I use blender mostly for pinups/static scenes and everytime I try to make my own lighting from scratch it makes me feel like a retard who doesn't know how to use blender. I've seen a few youtube tutorials herre and there, as well as attempting to copy other artists, but feel like I have no foundational knowledge.
>>1022747Can't hurt to find a basic lighting course or tutorial to learn the ropes like 3 point and all that. Beyond the basics, something I've seen the other day in glitch's unteal fest presentation is you find shots you like in a movie then try to replicate their lighting to understand how they work. That'll give you an array of possible lighting setups/mood to use when you need them
>>1022751chud, blender can do all of that
>>1022756Yeah, I'm not saying to use unreal, I'm saying to follow the workflow not specific to unreal but shown in an unreal presentation.
>>1022756One thing blender can’t do when trying to light a specific event is the ability to control shadows. That’s what you’re describing and missing, no it’s not contrast, it’s not value of opacity or anything like that. Blender literally isn’t designed for movie production thus lacks control over important lighting effects.
>>1022763Nah, it can do that fine
>>1022747Have you tried learning?
>>1022768It's fun because the image is the thumbnail for a lighting tutorial
>>1022747I tried learning from real cinematography once and all I got is that you should backlit everything
>>1022770Then you should backlit everything.
Attach each light to a camera frame the subject / scene in an aesthetic way from different angles.You don't have to think about it that way. If the view is interesting from the POV of the light it's a good light.The other part is proper post process compositing, render each light with a separate light group and adjust exposure in the post processor.If you have colored light or different CCT for each light use the vectorscope to balance the image into complementary colors.I assume you know how to create a ring light if not look it up.
>>1022766Control =/= mimic or change the objective operation. Know the difference noob.
>>1022769Yes, it's almost like the OP directly references the watching of tutorials already, if you could read.Why is this website accessible from the third world
>>1022786If OP had actually followed those tutorials their question wouldn't exist
The best teachers of lighting aren't artists but photographers and cynematographers.Don't bother learning from 2D guys or 3D character artists.The best teachers are film teachers and photographers if you wanna learn shit like lighting and color language and composition.
You need to kight your scene like it's a studio not like how your real scene wohld really be lit.
>>1022818I didn't know you were this based, cris
>>1022747you use light and shadow to highlight form and draw the eyeyou use contrast to make things stand outyou use interesting/weird lights or gobos to make things look interesting or weirdbig lights are softsmall lights are hard and sharpcongratulations you just graduated from my lighting academy
>>1022818The problem with this is that anyone stupid and helpless enough to ask this question won't have had any good movies or photographs worth studying made in their lifetime.
you gotta spend a lot of time, more time than you thinki work as a lighting artist in a aaa company on unrealthe truth is so many people could do it if they just spent more time trying stuff and looking at refyour scene needs to look good first, you can make a bad scene look ok with 3D but it's not gonna be waouhI use arnold on my personal project, don't know if it's the same as with blender but i guess you can put pretty much as many light as possible ? because my scene has a small light everywhere that fakes a small part of my image. and if you can put a lot of light you're in luck because thats fun to do, not like unreal where you have to come up with shortcut to not destroy your perfjust spend as much time as possible to try stuff, look online, even ask ai what setup you could
>>1022747you know back in the old days of making movies you would literally have to have a team of people move different big hot lights around and rig up different filters and shapes for the light, just to experiment with how one configuration would look on one scene.They'd kill for something like blender where you can teach yourself an intuitive sense of lighting so easily.Play with it and look at at how it's done in photography and movies until you grasp the fundamentals.One thing you can try is set up a key, fill and back light to your scene, parent them to an empty inside your main subject, and rotate the lights around and observe how the feeling of the scene changes. this is not an exact science and depends on recognizing "good" vs "bad" lighting (having good taste) and learning what adjustments move you from one state towards the other. Try to replicate references that you think have great lighting.i recommend using an emissive shader on circles and planes for this, with cycles render.Experiment with changing the shape/size of the lights, and the emissive strength, using the kelvin scale for color temperature, putting an interesting shape between your subject and light (as demonstrated in your image), Then, you can graduate into realism by modeling detail into the lights themselves and the rest of the scene, which will impact the lighting and add necessary detail to specular reflections.you can bake an entire light setup into an hdri to save on calculation and have a deployable version to use in any scene.Think about using motivated lighting, which is when you make a source of light part of the composition.
>>1023455Blender had their chance in the 90s, Maya was the better choice. Stop spreading misinformation.
>>1023456would you rather have 90s blender BUT you have to pay $255 a month for it, OR,, would you rather have maya 2026 but it's free forever. choose carefully...
>>1023457But maya 2026 is not nearly as good as blender, even for free
>>1023459Rigging, animation, cloth physics and hair are superior to blender
>>1023590Got some details?
>>1023591>>1023459Rigging can achieve faster results and builds. Blender is still stuck with old ways of weight painting, too much dependent on prebuilt tools, lacks MoCap (Plugins required), etc. The list goes on.Animation in Blender lacks many features such so that Maya already looking into A.I features. Blender has yet to create any A.I feature (again not including plugins). Blender lacks precise keyframes in the editor, lacks tools (no plugins) to help gamedevs easy create animation for characters, etc.Dynamic bones is the best feature Maya has. Blender doesn’t offer it (You have to download a plugin).Maya is better, end of discussion.
>>1023594Cool fanfic. I liek the bit about AI, 3dcg's nemesis
>>1023596If Blender requires plugins to be better than Mays then what happens when the people who create it die or leave. Blender is also only supported because a few developers know how it works, if there’re gone then so will Blender.Stop being in denial, Blender is only getting updates because of old people. Maya has trained professionals with certification to pass on the software to younger generations. Maya has better backing, corporate support and more users. Blender cultists like you will die off with Blender.
>>1023591animbot is one gem which surpasses Blender.
>>1023602Some animbot functionality is already built into blender for free, really basic stuff that is insulting you have to pay for it because Maya is so lacking
>>1023602>>1023603>Requires a plugin instead of fixing or updating animation tools
>>1022747you could always just read a bookany art book, especially photography, is going to cover different light set upsyoutube tutorials are fucking terrible these days, they just want to shill their courses that don't teach anything you couldn't find for free
>>1023611LOOMIS
