Is there eanything wrong with post work, I have been told that post work is for people that cannot conpose images,, is this so ?,,,,,dose that make me a bad artist if I enjoy post work,,

It's up to you - you can be very strict and not do anything to the render, you can use the render as a starting point for your 2d painting, or anyhting between. Unless you are entering a competition there are no rules.

I like to use a render as a starting point, there is only so much you can do with Daz

Just to chime in, most professional studios use post work. There's not a single Hollywood film in the last 30 years that's been made without it. So if it's good enough for them (and since you probably visit theaters...you) then it can't be all bad.  So go for it. Like RHaseltine said, it's up to you.

Postwork is...

Well, depends how much you do...

Retouching render artifacts, smoothing out kludgy bits... fair enough, but when (as written in a tutorial in a professional 3D magazine) you start saying stuff like "hand painted reflections are superior to raytraced reflections", then perhaps you need to give up on the 3D, and concentrate on 2D, be a painter.

It's all a matter of how far you take it.

How you choose to create your images is entirely up to you - if you feel it needs postwork or want to add it then do so. I think there is sometimes a kind of snobbery amongst some 'artists' about this, as thought the work is not valid if you've done some postwork!  What a load of bull I say. Don't be constrained by what others say you should do. Create the art you want. Of course there is something to be admired if a great image can be produced using only the program, in that there is some skill in getting lighting and textures right etc., but  I think in the end what you do to achieve that final work is irrelevant if you are happy with the result, whether it be oils,crayons,pencil,computer software, whatever. The only time it may matter is if you are entering a competition where it specifically states no postwork allowed.

...some 'artists'...

Glad that's not me, never been an 'artist', I'm a tech who does this just for fun...

Still, 3D Problems, 3D Solutions, 3D Images...

If I wanted to do 2D images, I'd have gone to art school and learned to paint instead of ruining my eyes peering at monitors late at night after multi hour renders, LOL

There is also a lot of snobbery from people who don't think an image is worthwhile unless it's been subjected to a couple of days of gratuitous layer abuse in their overpriced copy of Adumby PhotoSnob CS. And there are the 'render it like this, it will look crap but you can fixit in postwork' brigade who cheerfully give out technically inncorect advice in answer to 'how do I' posts from newbs, then scream at anyone who DARES to post an actual 3D solution...

It doesn't matter how you choose to create an image or what methods you use. 3D apps, 2D apps, scanned drawings, photo's, blood, sweat, coffee, whatever. Throw it all in if you have to. If the image looks good, it looks good, no matter what road you choose to get there.

Quote - It doesn't matter how you choose to create an image or what methods you use. 3D apps, 2D apps, scanned drawings, photo's, blood, sweat, coffee, whatever. Throw it all in if you have to. If the image looks good, it looks good, no matter what road you choose to get there.

Agreed!  Art is art is art - no matter how you get there.  As long as YOU are satisfied, that's all that matters.  If you were doing a commission, and the person you were doing it for wanted it done in a specific way, then that would be a different matter, but let's be honest.  We do art for our own satsifaction and enjoyment.  If you feel more comfortable doing postwork than with playing around with lighting in Daz, then go with the postwork.  There is no 'right' or 'wrong' way in art - there are just different approaches.  I've been technically working in the 'wrong' way for years, first with pencil and 'traditional' pieces, and then in the past few months or so with digital - but I enjoy the way I do it, and that's all that matters to me.

A 3D rendering application is a tool - and one of many available to the digital artist. To say that you should be restricted to that is absurd. It's like saying that an acrylic painter can only use a bsable brush, but not an airbrush. As everyone above has said, the ONLY thing that matters is the end result.

This certainly isn't the first time I've heard of this "limit" to how the digital artist should work. The only thing I can figure is that it's be promoted by those who don't have enough conventional art skills to do proper postwork. Whatever the case it's a silly notion.

Hmm, a sculptor is limited to the stone or clay, and their chisels etc...

Do we see gangs of surly watercolourists waylaying lone sculptors, and forcing them to use guache and acrylic at gun point while screaming "You sculpting 3d fools are limiting yourselves, learn to paint like a real person hahahahahahaha".

I think not...

The Greeks and Romans painted their sculptures, as have many other cultures. Modern sculpture uses a huge range of materials and techniques.

