> That's funny. gagnonrich mentions efficiency. For me, efficiency in lighting means setting up the lights in the 3D app based on physical correctness. I'm probably better off showing an example to explain what I mean. Part of the problem in the "before" image is doing it on a laptop that looks brighter when I created the image, but actually producing an overly dark image when viewed elsewhere. Trying to correct the color in Poser either on the laptop or the desktop would be a laborious task. It took a minute in Photoshop to do it. It took hours to set up the lights for the original render. I'm by no means claiming it's easier to get the 3D lighting effect in Photoshop. All I'm saying is that it's easier to make global corrections in a 2D program once the lighting is pretty well set in Poser. That was only my second ever fully rendered Poser image, so I'm not saying it's great or anything, but the lighting is reasonably well set up and certainly looks better after punching up the dynamics with a Photoshop curve. The same improvement could not have readily been done in Poser because adding and changing lights markedly change the image and, at least with P5, those changes are hard to predict until the image is rendered. If you look at my gallery, you'll see that 90%-95% of the final image is Poser. I'm using color corrections, cleaning up a few bend problems, and adding the occasional rare effect. The bulk of the final product is the Poser render. That's partly due to a lack of time and partly an overall satisfaction with what came out of Poser. > Ever tried to do a realistic motion blur in a painting app? Actually, I did in the Ogre image using Painter which allows moving the mouse in whatever fashion wanted which the program then follows in a trailed blur trace as opposed to a single direction that is limited in most programs. Anything more complex than that, I'd stick with 3D as you suggest. > Paraphrase of post #50: It's really not worth spending too much time fixing a quirk with a 2D app when Poser can do it for you. True! I've got limited time and will use whichever technique works best and fastest. > But I also have great respect for artist that can use Poser (or any other 3D app) to create images that are outstanding by themselves, and where postwork would only detract from the quality. Me too! It's why I follow the forum. I'll avidly read anything by Mec4D to see what new techniques she's using with the Firefly render engine. Whatever Poser can do better is one less thing I need to correct in a 2D application. > you think there is nothing to a Pure 3d render, because of software limitations. I wouldn't go that far. After all, I've acknowledged that the work I've done is mostly a Poser render. I'll take Poser as far as I can and it then becomes a matter of a little postwork to get closer to my final vision. With more time, I'd do more postwork. At the moment, I'm letting Poser do the bulk of the job for me. I'm using Poser because it lets me get a more realistic image than I can do with my painting skills. What I trade is a greater amount of time to lay out the image (posing figures etc.) for less time to produce a realistic render (vs. painting all the final details). It always seems odd to hear an artist declare that they're stopping right there. They've got their render and will do no more because it has to be a pure Poser image. I've yet to run across a Poser render or photo that cannot be made to look a little better after a quick Photoshop curve to bring out the best in the image. If Ansel Adams had Photoshop, I'm sure he would have used it. He didn't, so he made his images better in a darkroom. Ansel wasn't a photography purist where the image from the camera had to be the final absolute product that he displayed. It just seems to be an arbitrary point to freeze one's final vision to whatever finally comes out of Poser. To me, Poser is a tool that I'll use to the best of my ability and then I'll do a little more in another program. To one degree, I can understand why somebody wants a Poser only gallery because it shows what can be done entirely in the program. At the same time, it's hard to understand why one's creative work should entirely stop right there because it's saying what can be done with a tool instead of what could be done with more tools. By the way, click the Etch-a-Sketch link if you don't think impressive art can be done with it. Some talented individuals are making the toy do artwork that looks like a good pen & ink drawing. The difference is that it takes ten times longer doing it on the Etch-a-Sketch simply for the esoteric joy of showing that's how it was done. That's the only comparison I'm making, of putting more time and effort into pushing a tool to it's limit over using a more appropriate tool for the job. It's good to push those limits occasionally as a learning experience, but anybody who always does something the hard way simply to do it the hard way, even when they know of an easier alternative, is probably being obsessive. I'm not saying anybody here is guilty of that. I would use "obsessive" to describe the Etch-a-Sketch artists that are spending 70 hours on a sketch using an artistic tool that only has an up and down dial to work with. As I mentioned, I'm not against a No-Postwork category (nor am I for it). If it's implemented, it would be interesting to get some site statistics to learn how often it's visited.

My visual indexes of Poser content are at http://www.sharecg.com/pf/rgagnon