exact duplicate from a bunch of polys, vertices, etc with a keyboard and a mouse. Then applying a render solution on top of that.

“No, if you use a Maths formula is that cheating because, you did not create it, Jeff did not make Mental ray or 3dmax, or the computer that solved the render approximation/solution you see above.”

No, but if you have someone do the calculations for you on the math formula, thats cheating, thats what buying a model is doing to your scene, your cheating yourself and in turn thinking that just because you rendered a scene with someone elses model that you did a good job? I think hes cheating himself . Like I said, rendering is 1/8 the battle.

Oops, I’m sorry Boom!

I used a large HDR for the environment map in 3dsmax.  I also applied a smaller, blurred version of the same .hdr to the only light source in the scene, a skylight.  These .HDR’s are from the Dosch HDRI Car Background series:
http://www.doschdesign.com/products/hdri/Car_Backgrounds.html

It’s generally a good idea to use a small blurred version of the .hdr for the lighting because you can use fewer FG samples and get a clean FG solution.  The problem with doing this is that you lose any hope of detailed shadows from the .hdr.  However, that doesn’t bother me because I normally use a .hdr as a secondary light source in combination with regular light sources in 3dsmax.  The normal light sources provide my accurate shadows while the .hdr provides realistic colored ‘soft’ lighting.

In this scene since the car is in shadow, I didn’t need to implement any other light source other than the skylight.  If the car was in the sun, I would have added a mrSun to the scene.  FWIW, here’s a screen grab:
http://forums.cgsociety.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=125652

As you can see it’s a very basic setup.  The textured car is sitting on a plane which has the mr Matte/Shadow/Reflection material applied to it. 

One of the main things to consider when working with a scene like this is gamma.  A .hdr SHOULD be linear (gamma 1.0)...but there’s no guarantee that it’s properly saved that way, it could be saved as gamma 2.2 (or somewhere in between).  I normally look at the .hdr’s in Photoshop (CS3 or higher) or HDRshop.  By doing so I can see how it’s supposed to look.  If you load the .hdr into 3dsmax and it looks different from the same HDR in Photoshop or HDRshop, then it’s probably because of your gamma settings.  An easy way to solve this is to place the .hdr inside the mental ray gamma/gain shader so you can quickly and easily adjust the gamma settings of the .hdr to it’s proper value.

@ Jeff: so many posts and I still don’t have an awnser to my “non-venting” question? :(

and yes,Jeff is one of my lead-examples in rendering, just like MBM and such. So please, can we stop the venting, show some respect to the people who actually help us noobs in rendering? Cause Jeff is a mighty help in my rendering-spree.

ps: my question was posted on the first page i think… was about the environment map?

greetings, Boom

Lets just say even if Jeff who is a Render God! (syndicate5 you should google Jeff, hes the man) had mad the car so what, the car would have still been copied, its a SLR. 
The Industry is split into sectors, render/ lighting dudes, model makers, textures artists, etc, one man does not alway do it all, (do you think one man actually designed the XLR your mad, hundreds of people made it, artists and engineers) and as for cheating?
No, if you use a Maths formula is that cheating because, you did not create it, Jeff did not make Mental ray or 3dmax, or the computer that solved the render approximation/solution you see above. but the fact is Jeff can render like a [censored].

Keep rendering Jeff you are the man!

You got that right.

Look, you’ve made several comments that I simply can’t agree with.  However that’s your opinion, I have mine and they differ from yours.  We both realize these are simply our own unique opinions and as such one is not “more right” than another.  We simply view some things differently.  Knowing this, I think it’s time we agree to disagree and move on.

Apparently you posted this work on here for a reason. Critique on your lighting and render skills? Apparently you wanted some sort of confirmation that you did a good job on this? I respect the works that people have submitted when they did build everything in the scene and am VERY impressed with attention to detail.  I do think it as cheating if someone tries to pull it off as a creation of their own. I understand that your under a deadline and that buying a model to use for that deadline is acceptable, but to post your scene on a forum only to gather comments and praise because of the work on this that you did do is questionable. I also DO realize that there are people with their primary role as to texture and light scenes. If thats all they know how to do, I think of them as potential artists, but not the full gamut.

