Thanks SamTherapy (see thread below) for ressurecting this dead horse but its something I feel strongly about. Infact I would LOVE to see a new Gallery category for Non-Postworked images. Here are some reasons why it deserves a Gallery category all of its own:

1. if you had to reproduce the image again (say at a different size or dpi) then its going to take an awful lot of effort (if not next to impossible to get the EXACT reproduction of it) with a postworked image. Looking at a non postworked image, means you can imagine the image as a huge wall poster - unless you are using P6 with its current memory issues ;-)

2. It inspires owners of the 3-D package to strive for better images without feeling that they could "NEVER DO THAT". A non-postworked image demonstrates the skills of manipulating the package and not your 2d drawing ability. You still need skills though: lighting & scene composition, modelling ability etc. etc. - just a different set of skills and I for one appreciate those 'digital' skills

3. A non Postworked image could be turned into an animation with very little effort. Try animating an image with loads painted on clothes and hair!

4. it would be nice to see the power of various packages without the skill of the 2d painter being a factor. That way we can make more informed choices about the 3d package we want to buy

PLEAE NOTE: AS A DIGITAL ARTIST YOU HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO USE ANY TOOLS OR COMBINATION OF TOOLS YOU WANT TO REALISE YOUR VISION

All I am saying is that, for the reasons above, I would love to see a separate gallery that shows off purely ones package manipulation skills.

There are times when you want to show off (or see) an image purely as a piece of artwork and times when you want to show off (or see) artwork that show what the 3D package is capable of in skilled hands. Right now there is no way to do this unless the artist has stated NO POSTWORK in the comments.
Also, it would open up a whole new marketing area perhaps where artists could sell their artwork confident that the image could be re-produced to any size for someone wanting to buy it.

Lets see how long it takes now for someone to misinterpret what I've said above as a personal attack on them for having the audacity for using postwork in their images....
Sigh!

Message edited on: 03/31/2005 03:10

I agree with you about the non-postworked gallery..but do have one comment. I don't think the size thing is an issue all that much. I tend to work large no matter what, so usually it can be reproduced at least at poster size, then I shrink it down to post. What's the use of doing all that work if it's not "useable"? Maybe other people don't mind, but being from the print industry, doing work on a low res image is the same as throwing my time away if I can't use it later for high res print. You've got a good point there... (zai...the overly-postworked artist)

But are textures created in photoshop, psp or whatever acceptable? Can extra python scripts (for Poser) or plugins for other packages be accepted or not? Are third-party objects (daz, sixus,...) acceptable, or does it have to be pure Poser? I see your point, but setting rules is always so vague...where does the beach end, and where does the sea begin?

Aeneas, I see where you are coming from but I think if you can hit the 'Render' button on your package and take the final output then that would be your criteria. So Even if you use Poser to Pose and texture your model, import it into Vue and hit the Vue Render button then it would be considered a 'Vue' No-Postworked image. I think things start to get fuzzy when you start using Alpha planes etc (although this would fail the re-size test since scaling the alpha plane bitmap would start to show pixelation) . So heres a set of possible criteria for a 'pure' digital non-postworked image. 1. No interaction with the image should be necessary after the 'Render' button is hit (except to add a signature and possibly fix the exposure of the image) 2. You can reproduce the image at any size required (obviously limited by the maximimum size the package allows you to render at) without loss of information 3. You can look at the scene from another angle without having to do any 2d postwork and still retain all the information in the original image. 4. The 3D package that should be associated with the image should be the last one used (ignoring packages used to add final signatures or exposure control)

Well, I need to move all my gallery.

Everything I do in 3D is geared toward animation. I make absolutely sure that whatever I do after the render can be done easily if I decided to animate the scene. So I have no problems with this, except for: "1. No interaction with the image should be necessary after the 'Render' button is hit (except to add a signature and possibly fix the exposure of the image)" You realize that leaves out EVERY major professional 3D/CG studio in the known universe. LOL.

stealth1701..."and possibly fix the exposure of the image" One could argue that in itself be considered postwork. But I agree with what your saying it would nice to see what artists could do with a straight render. I know it's possible. Plus we could we all guareentee some good shouting matches about did they postwork or not! :) al

"Plus we could we all guareentee some good shouting matches about did they postwork or not! :) "

