Well, for me, it's the final image that counts. What I have to do to get that image looking just the way I want it to isn't important. Now as to which gallery it's then posted in, well even though some of my 'Poser' images have been postworked to hell I'm going to put them in the Poser gallery simply because it has most traffic.
Having started many years ago with traditional photography, I have to agree with lemur01. It is the final image that counts. Retouching in photo work has always been an acceptable process with a few notable exceptions so why shouldn't 3D be the same. I see nothing wrong with using PSP or Photoshop, etc. to do a little tweaking of final image. The bottom line is quality of the finished product including the creativity, subtle nuances, etc. that goes into it. The creation of art is the issue, not what media is used to create it!
I've seen this issue turn up repeatedly & I don't see why it should. If pro studios use postwork for images/photos/CG animation that we spend money on, why is it a problem here? Could it be more to do with people not saying they've used postwork? If I could paint realistic hair in Photoshop I'd shout about it. Its another technique to be used otherwise why put the time & effort onto learning it.
I'd say the only place postwork shouldn't be used is when you are promoting an item for sale.
I think my view on this is chiefly influenced by my background in photography. The rendering stage is analogous to taking the picture with the camera, and the postwork is what a photographer would do in the darkroom.
I have to agree, I’ll do what ever it takes to achieve my final image. “I am, a post work junkie” and my gallery will testify to that. There have been so many Contest’s that I had to step away from because of my post work addiction. Don’t get me wrong, I really do appreciate the look of a non-post work image, I feel that it’s part of the “Poser learning curve” it helps us to understand the program better and then, build on or hone are skills to a sharper degree. As to the question about a post worked image being inferior to a
non post worked image, I don’t think so. (That’s like comparing apples and oranges, there both good for you) Shouldn’t they both be accepted and viewed as works of art?
“I think so”
I've always thought this a truly ignorant debate. Mostly because it centers away from the idea of art as a means to express creativity, mood and feeling. How an artist expresses him or herself should not be as important as the expression, I think. Afterall, these are all tools. Do you squabble with the painter for drawing on his canvas first or do you enjoy the painting for what it is? Another thing...if it's about the 3D aspect, show me a single frame of any 3D or VFX feature film that wasn't post worked to some degree. If you can enjoy a film or magazine cover that's been post worked to death, why complain over an image posted in a gallery? As long as the image follows the rules for the gallery and the program in question had something to do with anything in the picture, I can't see how you can argue it out? Finally, I know not everyone is great at post work. Heck, I'm not an expert either but I don't complain that others are, I instead, try to learn from them what I can so I can be a better artist. That's MY opinion, which does NOT reflect the opinion of Renderosity, its staff or administration.
I do post on just about all of my images because it is part of my artist aesthete. I shoot some of my digital photos using a cheap #30 , 1 MP camera and then post using either Photoshop or (usually) Photo deluxe, which I picked up for $10. My Poser Images are all posted because it makes them look better, and different from everybody else. Even rendering and anti-aliasing can be considered doing post work. The purpose of art is to allow personal expression to come to the fore. How it gets there is up to the artist. I like to work in B/W either in photography or in digital. I also look into the history of art and realize that Da Vinci used post work, as did Rembrandt, Monet, the pre-raphaelites, and W. Eugene Smith, just to name a few. Post work is an artist's tool for taking a base image to the next level.
If you don't like my images because they have post work done to them, there's not much I can do about that other than to continue doing what I like and what I think is my right, as an artist.
it's our differences that makes us artists, not how alike we can be.
thanks for giving me an oppourtunity to voice my opinion on this important subject. and unless you've made other plans, have a great day!
I consider it just part of the process that I immensely enjoy. Yeah, it's fun to do the modelling, then the lighting, then texturing, figuring out what settings would best suit the render (more or less grain on purpose, widescreen or square, etc.), but once I get it into Photoshop is when I get to really "play".
I get to do things that would have bogged down render times (like volumetric lighting), been nearly impossible to UVmap, or things just not possible within the renderer's capabilities (dodging and burning for example). If I were to repaint the image, it would go in 2D or Mixed Media, but I don't, so it goes in whatever software gallery that handled the 3D render.
It's the final image that matters to me, not how I got there. There's no rule that says I HAVE to use only the 3D render output for personal images - just some contests have that rule - and unless it's something like e-on software's current contest I don't really see the point.
Postwork gives you the unlimited ability to personalize your image to your satisfaction - even if it means your intent is to use your 3D render as a paint-by-numbers guide (in which case it should go in 2D or Mixed Media).
I agree with lemur01 that the final image is the only thing that counts. The software, texture mapping, rendering and postwork are all tools used to create, not to classify. When photography first appeared painters said it was not "true" art, when digital photography appeared, film photographers said it was not "true" photography, digital artists get the same response from traditional materials artists. Look at the work, react to the work, like or dislike the work, learn from the work and don't waste any time on petty things like is it postworked or not. If it's good art, it's good art.
I agree with Lemur...just wanted to add........since when are there rules in art?? Isn't art all about individuality....and self expression.....and should pretty much be done they way YOU feel is right. Or else it isn't really art it is something else. This of course doesn't apply to people who do art commercially and have to follow a clients instructions.
The only post work that I do is compositing scenes that are too large otherwise. But I see no reason for post work images being shown so long as the fact is stated. I just wish I had the artistic skills that some people show with their post work. Mainly work on anims anyway.
I agree with lemur01. It is rare that my work in Poser or Poser/Vue doesnt need some postwork .. I will post to the Poser gallery or Vue gallery depending on which program it was rendered in with mention that there was post work in photoshop..The end result is what is important to me..
Snobbery never makes for good art, particularly weird techno-snobbery. The final image is the only thing that matters. Non-digital artists mix media all the time to achieve the effects they desire. In the end, you're just pushing pixels around; who cares which pixels were pushed in 3D space and which weren't? As long as the image makes an impression on the viewer, what does it matter?