“In the process of sharing your personal thoughts you’ve also insulted me by insinuating that I’m somehow ‘cheating’ simply because I used a free model in a lighting, materials, and composition test scene....and oh my GOD...I dared to post my test on a public forum!  I should be banished from the community for such a horrible sin!”

One thing that you should realize is that you shouldnt be insulted by anyones comments in here. Merely taken with a grain of salt. Im sure you do good work other than what you have posted here. Also, you have done a great job in rendering, composition lighting, materials on this scene, I forgot to include that in the first comment. I will step back and apologize for any disrespect not because im claiming any sort of flaw in my stance, but to create a better atmosphere of discussion and mutual respect for one another and others in here.

Think of it as this, your scene is great and it does take a great deal of knowledge to render a scene correctly, believe me, I know (working with Mental Ray as my only render engine). But as a second note, I offer my opinion in general that other artists should not fall to the idea that its ok to buy models and slip them into their scenes and call it their own work, this is why I have not bowed to the thought of selling any of mine.

“But alas, that’s merely my opinion and I’m certainly not arrogant enough to expect other people to share the same thoughts as I or condemn those that do not.”

As for as an arrogance to hoping that others share my same opinion on this. I think many, or ALL would agree that buying models and trying to pass them off as their own (unlike your scene) is offensive, down-right stupid and cheating. I think other forum members as well are very diligent on keeping an eye open to “artists” passing off others’ work as their own. If it grows rampant, this will dilute legitimate works.

Posting critiques of others works is totally acceptable.  But sharing your opinion that one has to model everything in a scene before it’s considered ‘legitimate’ or ‘art’ is nothing short of ridiculous.  You obviously don’t realize that there are many people working in the industry today that are lighting artists / texture artists that primarily light & texture models created by other people on a daily basis.  Does that make them ‘cheaters’ or less of an artist than the guy that can model great but doesn’t light or texture the scene/object, or that isn’t proficient at texturing or lighting? Of course not!

Had I posted this render and tried to pass off the model as my own that would be a HUGE problem.  However, I clearly stated what I was responsible for in the image. I clearly stated where the model came from and even provided a link to it for others.  I even stated how it’s a simple test render of lighting, materials and composition.  So there’s no foul play going on here...and I honestly find your strong insinuations of me somehow ‘cheating’ rather offensive.

Yes, of course we all post our renders on forums like this to better ourselves by getting critiques from others.  And often that is merely someones opinion of how something should look or act.  But clearly here you have provided no such useful information, only your opinion of how EVERYONE should work or think.  In the process of sharing your personal thoughts you’ve also insulted me by insinuating that I’m somehow ‘cheating’ simply because I used a free model in a lighting, materials, and composition test scene....and oh my GOD...I dared to post my test on a public forum!  I should be banished from the community for such a horrible sin!

Why do you think there are successful ‘model for sale’ sites like Turbosquid?  Because often people simply don’t have the time (or skill-set) to model everything in a scene, especially when deadlines are tight.  Personally speaking, If I can purchase a model, meet or beat my deadline, AND support the person that created the model...man, that sounds like a win/win scenario to me.  But alas, that’s merely my opinion and I’m certainly not arrogant enough to expect other people to share the same thoughts as I or condemn those that do not.

Your right Jeff, its my opinion, and the fact that I kept my attention long enough to post a comment was for the sake of the other reader, not you. No steam blowing here. I was merely concerned for the other guy that thought you created the car also, and lost interest in your scene. Now if you can post work that you have entirely created, Im sure I will be impressed with it, also Ive seen some work on here to where they have scanned an object and implemented it in the scene and then just added materials. That s cheating also. Thats not art. I agree that most of the time, its best to keep opinions to ourselves, but isnt this what this forum is all about? Posting our OPINIONS and critiquing others’ work? Im glad you at least told us that you bought the car.