Oh, you just know that THIS would be a constant occurance. If it were an animation gallery, then probably not so much to worry about... but stills? It will never work. It's just too easy for someone to touch up things here and there in a paint program, so no one could ever be 100% sure that there's no postwork done to something unless you request to see a wireframe along with original texture maps or some other form of validation from EVERY submitter... just like they do at CGTalk. Hehe. I can see that going over big round here. ;-P Message edited on: 03/31/2005 05:59

Pray tell me what is the difference between "fixing the exposure" and altering the saturation? Changing the hue range? Upping the contrast? Correcting the gamma? You wouldn't allow making a corresponding frame in PhotoShop, but would allow pixels to be changed to repair the lighting? You wouldn't allow touching up for poke-through, but would allow a desaturated image to enhance the moodiness? Whether you use a prepackaged filter to get a nice glow or sit there with the gamma curve to fix the exposure doesn't matter, you've done postwork. Even "saving for web" where the program mushes up the colors to get the image size down is postwork! Placing the signature is postwork! Reading between the lines, it appears that what you want to do is separate out the images where people have painted hair and clothes from the images where people use 3d models of hair and clothes. Sheep and goats? ...and I have to ask WHY? If you are doing your art just to make the image which conveys your thoughts and satisfies you, why are you worried about what others might or might not be doing? Carolly

"why are you worried about what others might or might not be doing?" I wonder about this myself Allow me to repost what I posted in the other Tedious thread about this "issue" Quoting myself:"Post working is an artistic skill Ive found the the people who are against it dont come from traditional art backgrounds and Dont have the skills to do it anyway :-) I know a long time poser user who proudly proclaims "P4 NO POST!!!!" in every description of his gallery images. and his work is quite Dull Flat & mediocre Like so many other anti-postwork "artists" Ive also noticed the "Anti post" crowd also tends to be recalicitrant Poser4 hold outs and even if they use poser 5 they NEVER Use firely, material nodes etc. just the P4 render and perhaps a few Purchased light sets and poorly lit Background props Alot of them also tend to still run WIndows 98 or Mac OS9 Claiming they dont need "Complicated" systems Like XP or MAC OSX. Just my opinions> End quote .

I knew it wouldn't take long before someone COMPLETELY mis-interpreted the thread!!!!
Hauksdottir, please read the bit in BOLD in my original post. I KNOW it doesn't matter what technique anyone uses to produce their art - I just want to also have the option of seeing images done using the 3D Package alone (AS AN OPTION!!!!)
Adding a sig is not the type of postwork I'm talking about. Anyone with half a brain will be able to discern that an image with a sig obviously hasn't been completely done using the package - and frankly that won't be of concern. People put sigs on the image for copyright and personalisation, ITS NOT PART OF THE SCENE (usually).
I included exposure since we are just talking about increasing or decreasing lighting information that is already there in the scene rather than actually changing or adding anything.

Hmm. I can see your point, but perhaps an added "genre" option would be better than an entirely different gallery? After all, both are Poser artwork. We don't have separate galleries for P4, P5 and P6, nor should we. So why force postwork distinctions? On the other hand, having a "no postwork" genre option would allow those who want to post in that category to easily find like images, without alienating everyone else.

"Reading between the lines, it appears that what you want to do is separate out the images where people have painted hair and clothes from the images where people use 3d models of hair and clothes." Judging from this: "3. A non Postworked image could be turned into an animation with very little effort. Try animating an image with loads painted on clothes and hair!" I'd say you hit the proverbial nail on the head. ;-) I don't care either way. I'd be glad to offer wireframes and texture maps (when I'm not using procedural textures) if it ever came down to that. I've done it on CGTalk before. I just find the whole "anti-postwork" concept a humorous topic. It seems accurate to what Wolf has pointed out. With a few exceptions, it seems only beginners and moderate hobbyists care about such things. :-)

"Anyone with half a brain will be able to discern that an image with a sig obviously hasn't been completely done using the package" Ok, but what about depth of field effect that's done in post? Not everyone wants to wait an eternity for a render effect that can be knocked out in seconds in 2D just as well. Or composite shots where the 3D element was not touched other than to composite it onto the background? With P6, we'll be seeing a lot more of that because it's new features are geared toward it. By your definition, that's postwork?? These are all very much part of true 3D, but not according to your rules. See how it can get confusing real fast?