1. When a 3D piece looses the third dimension of depth, and looks more like a digital 2D piece. That when too much is way too much.
2. That lies with the artist themselves. Lack of confidence in ones skill, like myself when i started out in this genre of art. i relied alot on postwork, when started out in this genre. Now i choose to use props instead.
3. Visually no, some of the time that is. Most artist that do postwork, haven't broken their constraints to the traditional artworld. This can be a henderence sometimes. This does not expand the art of 3D, it just sugar coats it!
I have seen some great postwork artist!
My works not perfect, and never will be. If I worried about a perfect piece, nothing would get done.. Then again, i can do some cool stuff with Props, that can't be done with a brush and keep that 3rd Dimension.
Maybe you should put up a postwork gallery< but that would fall under "Mixed Medium", and Not 3D.
But thats my opinion! Have a great week everyone!!! -- odd --
I do have an admiration for those artists who can create wonderful images without any postwork,(because I see a certain amount of skill in that,and that can be a goal to work towards), but at the end of the day, if you like what you create/find another's work pleasing, does it really matter how it was made? So I agree with lemur01 there.I think there can be alot of of 'snobbery' about postwork/un-postworked which is unecessary. If bulk of the work that went into making the image was done with a certain program it should be able to go into that program's gallery. If there is a heavy amount of postwork plus use of other programs, then maybe it should be classed as mixed-medium. I don't believe postwork makes a piece of work inferior. That's like the argument that some digital art is not 'real art' because the artistic process is somehat different, ie a canvas and paint etc has not been used.
At the end of the day, do whatever pleases you to create what you want and like. That's what is important.
I think the bottom line should be the art, not exactly how it was created. If you're creating the art, for the art's sake, then you take whatever means necessary to achieve your final result. If you have the skills, programs and wherewithal to use postwork than do so. If the image was created in a particular program, I don't see any problems with uploading to that program, especially if that's where people expect to find your work. You can, by using the description area, explain how much or how little postwork was done. Of course, you could always have a contest or challenge that states no postwork as a stipulation for judgement and that's fine, use what you got and make what you can. But, if it's your art, your vision, then do it your way. The final image is what counts, not how you got there.
Just my two cents.
Interesting discussion indeed.
About point 3: the quality of an image is NOT dependent on the tool(s) used to make the image, it's dependent on talent and perseverance of the artist. So the (non)use of postwork is irrelevant to the question of quality.
About point 2: Should one do postwork? Depends. An artist who uses a 3D tool to get a more or less basic outline of the image and then enhances it by using postwork - by all means. It's a good way to create images, and I've seen many excellent posts in the galleries that use this technique.
And an artist who keeps on twiddling light settings, material settings and camera until he/she feels the image is "complete" and doesn't need postwork, well, that's just another way to create images. And I've also seen posts in the galleries that use this technique.
Finally, point 1: A 3D render that has been enhanced just a little - brushing away render engine imperfections, fixing knee and elbow joints, some color/brightness correction is still a 3D render IMO.
An image that has significantly been altered, for instance by adding hair/clothes using postwork, I'd say that it was made using both a 3D program and a postwork program.
And finally, an image that only the 3D render as a basic outline, a perspective guide, and is completely repainted is no longer a 3D image IMO.
As lemur01 states, even images that consist of 5 minutes of Poser work plus 5 weeks of painting are usually posted in the Poser gallery. Probably because of the traffic. But those images are no longer Poser images IMO - the bulk of the work was done in Photoshop or a similar application, so they should be posted in the 2D gallery.
Just my opinion. Maybe a little distorted by the fact that my works are almost never postworked, I find the challenge of bullying a 3D renderer into delivering a good final image to be very satisfying.
I use minimal postwork, so you have to take this commentary in that regard.
The most drastic work I do is occasionally fixing poke through on a final render.
One thing I will say is that the amount of postwork should matter as to which gallery it's going in. As for how much? If more than half of the time is spent postworking (photoshopping, etc.) than it doesn't belong in a gallery solely devoted to your 3d program.
It doesn't matter whether the image is inferior or not in my eyes...but if most of the thing was postworked/photoshopped it doesn't belong in the Poser gallery just because you rendered one figure in it. In my eyes, by placing an image (for example) in the Poser gallery you are demonstrating what you can do with Poser not Photoshop.
In my opinion, the only thing that matters in the end is, does it look good? I really don't have issues with how people get their art to look the way they want it to. As long as the tools are there, why not make use of them?
The image that resides in your head should not be restricted by the abilities of the tools provided by a specific program. The end result should be of the highest quality the artist can provide at that given point, even if it requires reaching outside of a given programs options for more tools.
The one issue I consistently have is with the gallery in which the item is shown. In my opinion, if the image is rendered with a specific software, then that is the gallery in which it should be placed regardless of viewer traffic. This promotes wandering through various galleries as well as properly showcases a given programs ability to render a final product.
