One other thing that PS is good for is experimenting with lighting. Take a quick render in there and you can shift color balance as if you had changed lighting colors in Poser. You can even set up spotlights and whatnot in PS. Granted that doesn't cast shadows, it does give a bit of an idea as to what is going to stand out when moving the lights around in Poser and that's a heck of a lot faster than a render cycle. Dodger, I agree with you about the once upon a time thing. We all think of "real art" as our hands and a pencil/brush and paper/canvas. Some artists stretch their own canvas and consider it cheating to buy a canvas board at the store. I suppose the debate has to do with how much one creates from scratch and how much one uses ready made off the shelf products before beginning. IMHO, PS, as an electronic medium, is much closer to a white canvas than a program such as Poser. But also, tools are a wonderful thing. Why struggle trying to paint a little bush in a canvas landscape with a single camel's hair when you can take a fan brush and make the same bush in a fraction the time? I have a ton of brushes in the bucket here. And I have more than the 8 basic colors in oil tubes. I like to think of Poser as a really nice fan brush with some really nice color blends in the tubes. SamTherapy, however, has a very excellant point to make in the purist department. If you want to get to know a medium, such as Poser, then the longer you struggle with it and the more you learn it, the better off you are. And if you go to postwork to fix little blemishes all the time, its a good indication that you're getting lazy and in need of more learning with Poser. So I can see why some consider PS an essential companion to Poser and others think of it as cheating and yet others think of PS as the more conventional with Poser as the cheat sheet. Isn't art theory and philosophy fun?