Just one more thing, and then I'll go away. hehe. ;-) What about the new feature in P6 that lets you render a "shadow only" pass? This means, you render the image once without shadows, then you run this shadow only pass so that you can composite the shadows to the image in post. It provides much more control over shadow intensity and color in both stills AND animation after the render is done. My question would be, in this new hypothetical gallery, would this also be "illegal" postwork? Clearly, it's now an itegrated feature of Poser 6, and a legitimate technique that's commonly done by professionals in the industry all the time. Yet, it's definitely postwork.

maxxmodelz, this would fail the 1st test, since you are compositing the image outside Poser (I haven't played with Poser 6 enough to understand the effect you are talking about but from your post I assume that this combination is done postwork?) Like most things you can get a general idea of the things a person is trying to convey in a thread or you can nit-pick every typed word and formulate an argument based on that. I do hope people here are more interested in the former. Here is the general idea again for people who missed it. Love art for arts sake no matter how its produced BUT why bother categorising it under the package that you used to produce it if you are going to heavily postwork it anyway. Call it just digital art! Alternatively have the ability in the gallery to state which packages were used. That way, if only say Poser6 is listed then people will know its a straight render if its Poser6 and Photoshop then people will know its postworked.

"Love art for arts sake no matter how its produced BUT
why bother categorising it under the package that you used to produce it if you are going to heavily postwork it anyway"

Not trying to nit-pick everything you say, but if you're serious about this, I might be interested in participating. Most of my stuff only gets very minor touch-ups or color corrections in post.

However, the thing is... you keep saying "heavily postworked", then you say if you do ANYTHING other than a logo it's not acceptable?? Well, compositing shadows that were rendered FROM Poser itself (meaning, you set up all the lights that cast those shadows in the first place, they're not painted on) is hardly "heavily postworked".

Again, your definition of "heavily postworked" is murkey at best, and I dare say the vast majority of people who would participate in such a gallery, where the rules of conduct are so undefined, would be a beginner-level user, or someone who has no real interest in improving their skill level.

Again, I'm not hounding you here. I don't come from a 2D background, so painting over things isn't good for me either... I'm just saying that you're alienating a great majority of professionals who do certain types of postwork for the sake of workflow, and I'm NOT talking about paint-overs.

Message edited on: 03/31/2005 07:51

I have no problem with seperate galleries, if a piece of art is good, knowing how the person achieved the end result is not important. But I suppose if may be a good idea for people who get so bent out of shape about it. Pink

No Maxx my definition of heavily postworked is not "murkey at best" - if you have to add stuff to a SCENE that wasn't there in the original then its postworked. Let me give you an (extreme) example of why I don't like postworked images in galleries that are categorised by applications. I render a couple of images in Poser. Composite them together and tag on some realistic shadows (rendered separately) using the technique you mention above. Composite it on a Terragen produced background (complete with your nice 'postworked' shadows) and post it in the Poser Gallery. Someone comes along that doesn't have Poser and says, "Gee, Poser can do all that - must get me that application!" Or you post it in the Terragen Gallery and someone says "Gee, Terragen can have realistic people in front of natural looking backgrounds? Wow, must get me that application." See what I mean? Also, WHY would anyone want to post in a gallery that is exclusively for non-postworked images and then 'cheat' by doing a bit of postwork on it. That person would have nothing to gain - since everyone is using the same package. We push the applications to its limits and then ask the manufacturers to add the stuff into it that can only be solved at present by postwork. That way the next version becomes even more powerful and needs less Postwork. Why do we bother asking CL and the like for additional features like IBL, Radiosity etc, accurately modelled hair etc. if we are not interested in the package doing this. Surely the goal of a 3D package is to produce a realistic image out-of-the-box that properly casts shadows, folds cloth in the right places and makes hair look natural. If we are going to paint these on, then 3D packages and Poser in particular has matured as far as it needs to. Ok enough ranting from me, you have the floor...

There is a significant difference between images that are postworked so much that poser is essentially just the "base", and an image that has been postworked to correct for colour cast, clothing poke-through, mesh breaks and suchlike. But by insisting on a "purity" of non-postworked images, you place both of these in the same category. And that is why requests like this never work out. If enough people are going to participate in a "no postwork gallery", you need to accept that different people will draw the lines in slightly different places. Especially since, if an artist is skillful at correction-type postwork, you (generic "you") wouldnt' be able to tell the difference anyway.