What Lemur just said. Except that I put my pix in the Poser gallery because that's what I usually set up my scenes and render with. Postworking's a tool, a means to an end, the end being the image that I have in mind -- or as close to it as is possible to get anyway. That said, it's really, *really* great on those (admittedly few!) occasions when about the only postwork needed is my signature. :-)
Well, I agree with lemur here... It's the final image that counts... Unless you want to show a product or a model... But, usually, the postwork is only enough when you achieve what you want to, that includes painting hair, clothes, whatever... all in all, any kind of post work is just a mean to an end... :D
I almost always use Vue to render my images. But I also almost always do some amount of postwork. Sometimes it's no than fixing a bad joint on a Poser figure or jazzing up the hair using Photoshop. Often I do more, altering the overall image using various techniques or filters. Sometimes I go crazy and run it through Painter. But the deciding factor in where I place the image is the degree to which one can tell that, despite the postwork, it was rendered in Vue. Usually, with ecosystems and such, it's still possible even after extensive postwork to tell that it was done in Vue. If this is not the case, then Mixed Medium.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that most likely the vast majority of us started out using 2D tools of some kind originally, then moved to 3D tools when the technology became affordable and available (unless of course you are a young-in :) That being said, is it any less ridiculous to argue about how the art was created (3D w/or w/o postwork) as it would sound to argue that hand drawn and hand painted art is superior to digital art simply because it's older or more 'traditional' or whatever your reason is... I think as most of us here appear to, that what matters is the final product, NOT the method used to create it. I myself went from doing pencil drawings, to scanning them in photoshop and painting them, do photographic manipulation, and finally to 3D. I prefer 3D now mainly because the tools enable me to create what my skills in hand-drawing could not. However, when I am done rendering an image, I do sometimes like to go and tweak the saturation or hue, or contrast, if only because it can give interesting results. I have a picture I made of a 'creepy' baby with a background that didn't look half as good till I did a contrast tweak AFTER the rendering was done.
So yeah, the point is that who care how it was done as long as the creation is art :)
Personally I don't believe this subject really constitutes the basis for a debate, pro or con. We are dealing with a relatively new art paradigm with CGI and the traditional approach to creating in such a medium requires we take a different or unique approach to it from the medium of photography. If the effect or desired look can't be accomplished with the tools within the program being used, then peraps the functional parameters of that program needs to be re-evaluated, by its creators. Its not really a question of purity, but the choice to use or not use available tools and resources to accomplish a desired effect. If you have photoshop or paint shop pro and the requisite skills to use them, more power to you. But I am always amazed when someone does something terrific with the simplest of tools. Its a matter of personal taste. Is that final image conveying the ideas you want it to or not. Just because you have a large number of brushes and colors on your palette doesn't mean you have to use them all in every work. Sometimes less is more. I think we are in the same position as the leaders of previous art epochs such as the Renaissance,or the Impressionists, in that as Cole Porter says "Anything Goes".
This isn't especially controversial, it's a bit suprizing to see it rehashed here though.
If rendering for animation then postwork is hardly likely to be applied, as a matter of practicality. When creating a static scene (other than for a product demo or due to the rules laid down by a contest, etc.), who cares what the rendered/postwork mix is? Some choose to see what they can achieve solely from the rendering engine of choice, some like to postwork. It varies according to taste and skills with the tools. Non-issue.
I look forward (in the ironic sense) to the next tricky subject, Poser imagery: is it art?
At least we've moved it out of the forums and on to the front page. And it can't get heated there because that's not allowed. ;)
Maybe if the program you used to create tyhe original image did all you need then there would be no need for any post work.
We are still experimenting with digital art and should not be critised by anyone for our methods. We may as well complain about how the old Masters created their art. We use what we have available. Our images must testify to our creativity and imagination in whatever way we choose. Rozrr
I think it depends on the person, like any other art style. What mediums do you like to use, then use them. if you like to work in 3d only then that is the stye for you. If you like to use mixed mediums then 3d + 2d is the way to go. Expression is expression...express yourself that is all that mattters.
If the final image is good, then who cares whether the hair and clothes were rendered or painted? What difference does it make whether the lighting popped out of (insert 3D app here) just like that or got Photoshopped in later? Good art is good art, and tweaking a good rendered image to enhance it or fix problems doesn't automatically make it /not/ good.
I'm not understanding why you thought this subject important enough for a front page article. This is not a big issue and with the exception of one or two hecklers here and there, I've never seen any big stink about it.
I think that it depends on the medium and the application that's being used, as well as the speed of your computer. like in fractals: the only major postwork i've ever done was to make a fractal funnier (cell infected by a virus) the only other things i've done are color correction and sharpening and sometimes defuzzing.
also, it's easy to be working on something, getting frustrated, and then say "oh, i'll just postwork it!" this i imagine happens a lot more in 3d programs than in apo and UF. but then there are artists like Encrypted, whose postwork is what makes their art really great.
that's my opinion.
Hi I'm definitely the newbie here, only been using P6 and Bryce a few months. I feel as always that Art is intrinsinct to the buyer/viewer. I have done every form of art, 2D, Craft, Sculpt, Photograghy, you name it. And I sell it. I have yet to see someone turn down an outstanding piece of Art, based on how it was constructed, and some is a fortunate accident (like in some photograghs). They may be interested in the process, but bottom line when the right art piece and buyer meet...it never matters except to own what they covet. Same thing here, the end justifies the means, i.e.>I do a lot of postwork on some, none on others. Rozrr is correct, if the program(s) did everything you needed/wanted... then there would be no need for extra work. Here's a thought for everyone that is debating weither 3D/CGI is real art. How many of you actually Draw or Paint, well? Were it not for this medium, you might not have an artistic outlet! What a wonderful thing to have! The rest is mute...
I believe it's amazing how desperatley we seek to categorize and find drawers to put our opinions in.
For me the topic is pretty much an non-topic.
In the professional world an image without postwork hardly does stand a chance - so why some believe that only a render w/o postwork is a real render is beyond me and the real world.
For me the "Gone with the wind" quote sums it up nicely: "Frankly my dear - I don't give a damn!"
Just go out and deliver the best you can and you'e good!
Don't even mention the "old masters", many of whom had their students do most of the painting and then took all the glory and the popes gold!
As far as the final image, who cares how it was made, great art is great art.
But also, thank god for those few who find it a great technical challenge to avoid post work. Without them, I doubt that our 3D apps would be as advanced as they are!
I agree with mapps.. It all depends on the person. I also think it depends on the picture. I don't do alot of postwork on any of my renders but when I do I only do it to improve the image. Now if you are trying to sell something and you have done postwork on the rendered image of that object to make a ugly thing look beautiful thats a whole different story.
