Arctic Camp

Tks guys for your comments. No ibl involved here, it's a Bryce 5.5 render. I experimented with the idea found in Alpine Sunset by davidbrinnen. However, I used two 2D-Faces with 2 different heavy-cloud photographs. The pictures use the Diffusion and Transparency channel. Thus, the two layers blend. There are still Bryce clouds in the sky. The sun didn't suffice anymore so a second one had to be introduced. Tks rashadcarter1 for your elaborate treatise about lighting techniques. I may consider this in a future experiment.

The feeling of an outpost for scientific research is present here. The aspect ratio choosen enhances that feeling. I like the light and the sky, it is something we would less expect. Photographs of such places more often show all in white. A job well done.

please read the huge comment I made to Tina Gazcon. The image to the left of yours in the "new images" page was rendered by Tina Gazcon. She is alot newer to bryce than you are so I did not explain things for you as I did for her. I went ahead and used up all the ink so to speak to explain once and for all what the heck secondary lighting is and why it is so very necessary for realism in bryce. Her image is called Eden (Paradise Lost). You will see the biggest writing entry ever, Please read it as I wrote it with you and alot of other people in mind who deserve to know this information so many brycer's never receive. I hope you find the explaination of secondary lighting useful and understand why it's the way to go for realism. See ya later bud.

I really like the sky, I wonder how that effect was achieved? I'm less concerned about the lighting, IBL is good, but sometimes you have to question the price you pay in terms of render time. At certain times of the day, there is a lot of leeway for using different techniques.

hmm Once again Nibor you have shown a great deal of skill. The sky is great! The entire set-up is nice. The low haze works well here. The only issue is the lighting. You have done great using bryce tools, but this image would look much more "real" if you join the secondary light bandwagon. As of late there has been alot of discussion of lighting. There is a general conscensus now that the ambient channel and the sky dome are not the most reliable or realistic way to correct for shadow darkness. The ambient channel and the skydome channel provide illumination but in a 2d painted sort of fashion. Secondary lighting solves the problem more genuinely and accurately, and I believe that as a group we are making astounding progress in realism by implementing this new way of thinking. Read up on images posted in the last couple of months for explainaitions about how to maximize realism with secondaries. If you've been away for awhile, you've missed alot of really good commentary. First. there is so much color in the image that I thought it was lit IBL at first glance. Personally, I would not have so much saturation in the sun light color. You used a yellow sunlight color and a blue skydome color. Nice, but it could be much better. I would disable all of the "easy" lighting from within bryce, as in ambient and skydome. It is time to light the scene more as a professional. As I said above please read up on recent submissions as to explain the theory and implementation of secondary lighting once again would be a waste of space here. Think atmospheric "bouncing" of light. The snow has a bit of specualrity, perhaps too much? I'm not sure. The skydome and sunlight are fighting an interesting war.