"4. it would be nice to see the power of various packages without the skill of the 2d painter being a factor. That way we can make more informed choices about the 3d package we want to buy" ----- This pretty much sums it up. Why are so many of you having such difficulty with this concept? Gad. If I render a Poser (VUE, Carrara, Lightwave) scene with all its bells and whistles, and then render yet again the same scene from a different angle/camera, both renders remain intact products of the program in question and my ability (or lack thereof) to use it. Painting hair, clothing, etc in postwork shows off ones skills (or lack thereof) regarding Paintshop, Photoshop, et al. Cropping, signature compositing, watermarking, web-readiness and the like are postwork processes but they affect the post-render image mechanics as a whole rather than specific artistic "choices". Color correction, saturation, exposure control, etc. are questionable postwork processes. Granted, they don't modify the image in such a way as to prohibit immediate reproduction from various angles, but they do open for questioning the users ability to control these parameters within the program, PRE-render. I think what is being suggested is "Present the render as if you had NO OTHER programs with which to modify it--with the exception of whatever post processes deemed acceptible by 'whomever' (cropping, signatures, watermarking, etc)". All in all, I think a separate gallery is highly unlikely, especially when its something that can be accomplished with flags or appended to the image title. Also consider that nobody (and I mean nobody) who puts 30+ hours into a render is going to do that again from a second angle just to satisfy some no-post infidels. Nonetheless, a VERY intriguing idea. If you can't get it accepted here, there are always other avenues. ah heh heh He said "package handling abilities" heh heh

I imagine the next stage is this mindset will be a plea for a "poser4 classic" Gallery. NO IBL NO Subsurface scattering NO point lights NO AO NO Soft shadows No Displacement mapps. "possette" and "Dork" preferred :-)

"No Maxx my definition of heavily postworked is not "murkey at best" - if you have to add stuff to a SCENE that wasn't there in the original then its postworked."

Uhm.. OK.

"Someone comes along that doesn't have Poser and says, "Gee, Poser can do all that - must get me that application!" Or you post it in the Terragen Gallery and someone says "Gee, Terragen can have realistic people in front of natural looking backgrounds? Wow, must get me that application."
See what I mean?"

Happens all the time in EVERY application. For instance, some newbies think that just because Alias/Wavefront's website says Maya was used in the making of LOTR, that they can get the software, learn it, and do what they saw there. When in reality, a number of different 3D packages were used in tandum to achieve the FX, and a great deal of high end postwork software that only a studio could afford was used to prepare it for film. The best way to find out what a program is capable of is to read it's features and try the demo.

"Also, WHY would anyone want to post in a gallery that is exclusively for non-postworked images and then 'cheat' by doing a bit of postwork on it."

That I don't know... but trust me, it will happen. Some kid will want to get his kicks by getting oooohhhs and aaaaaahhhhs to his picture, so he'll - as you put it - cheat the system by fixing some bad joints, etc. in post. And no one would be the wiser, because it's all still pictures. Unless you require wireframes and texture proofs, which would be impossible in this kind of gallery structure, I believe the gallery would eventually deteriorate into "cheater" heaven fairly quickly.

"Ok enough ranting from me, you have the floor..."

I'm done. Message edited on: 03/31/2005 09:00

Hehe... I just hope that everyone who is in the "anti-postwork" alliance are not the same people who feel shunned or get pissed-off when high-end forum users shoot down Poser users as being "cheaters" because they use all pre-fab stuff. That would be terribly ironic. ;-)

Thank you oilscum, FINALLY someone who understands!

Maxxmodelz - "Happens all the time in EVERY application. For instance, some newbies think that just because Alias/Wavefront's website says Maya was used in the making of LOTR, that they can get the software, learn it, and do what they saw there." - EXACTLY my point. You only have to go to Curious Labs Gallery and look at the mnumber of images in there that have been Postworked. If I was looking at Poser as a potential application for the first time and saw these images I would WRONGLY assume that it is capable of all the effects shown in the Gallery. Fact us most of us have got frustrated enough with Poser to know this isn't the case. This is in effect false product merchandising - something I'm sure no-one would be happy with if it were done in the Marketplace. All I'm saying is credit the art wth the tools that were used in the making of it - that way we can decide where our ooooohhhs and ahhhhhhs should be placed.