Well Ill chime in, coz Ive seen lots of wars over this one LOL For me, its all about the postwork. That's what I have the most fun doing (actual rendering part is tedious and boring to me) But the main features of any image I do are rendered in Poser, and so, I post all my stuff in the Poser gallery. Just because I paint hair and cloth and other things, doesnt mean its a 2D picture. In fact, my postwork is practiced specifically to have a 3D look or to enhance the 3D. If an image is painted completely from scratch, then I think its 2D and should be placed accordingly. But if it has major elements of another program, such as Poser, I think it should be allowed to be posted in that specific gallery.
I look at it this way...the final image is what counts...If an image is more than 50% Postwork, then it becomes either 2D or Mixed medium.
Post work or the lack of, should have no bearing on what makes a good image..
I wanted to comment back to shvrkidd. If it was ugly and post work made it beautiful, it is beautiful. Gee many a sketch I have done was a "rough" draft, only to end up a dream of acrylic over the top! My version of paint by numbers! LOL! The end reult is the only thing relevant!
I think the real issues comes down to this:
If the 3D apps we used today had all the tools we needed that we have to rely on postwork for, then there wouldn't be as big a need for postwork.
An easy example. In Poser bend legs or arms causes bad seams. Is that OUR fault? No it's a limitation of the 3D engine we are designing with. So why should we limit our abilities and creativity because of the limitations of the tools we use?
Another way to look at it. Say Poser had a built in "touch up" tool. So that when the render is done a built in "brush" could fix seams or other anomolies. Would this then be considered postwork if it were done in the same 3D Package?
Art work should not be about the tools or the process. Art work should be about the emotion or message the artist is trying to convey.
When I see a piece where someone lists 20 different objects from "other" artists it can't help but make one feel that the work was done by just throwing a bunch of stuff together and hitting the render button. We all know that isn't the case so why make others think so?
If I download a free object and the author requests credit for the object being used in any render I do, then I simply don't use his work.
If I PAY for a 3d object I sure as heck don't feel the need to give free advertising to the people I bought it from.
If someone is interested in a piece I do and they specifically ask how/what/where then I will answer but I don't feel obligated to list every single item and every single tool I use. Not because I am trying to hide anything, but in my work I hardly ever post who's 3d objects I use, what programs I use or any of that jazz for the simple fact I want the art to speak for itself.
kjpweb brought up an excellent point!
This topic isn't even a THOUGHT in the professional world. Everything is expected to be touched up - from personal portraits (minimizing wrinkles, etc.), to product (gotta make that jewelry POP), to landscape (dodging and burning to achieve whatever you want), etc.
Go to the movies and see FX shots created with multiple apps, THEN run through compositing programs/systems where atmo, lighting, you name it is added AFTER the render, then the greenscreen footage of the actors composited into the shot.
I wouldn't dream of turning in a product shot straight from the camera - the goal is entirely to turn in/hand over/upload the best image/animation/whatever you can. In the professional world, no one CARES how you got there as long as it looks good.
Personally, when I see images posted in a particular Renderosity gallery I assume that the artist used that software as the primary tool, but not necessarily the only tool-- and assume that postwork was done unless the artist states "no postwork." Funny, but all 3D programs worth their salt allow you to multipass render to PSD layers--what is this for if not to make the final image better than the raw render? For me, the final image is everything because I create still images; I am not showcasing skills for the animation, film compositing or gaming industries. Those artists who proudly declare "no postwork" are probably (1) more involved in one of those industries, or (2) attempting to showcase the raw capabilities of the software. That's fine with me... keep creating... I still marvel at some of the things I see here!
There are many attempting to climb Mount Everest, a very few manage this without the Oxygen. They are the one who push the limits of a mankind, one may call it a madness. Similarly there are many like me creating images with the help of digital art, very few are real artists who started with the traditional skills and upgraded themselves to this fairly new medium and challenging the limits of 3D digital art without the help of other mediums.
15 years back it was hard to be an artists without knowing how to draw. Today I can create nice pictures using computer and that applies to many art forms such as music. Many like me are not bothered of this question of 'PURITY' simply because it doesn't apply to me as long as I can do the image manipulations, create and sell the images. Huh! Who cares??
This debate belong to those who are pushing their ability and limits of 3D art.
I use a bit of postwork on my renders to try and bring an edge to the final product. It depends on the render....sometimes it needs it....sometimes it doesn't. I believe anything used to enhance the picture to get the final result is more than OK. It would be silly to have an average picture with no postwork to a truly great picture with a bit of post-work.
Let's not forget that a well designed pic or concept is more than just the render and postwork..... There are a whole range of variables that make a great picture. Composition, lighting etc
For me, it is a personal challenge to avoid postwork on my 3D renders. I don't model 3D well at all, so it in my final 3D scene, I feel a personal need to show off the best (or worst) of the mesh behaviours and textures of other more accomplished (?) artists who provided the content.
If I do any postwork, it is usually for effects which are not possible to achieve inside of Poser 6, which is my main scene composition and rendering software at the moment.
Yup, "avoid postwork" is my personal attitude.
To me its the end result and sometimes the renderer or the modeling does not go so well. Seams or small holes show up but with some postwork, I can fix that.
Not that I hold these views and really no one has mentioned this but the reason this crops up a lot of times has to do with App usage.
If I do a picture using lightwave and postwork it a lot, it seems to put the people who just use the app at a disadvantage. How can someone say its a Lightwave picture if its 25% or more postwork? Lightwave is being used as an example, other 3d galleries have this problem.
Also its a similar problem with using 3rd party models too, for some people using 3rd party models hides the true skill level of the artist using them.
This question is going to keep coming up because some folks need to feel superior to other people.
Its not the software because I have seen the same arguments in 2 different forums.
Let's not forget that a well designed pic or concept is more than just the render and postwork..... There are a whole range of variables that make a great picture. Composition, lighting etc
I see very little discussion on art theory/color theory done in 3d magazines or forums here or other sites with 3d forums.
I am a postworker myself and I personally think that more people might need to do the same. It's a rare artist (though they do exist) that can create a truely remarkable piece of work without any postwork whatsoever. Often I see images in the gallery with glaring problems (poke-through, distortion, back-facing polygons, etc.) and the artist is proudly proclaiming that no postwork was done. No doubt! But perhaps it should have been done . . . I mean, I don't think the "purity" of an image excuses it from being properly finished.
I liken it to inviting visitors into my home. I wouldn't invite them in if I hadn't first stocked the fridge, put up the guest towels, and straightened up the place. I see postwork like that - it's often what needs to be done to make the image appropriate for "guests" to enjoy.
As for the artists who have evolved in 3D beyond my level of competence and can create masterworks without postwork; I find them awe-inspiring and worthy of praise. But let's face it, most of us just aren't there yet. In the meantime, I'll personally keep choosing to create work as best as I can and then finish it up later as necessary. I don't think artists should be criticized for perfecting their craft - by any means.
By: Paula Sanders
Hi SevenOfEleven -
We do have an Art Theory Forum. I thought we did, but I have to admit I wasn't too sure. I think discussions in the particular forums about composition, color etc. might prove useful especially to people who feel unsure of themselves as "artists" and did not come to the computer either as Photographers or 2D non computer people.
Positive and informative discussions like that can prove useful to everyone to stimulate ideas. Isn't that part of the goal of a forum?
I think, too, that the result is the only thing that counts.
If you have a really bad picture, even tons of postwork can't turn it into an excellent one. If the pic is quite good, why not make it better by using postwork?
Some effects just cannot be achieved in 3D apps, because they are based on real-world physics (the way light beams react when they encounter certain surfaces/atmospheric contitions ecc.). If you want more than just depict some objects (and this "more than real life" is essential to art) you just need postwork.
A 3D render depends to a certain degree on chance (randomized clouds ecc.). Postwork has to be used very deliberately and with a clear purpose in mind. In my opinion, it show's the best of the artist's talents.
And if I look at a picture I first want to see if I like it, and only then I look at the list of programs that were used to create it. When I find a good pic I don't care if it was rendered in Cinema or Bryce, postworked in Photoshop or painted on canvas by hand - I just like it!
Postwork is a very general word. It can encompass simple color correction, to a complete repaint over an image. Personally, I have no problem with postwork of any kind. I can appreciate both sides as long as the image strikes my interest.
However I think a more important question is where should an image really be posted in a gallery.
For me the bottom line would be NOT how much time went into postwork, NOT was there any touch-ups at all, but simply...could the image being viewed be created entirely in the program who's gallery it's posted in.
---For example: Image A - Rendered in Poser - clothing painted on, hair painted on, etc. For a new user viewing the poser gallery, it would be confusing because the final image could NOT have been created in Poser alone. It really should be in Mixed Medium.
Image B - Rendered in poser - poke through holes fixed in photoshop - some color correction - etc. While this image too was created with two programs, the final result still could have been created with poser alone (with a lot of tweaking sure, but still could be done).
I'd really like more people to follow something along these guidelines. In the end it's up to the user to decide where to post, to take a look at an image before posting and then decide where to put it.
I'd say SevenOfEleven hits on a good point, which is at the heart of the usual postwork/nonpostwork "purity" debate.
"If I do a picture using lightwave and postwork it a lot, it seems to put the people who just use the app at a disadvantage."
Thus if you make no mention of an image having been postworked, and it is included in a 3D app gallery, people may look at it and say, "Wow, that person is really skilled at using Poser(or whatever app). There aren't any render artifacts or pokethroughs, and the cloth looks ultra-realistic and draped!"
When in fact most of those impressive effects were the result of postwork.
Now, obviously, good postwork *ALSO* takes skill, but in many cases fixing a glitch in postwork is *easier* than making it all work right in your 3D app. And there's nothing wrong with this if the GOAL is an artistic image. Every art form has little tricks, shortcuts, etc.
But, galleries like the ones here serve a DUAL ROLE: not only to show the "Cool art" that you made, but also to show off your technical proficiency. Therefore postworked images should be noted as such.
According to your own ground rules...
"many different view points can be voiced."
...but "not" mine?
Having done paint/roto postwork on 3D graphic scenes for a well-known visual effects company, (for a very high salary I might add), I think the entire debate over "purity" is ridiculous.
I also oil paint on canvas. Without another medium to mix with the paint, I would never achieve the quality I want. It would be impossible. A film maker doesn’t keep the audio made during the shoot; they would dub it in later in the studio. A true artist will use anything available to get their work to a state they are satisfied with. Post your work in a gallery that you feel comfortable with. I agree with Pilikia... Ridiculous!
This is a very interesting topic indeed!
I think that the galleries themes are a bit aoutdated cause most of the works should fall into mixed medium.
and i second what svdl stated.- there are a lot of diference between postwork and paintwork, there are real beautiful paintworks into the galleries, there are beautiful pure render works into the galleries and the same for fine tuned postworked pieces. i think that the galleries should fall into Pure render, minor postwork and paintwork and not for the tool used, cause sometimes one can use, lets say, hexagon to create some props, then poser to create the scene and then vue to render the final piece, now the most important thing from this point would be how much postwork you use into the piece cause this image is not longer hexagon, poser, vue, photoshop. etc, but the visitor can enjoy the 3 words no matter the tool, Poser is without any dubt the most visited gallery and for this reason the most cheated one. I agree that the final image is what matters but an image 5% poser can't be poser anymore.
just my 2 cents
POSTWORK ROCKS! IT'S WHAT I DO!