Oh and BTW, I don't get pissed-off when postworkers shun pre-fabbed images. Its a completely different set of skills. One requires 2d skills and the other 3d skills and like I said before - the artist can use whatever medium he/she wants to make the image. Please remember the original post - I'm not looking to ban postwork I just want them distinguished from non-postworked images. THATS ALL I'M ASKING FOR! Anyone else agree with that LAST statement????

Message edited on: 03/31/2005 09:22

"All I'm saying is credit the art wth the tools that were used in the making of it - that way we can decide where our ooooohhhs and ahhhhhhs should be placed." This I agree with. :-) In fact, I sometimes might forget to put when a render was composited or when colors have been adjusted myself. However, whenever someone asks, I have no problem telling them exactly how I achieved something - be it directly in Poser or after the fact. Except, of course, when if it comes to commercial work (not the marketplace, but actual client work)... those would be "ancient chinese secret". ;-)

an easy idea :) no postwork, period, not even sigs, nothing should be done after clicking the "render" button now you say you want a sig in your pic? 3d apps can EASILY (atleast for me and i suck ahah) have the sig there before clicking render dont tell me all of you "great" artists wanting to post in the "purist" genre, dont remember the basic things in your 3d app? add a plain square, position it, parent it to your camera, and save the scene as a "base" for your 3d projects to be on. And IMO using texture maps, trans maps, even bump/disp maps, a sig can blend into the scene, or stand out, just as much or better as postworking it i can easily postwork the hell out of an image, and make the image perfect, we have galleries for that already, and adding a "purist" genre does no harm, if someone wants to make a "pure" pic and post, they can first time i see someone say its imposible to make a sig inside of the scene, i swear im going to go insane o_o

"of them also tend to still run WIndows 98" What's the problem?, I am using Windows 95 for Poser, something wrong with Win95?, all wrong that I know is from Windows XP! and Win98. ""NO IBL NO Subsurface scattering NO point lights NO AO NO Soft shadows No Displacement mapps. " It make part of the rendering engines, the same way as shadows, refraction, reflexions, fog, procedural textures, radiosity, raytracing, etc. Many of them are multi-pass algorithms.

BTW Maxxxmodelz - some excellent images in your gallery? Were they postworked? ;-)

"BTW Maxxxmodelz - some excellent images in your gallery?
Were they postworked? ;-)"

Thank you. ;-)

I do very little postwork for stills.Mostly just color correction or fixing of Poser's stupid tears/joints if need be. I actually do more postwork (compositing) for animations because of time constraints. However, since you asked, I'll be specific...

1. The James image was not postworked at all. Straight P6 render over a background shader/image using IBL and some specular-only point lights.

2. The Jose image had some sharpening done in Photoshop, but that's about it if I recall correctly.

3. The latest one I posted last night, Jessi's Discontent, was done with IBL and AO shadows, along with two specular-only point lights and some raytraced and sphere-mapped reflections for the eyes. I posted another thread about this one earlier, which is probably on the second page of the forum by now. The only postwork done here was some work on color adjustment, sharpening, a few minor "extra" highlights I thought would enhance it, and some smoothing of jaggies on certain areas of the strand-based hair. Sorry, but I wasn't about to render it out a second time with increased antialiasing, because it took somewhere between 6 and 8 hours to render, and I easily fixed the problems in post in a matter of 10 minutes total. ;-)

Message edited on: 03/31/2005 10:05

Shit... my bad. James actually DID get some treatment in post. I gave him some DOF in post (depth of field) to blend him in a little with the background environment so it didn't look so "steril" with sharp edges.

LOL. I guess I can't play in your sandbox anymore. ;-P

Message edited on: 03/31/2005 10:12

I would love to see a Posette/Dork only gallery... I know of a couple on the net but they do not reflect the quality of work I have seen in the occasion image here and there such as ernyoka1's at http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=315404. I have heavily post worked image from mid-2000 in the gallery, my first render ever in fact aside from TOSed photo-real pure render portrait image of a friend of mine that was pulled perhaps because she was an amputee. The post work image Dork and unmodified Posette (it was a WIP only) is at: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=12939&Artist=momodot&Start=1&ByArtist=Yes -------------------- I have always had ethical quams over using photos to create textures... would a "True Poser Only" gallery exclude photo sourced textures or "hand painted" ones? I would like a No-postwork gallery and an extreme postwork gallery as well :)

I use postwork on all my images but one. I do understand what stealth1701 is trying to do. I do support his idea. I guess we all have to keep an open mind.
It is difficult to achieve most of the stuff we ask from our images, but not impossible. It a challenge tho.
DOF can be achieved in poser 5 as Stewer demonstrated in one of his tutorial.
a signature can also be done in poser by using a prop with a texture and transparency.
As for color correction. If you use the right color lighting, and a good amount of 'prework', adjusting the textures color, play with P5 nodes etc. You probably don't need color correction after the render.
Eventhough I use postwork and swear by it, I do appreciate a non-postworked image once is a while.

JV

Message edited on: 03/31/2005 11:40

Interesting topic again. On one hand, this pure pursuit will drive the technology forward. The new features of Poser 6 are coming out of the need for a better render at the outset. Nothing wrong with that. I have recently begun to see 3d models as a way of shaping "paint" tho. In most cases, that "model" you are seeing in the image is really a painted image wrapped around a 3d object. As displacement mapping technology improves, the map will be doing even more of the "modeling" work. So, texture maps are "post" from the beginning. If you are gonna do this, texture maps that are painted/photos would be out, and only procedural ones would be allowed. I am not sure if anyone would want to do this, as a V3 procedural texture I don't think exists. I think what you guys want is a "render only gallery". This gallery could be for all softwares, and be only about rendering.

If some people feel strongly enough about "no postwork" images, what's stopping them from simply putting that in their descriptions? Why would this take a separate gallery? I don't get it.

Pardon me but isnt this entire debate moot anyway?? perhaps its been asked already but do you anit postwork advocates have any realistic means to enforce your pure gallery or will you expect rosity to $$$hire$$ computer forensic specialist to examine every upload to check for "inconsistent bit map data indicative of post manipulation" ???

I don't think it would be a problem if people used the "mixed medium" gallery for those renders that have a lot of painting (clothes, hair, etc) in them. That's what it's there for. Unfortunately, there will always be those images that have only part of a Poser figure, exported to Cinema 4d...then rendered there...later composited with a sky rendered in Bryce or Vue... then painted over in Photoshop or Painter.... then posted in the Poser gallery. eh.

okay....what i am reading here is a thread devoted to Poser and no postwork. there are other apps, you know....and there are issues about postwork for all of them. it's kind of rude to strictly limit this issue to poser. or...lets take it a bit further....how about a gallery with no postwork, and if a person is using a modelling app...well, posting a render that is using vicki three and acting as if the whole thing was "modelled"....as opposed to posed by them. i could see one big "au naturale" gallery, but not just another poser gallery with or without postwork.

There was one thread about a year ago, with the same idea. The reason it won't work is that there's no way we can be certain whether or not they postworked their image. Some of these artists are so good that you can't tell, one way or the other. Any enforcement measures you might put in place would only serve to alienate and cause bitter arguments and accusations.

What I'm getting from all this is that there is very little point in having galleries devoted to the applications used to produce the images. Why have a Poser gallery at all? Or a C4D or Vue, or... well, you get the point. Why not have just one gallery with the various genres as at present, plus the ability to list which applications were used to produce the image? That way there wouldn't be a need for a separate 'non-postwork' gallery because it would be clear from the list of apps used.

Thats what I've been trying to say spedler - but you've articulated it far better.
At the end of the day, the primary point of Renderosity is to display digital artwork regardless of the appplication(s) used to produce it. But, if we could specify the tools that were used, those of us that were interested in looking at what could be done with the application alone could filter out images that were produced using only a specific application. Would need a better search tool though to be able to filter on various criteria.
Those who don't care how the image was produced can just look at the pictures from purely the artistic point of view.
What do you think Renderosity????

Message edited on: 03/31/2005 13:35

well, that wouldn't work because poser folks say they "model" in poser....and those of us who use modelling apps to make models would want to look at a "modelling" gallery....and, well you can see the dilemmna. also, since so much of the gallery is taken by poser renders those of us who use other apps would seldom be seen....i like not being buried within an hour if i post to lightwave gallery...i'd be very upset if i spent a month modelling a critter just to have it buried by a bunch of v3s in armor within an hour or less.