To restrict the use of any bit of software to not allow postwork to me kills the artistic aspect of creative skills this does not in my view detract from it.. if postwork is used as in photography or any 3D programme it can be posted in 2D or mixed medium.. Or each gallery sets up its own place for them.. Maybe this way ot will keep the purists happy
The tools (3D, 2D apps) are just that, tools, IMO.
The end result (the image) is what matters to me as well.
I think that the concept of purity is irrelevant.
Not only is postwork essential, for me, it's the more enjoyable part of the image creation process.
I started out using Poser exclusively and my art showed it. Then I discovered Photoshop and put some time into learning that. I figured out that many effects could be achieved in Photoshop in minutes what might take days (literally) in Poser during a render, that may not be what I want, then I have to redo it and try again. If I don't like something in Photoshop, I delete the layer and do it over. No mess, no worry.
Anyone who has gone to a real museum and seen fine art, especially modern fine art will realize that a painting (like Pollock's) may contain other things than paint. Is it art? Ya, you bet! Postwork really can allow the artist to get the exact picture they want.
Hello all, how are you this evening? I just want to make a few comments if I may. Mostly this is a comment on art. It is known that the greatest artist, the greatest singers, the greatest painters all have one thing in common, they are their own worst critics. One comment I kept hearing was that it isn't important that a person get's the portrait the way they want it, but it's what comes out at the end. The way the portrait looks to every detail and pixel affects they way it going to come out at the end. The realism especially in 3d art comes in when every detail is looked over. I usually say that a picture in NEVER right. Especially in 3d.
For example, Do you remember the first time you created realistic skin for your characters? Do you know how hard that was? It had to be perfect. It had to simulate the real thing. With of course newer versions of poser that problem is taken care of but when modeling by hand these details have to be painstakingly carried out and viewed so that the final product will be close to the real thing as possible. So for the complete product to be as real as possible. Even though every pixel must not be analyzed but it does have to be reviewed many times. As a 3d artist one day I may create a model and say "That is nice!!!!!!" But as soon as I go back to the model the next day, I see a different view of what I could of done. It's never perfect.
So my point is that it does matter how the person gets the portrait or 3d art to the way they want it. Otherwise and especially if you are working in 3d art, it's going to look like the default model of the nude male or nude woman in Poser without any texture or and totally lifeless.
Thanks for your time.
Mirrored throughout this discussion, I feel that postworking is part of the creative proccess. Purity lies in the finished product, which is what the artist wishes to convey to the viewer. There are times when (as in Poser) that the 3D render is all that it needed to bring out the artists vision. Other times, we use secondary programs to enhance, add to or otherwise chip away at pixels to bring out the final image.
There is another bennifit to postworking. If you pay close attention to what your doing in the postwork proccess, there are times that you can recreate those same effects in the rendering program (like lense flares, fog and even layering) which inturn betters your skills overall.
I feel that like the artist should use every tool at their disposal to bring out the image that they envision ... as I said earlier, purity lies in the finished product.
One of the great things about this site is the ability to learn from other work found here. In that regard, I think it is important to list the programs used to create a particular piece. Those who find pleasure in getting every effect possible out of a piece of 3D software and therefore refuse post work, that is their choice. Those who enjoy the post work to get an effect, that is their choice. It is afterall, their art. It is the viewers coice to like the image or not. What is there to hassle about?
The art is what matters. When all is said, done and rendered, the final result is a 2d flat image. Instead of naming the galleries for the program used, I think there should be a gallery titled Digital Art which would include all the 3D apps as well as paint programs. The artist can tell us what he/she used to make the image in the comments. This would greatly simplify things. The question of purity would no longer be an issue because focus will then be on the art and not the product used.
To me, one goes hand in hand with the other. It is exceedingly rare for me to post any image that has not been postworked, even if only a little. It's art. In the end, does it really matter what process or processes are used or not used is to achieve the result? If it makes you go ah, or ooh..if it is beautiful or realistic, or moves you in some way, do you really need to know who it was made? I don't, it's art, it's about passion. There have always been purists in every form, from wines to art to web design. I'll take passion over purism any day, so I'll always do the postwork.
Post work rocks !
Its the final "eye candy" !
Only real genius's come to know this
and one other tip...
hue value and intensity thats the ticket to an "exellent" render in any medium there is !
and dont forget to sign your name on your stuff !
hi, i do agree with most of the people here art is.. well art expression of oneself, and any tools is allow to create.
however, honesty should preval and saying how you did the pict is important.
i know some are using postwork to mislead, to make someone look more skillfull... when done that way it is bad.
and i thing the lack of a proper category (composit 2d + 3d) is vey important to keep in mind, (mixed medium) is to vague.
as to know if a pict is better without or not post work that depent on the pict. case by case approch. and still subject to taste,
in the end any pict can be seen as ugly by some and a masterpiece by other so postwork or no postwork is irrevelent.
I’m not really sure that this relates to me as such, being a photographer and not using any 3D programs or elements.
Of course the subject of postwork effects all of us to some degree.
For me it is the final image that is all important, and I have no issues with postwork, I do some from basic to heavy manipulation depending on my mood/what I want to achive, but mostly just the sort of thing that can be done in a wet process adjust contrast etc. On that note I have done work in the darkroom where the original capture in no longer recognizable, for example symmetries using mirrors (much easier with digital editing software)
Anyway image manipulation spans back to at least the mid-late 1800’s when they were using glass negatives (no I wasn’t there lol) and Hollywood in the 50’s to present day, the only real difference now is that it is done on a computer instead of traditionally.
The bottom line for me is, if an artiste wishes to do postwork then do it, if not don’t do it, either way it doesn’t make you any more or less an artist.
Postwork Yes/No (whatever the individual preference.
I think rather to use postwork or not is a personal decision that each artist should have to themselves. They are the ones that are trying to express what they want their artpieces to look like. Where I think it gets hurtful and nerve racking is when other artist come along and leave negative comments on someones art when the decision to use postwork on any particular piece is none of their business. They try to IMPOSE their way of doing things on to someone else instead of trying to respect what the artist is trying to do with their compositions.But I guess you always will have those that feel like they have to have control of everything, and put other people's art down because "They Themselves" are not in control of everybody and everything. I say if you want to use postwork or not is noone else's business but your own...just keep creating what is in your heart and dont let anyone else come by and control that or take your creative joy away.
For me, it boils down to the purpose of the image. For entertainment purposes, touching up obvious problems assist with the presentation or WOW factor. On the other hand, I don't believe that anyone would want their medical xray images being "touched up" by Photoshop.
Some 3d images rely on postwork. I have seen a fair few "paintings" of 3d scenes where the effect wanted was for a painted look. You simply cannot do that with the 3d programs, infact i wouldnt even call it "postwork" in these instances - it is still the process of creating the image.
In terms of Photography - i personally aim to do as little postwork as possible, possibly because i am still a beginner with Photoshop and only made my first real heavily-dependent-on-postwork image about a week ago, but also because i feel like its cheating someone somewhere who can get the same image straight from the shot. But still, i agree with all here who have said that it is the final image that counts.
Postwork - yes
I use postwork all the time. Most of the time it's just to adjust color, saturation or overall brightness. Sometimes it's major, as in the image "Cry". I drew all the hair, and worked on the eyes in PhotoShop, but I still consider it a poser image.
I do believe you should always mention postwork though (If for no other reason than not to drive some Poser newbe crazy, trying to duplicate your technique).
I never look at post work as a controversial topic. I have thought of post work as mixed medium techinque. I use post work to get a disired effect when needed. But what I consider important in creating art is the statement that you are making with your art work.
Ok, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the issue is not really whether an image should be postworked or not (I say go for it if it makes the final image better). No the question is, should a postworked image get grouped as a Poser image or a Vue Image. For that I would say no. I'd like to see 'pure' images from the specific 3D app section so I can see how far the technology can be pushed. Thats whats drives the technology and I'm all for that. Whats the point in Poser7,8,9... if we can achieve the same results using Poser 4 and a copious amount of Photoshop postwork. If I'm shopping for the 3D app that produces the most realistic images (albeit due to the skill of the 3D artist) where do I look. Not in a postworked gallery. There's art and there's 3D technology - I'm interested in them both but would like an easy way to tell one from the other. So, in conclusion, I'm all for Postwork but surely once the photoshop brush has passed over the image it needs to be in the mixed medium gallery?
As I long for realism in most of my images I always try to do as much as possible with the render-program, mostly with light. I found that this is the best method to learn about what your app can do. If I start an image whith something like "I can darken this later... I'm not used to dynamic clothes, I paint them..." I will never raise my skills. So what I definitly try to avoid is any kind of blurring or color correction. On the other hand I don't have the heart to leave nasty joinst and straw-hair untouched because the end-result should be a good image. And sometimes I only want to paint - and then I render a bald and naked figure and have my fun with the image - At least this will help me learning more about another app ;o)
About the argument that it's also normal to touch up photos: That's why I avoid too much retouching, too. I must confess that I'm kind of bored with all those fashion models in the magazines that look so flawless (and equal) - and if you look around in the galleries you may find that some rendered people have more life in their faces than many models in actual fashion- and makeup-campaigns.
As has been stated already it's the final work of art that is inportant. Not the road traveled to get there, or something like that.
WAY up there Telon said it pretty well. I'd add Art is about process, as a good friend once said, "I never finish a painting, I just stop working on it." It's the working on it that's important. More folks should take some art courses, the tough kind, where they really look at and discuss your work - it's directions and meaning, it's intent and reactions to it, not a workshop where one learns technique but learns about making art. After that questions of purity of process become, frankly non-questions - as they are off-topic, eg. have nothing to do with vision and creation, process and creativity. Do whatever it takes to find [or realize if you work that way] your vision. If a person feels the need to limit yourself to some artificial set of rules on postwork, fine, but really, it has nothing to do with anyone but that person. Remember, there is NO art police! Really. Oh yeah, have fun, be in the grove when you work [that zen thing] and process.
I use Poser to make art and for me, art is eyecandy...something beautiful, creative and thought provoking. It can also be something entertaining that gives you warm, fuzzy feelings. I say use whatever tools are available to you to reach the end result that you're trying to achieve. For me this means creating the scene in Poser and then taking it into Photoshop to make the end product. I have to say that the Photoshop part is the most fun part of the process, because here your creativity can be set free.
3Dprogram sellers state that “art is in the tool”; I have no objection that those who programmed 3D tool are highly skilled scientist, they have my total admiration and they are artist in their own way…
The question about visual art refers to another level that can be summoned in this simple question: - Is art in the tool or in the artist? - If one simply answer to this question will then see that the question about post work becomes meaningless…
One can be very skilled in the use of any program and the result can be not at all art…
Then, we should rather discuss WHAT ART… quite an interesting subject, don’t you think so?
I'm all for using every tool at your disposal to get what you're after. I was introduced to Renderosity through the works of Will Kramer that appeared in a 3D magazine. I didn't care what tools were used. I still love his work.
When I first came here, there was a note at the top of the Poser Gallery that discouraged postwork in images posted there. I'm sorry I can't remember the exact wording, but it gave the impression that postwork shouldn't be used if you were posting in the Poser Gallery. I think that may have contributed to the purist mindset on that front. I'm glad to see that no longer is the case. No one ever told me I could only use one brush when I did traditional type art work, so why should anyone be limited to one tool in CG? Just be creative, enjoy what you do and get there in whatever way works for you.