I understand where the idea for such a gallery comes from, but like many others I can see it as being a headache to define what is or isn't post-work. For example, most textures for objects are created in a 2D environment like photoshop. Obviously, this is not considered postwork. But what if I go into photoshop and create a detailed, 2D painted background, apply that background to a square prop, and then put that square prop behind my Poser characters and other objects. That's not post-work (it's more like "pre-work"), but the image would contain significant elements that are created in a 2d environment and were not actually rendered in three dimensions (but, in the final image, may fool the viewer into thinking they were). Or for that matter, just inserting a simple background image. If I take a photo with my digital camera and use it as a background, is that cheating? I certainly wouldn't be able to animate that picture (as some have suggested as a test for post-work) without it being obvious that the background was static and not rendered on the fly. Of course, if lots of people want such a gallery, why not create it. No skin off my nose.

thats why it should be a "purist" genre lightwave/purist poser/purist 3dsmax/purist adding 1 genre lets all the apps have a gallery to post "a signature can also be done in poser by using a prop with a texture and transparency." i said that already and how to do :P

Poppi, I agree, but that isn't how I would see it working. You would of course have to be able to filter what apps were used, so if you wanted to see images made with LW (at least somewhere in the process) then you would have to be able to do that. If you wanted to see images made in Poser with no postwork, then you ask for those where the only app used is Poser, not Photoshop, and/or Vue, or whatever, as well.

what about the all what's new category? i kind of like to browse that category....and, even those of us who use other apps probably would like folks to take a peek now and then. to not view certain apps...well, wouldn't alot of folks just not view lightwave and some of the others? this whole postwork thing may take care of itself. i remember when "no" postwork was the buzz, here...now, it is lots of postwork...that could change, though, as we see more and more images using 2d composite tube type things, or basically so much compositing that the image loses its 3d look. certainly, i can't be the only one who thinks this looks bad :*) i like painted hair and dresses and some are much better at it than others. but, i am routinely seeing folks virtually spoiling their images with little tubes, and filters, etc. eventually, the clue fairy must strike, and, perhaps the trend will swing back the other way. also, don't forget, there are alot of merchants who sell brushes for hair, wings, etc. they and their friends with regularity are the populace of the poser hot 20. i truly do not believe r'osity would bite itself in the wallet by dividing the galleries. there is even postwork layer clothing for sale, if you can believe that. i think it's best to just hope the fashion in the gallery changes....(GAWD i hate sparkle tubes on a lightwave render.)

I'm sure you're right about R'osity's income keeping the galleries set up the way they are. Not that I can necessarily blame them for that :-)

It could be render only gallery, that means absolutely no post, but the problem is it's gonna be a lonely place with about 5 pics in it! LOL!

the saddest part of all of this is....folks say they use postwork to make their art unique...yet, they are folking to the marketplace to buy premade, out of the box, postwork.

I think the problem with this debate really comes down to individual perception. Lets face it people are never gonna agree one way or another. The nice thing is it's such a perceptions and prefrences that keep all different types of artists inspired.

I myself don't necessarily get the purist argument, to me seems a tad close minded not to use all the tools at my disposal no matter what they are. And hey if my customers like enough of my stuff to hand over their hard earned pennies thats good too.

Me myself going by my particular buisiness couldn't sell a pure 3d rendered image to anyone, they just don't want them. I've found that realism just doesn't sell well, wether it's t shirts, mugs, mouse mats, web sites, or prints. So while some people can appreciate a pure 3d image, they don't necessarily want it to represnet their buisness, wear it, or hang it on their wall. Likewise even if it's a photo-manip I'm asked to do they want the pores, scars, spots and blemishs removed.
Peoples tastes vary I suppose.

I know it's already been stated on this argument that people don't understand why your would use poser and then paint over the top. For me this isn't strictly a hobby now, I am lucky enough to be ble to do my hobby now for a living. And if a customer wanted me to start from scratch with acrylics or watercolours to paint a person it would take me three times the time, and cost them three times the money.
Using a Poser figure and then painting over the top, knowing that the anatomy is right, and that it looks very professional is a tons quicker, and b for my customers tons cheaper. Also I think digital art looks better on web sets and layouts as a scan doesn't have the same vibrancy.

I suppose it depends on individual taste, I wish you luck in your render only gallery. I wonder if any of you have been asked to provide a pure rendered image over a postworked one. It would be an interesting comparision to know what the average non artistic joe soap thinks.

Pink edit: Gah, I can spell better than this honest, I just have PC head at the minute LOL

Message edited on: 03/31/2005 16:06

actually, for 3d modelling....people want to see the actual mesh wireframe as well as a render. it could render nicely, but if the topology is not right, it could produce some grotesque effects in posing or animating.