Nobody was asking if postwork is permitted or not.
The question is, where is the limit between 3D art and painting.
If somebody renders a figur in poser with empty backgroung ( Alfa Channel ) aranging it with 2D Images, it's obvious art, but shouldn't be posted in the poser gallerie.
For me, it's the final image that counts,as far as the final image, who cares how it was made, great art is great art.
As a selling Artist, postwork is vital to me so that I can achieve a saleable piece of work! This weekend I sold around $1,500 of pictures...all of which were postworked to some extent or the other...if the work had been in its 'raw' render stage, the sales would not have been there!
When a 'traditional' artist marks a canvas or paper with charcoal (the original image) then smudges it with his/her finger to achieve the desired result...that is postwork!
What the hell...digital art is becoming 'traditional' and will continue to pick up pace!
We just use the tools of our day like the cave dwellers of old used mud and charcoal!
I agree 100% with lemur01. Who cares what you used to make the effect, so long as the resulting artwork is good? And as for gallery classifying, if it's been in Poser at any point, it's going in the Poser gallery - simply because that's the one that gets the most traffic.
personally I dont care if people use postwork or not ,
I dont usually do postwork my self ,
BUT If an image is being posted in a 3d program gallery like the Poser gallery or Carrara Gallery ect I dont think post work should be allowed ,
I like to browse 3d galleries to see what can be done with that 3d program ,
Images that use postwork should be posted in a Digital Art gallery IMO
Having Images for example with Postwork hair and cloth in the poser gallery is misleading IMO and dosent show what can be achieved in poser.
I have seen some fantastic postwork hair and cloth but I think such images belong in a gallery of there own so 3d program users can see what can be achieved in there 3d program .
I do agree its the "art" or final image that counts but I also think that 3d program galleries should be just for showing what that 3d program can do .
I would only comment that for the sake of the learning curve of the viewing community that an artist give at least minimal information on whether an image was postworked and which software was used. This helps educate everybody on the state of the art, and takes nothing away from the artist. The final product is the only important thing, but a hint or two at the paths taken to arrive there are invaluable as a learning tool.
Let's not be silly and set up some puritanical rule that good 3D art is only that that uses no postwork. Frankly, if a litle piece of skin pokes through a shirt what difference does it make if one goes back and tweaks the 3D clothing or just covers it with some postwork. The only one who cares would be kind of a 3D super conservative, don't you think?
This is art, not engineering.
I think post work is a necessity for getting any image to look "final", you'll never capture every detail and nuance that you want either "in camera", or "in render".
However, it is obvious that the majority of these woes to do with purity comes down to gallery classification, which, imo, should be tightened up. After all, lets say I make in something in 3dsmax, then I fbx it out to shove it into maya, where I can then use renderman for maya to render the thing beautifully with custom shaders, etc. where does it belong? the max gallery? the maya gallery? there certainly isnt a prman gallery.
The answer should be, none of the above. A lil post work with photoshop to fine tune contrast, insert a lil blur here n there, comp seperately rendered layers back together is one thing, but when folks start producing images that cross over from package to package to package, those images should go under a gallery classification that reflects their process., hence not just dumped in the "whatever package" gallery, simply because its a more flash program than the others used in producing the image, or because it was used somewhere along the line.
Let the package that was most used in producing the image be the gallery where the pic goes, some say, but when models have come from one source, scene set up from another, and rendering done in a third, and possibly even postworked in a fourth, then who is to say what the "main package" ever was. Everyone will have a different answer to that question, and essentially, they'll all be both right and wrong.
So post-work, as in touch ups, who cares.
Cross platforming, glaaery choice should reflect this process.
I thank you.
How about this analogy for food...
You eat food for the way it tastes... not for how it was made...
Would you not say the same is true for art?
For the best Pro-Postwork arguement please read thundering1 comment above. For the Purist arguement, it really has to fall into the 20 minute animation scenario where sending a problem that long to the paint department would not be cost effective or look good. Both sides are right in the context of production cost and practicality. Now we should next get on to the subject of which is the right religeon. And please, know that I'm kidding.
By: Net Knight
I don't normally get involved in these discussions but I feel that this needs some clarification because people posting willy-nilly in any old classified gallery is misleading to say the least. Someone mentioned posting in the poser gallery merely because it has the most traffic. Others have pointed out that it is the 'art' which is the whole point of the images. This is true as far as it goes. It goes much further than that though. In traditional mediums: These people have started out doing 'sculpture', taken a photograph of the sculpture, painted all over the photograph and then posted it in a sculpture gallery. The whole point of Renderosity making the gallery classifications was to point up the capabilities of individual software. They are for displaying the 'art' which that software can make. If I set up poses in Poser but render in Lightwave then it goes in the Lightwave gallery. IMO, 'acceptable' postwork would be repairing 'poke-throughs' etc which is a fault in the model, or modelling engine, rather than a fault with the renderer. Maybe a touch-up on contrast, although for me, it would me another trip through the lighting and rendering. The galleries are for showing 'artworks created with a piece of software' not for just showing 'any piece of artwork.' Art galleries divide up paintings and sculptures. They even divide up chalks and oils. Why shouldn't we be allowed to do the same. People come to the galleries to see what they want to see. Massively post-worked renders are also extremely off-putting for the beginners who come here and see these massive works of art, render their own pictures, take one look at both and put down Poser forever because they will never be 'that good.' Well, neither is the guy / girl who posted the thing in the first place. This is my two cents worth.
Login and voice your opinion!
Depending on the final image?
What all vfx shots and plates are put together, you mave have a few really big matte plates, and other vfx shots to composite together..It all comes down to the Final output of the image quality you are looking for. And it all depends on the Software you are Using. Some software is $95,000 a seat, so it's all up to the artist, what it takes to complete the Final Image..