You appear to be confusing "is it OK for me to use postwork, because some people told me I shouldn't" with "can we force people to use postwork, even if it doesn't suit their goals, values or abilities" - the first question seems to clearly take the answer yes, that second equally clearly takes the answer no.

not at all Rich, this same topic came up on an Artzone thread, AND was asked in a featured chat, and a quick look round the forums should find you a whole gangs of photosnob users complaining about evil 3d people picking on them for using postwork...

Common statements range "it's just a tool, why not use it" to "by not using postwork you are limiting yourself".

Yes some cultures have painted statues, but others have not, if you want to use postwork, do so, but it's not mandatory (as some would have you believe) nor should you have to repaint all of the image, there comes a point where postwork stops being postwork on a 3d image and just becomes a 2d image.

You use it when you have to, where you have to. Anything else is 2d art. Theres nothing WRONG with 2d art, make 2d art if you want to, but dont make 2d art and call it 3d art.

There are times when it is legitimate to pick on postwork. You submit an image to say, for example, a 'Daz Studio' gallery, your image was made with DS, somebody else submits a better looking image, an image that looks better not because  they are skilled in DS but because they are skilled in a 2d painting package.

If you submitted a3d render to a 2d painting gallery they would throw it out, but they expect to include their 2d art in our 3d galleries.

No fair...

Remember that first monthly DS gallery at daz3d? 30 images, and less than 25% were apparently made in DS at all?

I think you're getting too hung up on labels. 3D. 2D. It's all art, in the end - and 3D may be how something's modeled, but 2D is how it's usually displayed. Arguing seems silly. The only thing that really matters is that the end result is the best it can be, no matter what tools you employ to get there. Sure, in some specialized online galleries they might try to make the 2D-3D distinction, but in the real world an art director (or anyone that has their head screwed on straight) isn't going to reject an image because it was made with such-and-such a tool. They may reject it cause it looks bad, but that's something else all together. And an art show isn't going to toss someone out on their butt because they embedded sawdust in their acrylic to achieve a certain effect.

"by not using postwork you are limiting yourself"

That's true. Or at the very least what you can do with postwork in 10 minutes may very well take 4 hours if you're committed to modeling it, instead - and the results may be identical. Anyone can choose to stick to just 3D if they really want.... I just don't understand why they'd want to if empoying other tools could save them time and potentially improve the final image.

Another reason given for not allowing postwork (especially in challenges) is 'pushing the program to its limits' but you could also see this as 'demonstrating the limits of the program'

Fortunately Morriganshadow is more enlightened when it comes to the monthly challenge in this forum

Quote - I think you're getting too hung up on labels. 3D. 2D. It's all art, in the end - and 3D may be how something's modeled, but 2D is how it's usually displayed. Arguing seems silly. The only thing that really matters is that the end result is the best it can be, no matter what tools you employ to get there. Sure, in some specialized online galleries they might try to make the 2D-3D distinction, but in the real world an art director (or anyone that has their head screwed on straight) isn't going to reject an image because it was made with such-and-such a tool. They may reject it cause it looks bad, but that's something else all together. And an art show isn't going to toss someone out on their butt because they embedded sawdust in their acrylic to achieve a certain effect.

"by not using postwork you are limiting yourself"

That's true. Or at the very least what you can do with postwork in 10 minutes may very well take 4 hours if you're committed to modeling it, instead - and the results may be identical. Anyone can choose to stick to just 3D if they really want.... I just don't understand why they'd want to if empoying other tools could save them time and potentially improve the final image.

Erm you really don't understand do you...

I am not an artist, I am not a painter, I'm a computer tech, I do 3d because it amuses me, and I'm one of those people who's brains are wired up for 3d geometry, the people who can get a sofa up the stairs WITHOUT getting stuck half way or ripping the wallpaper off because we can figure the correct translates and rotates in our heads.

That LAME old 2D Artist excuse "it's all art in the end", used in almost every tirade against us limited 3d people, is not a valid argument, it's not all art in the end, 2d art is 2d art, 3d is 3d, just as sculpture and guache are different, or oil and acrylic, or woodcarving and pottery or any other distinction you care to name.

Care to tell a silversmith that it's easier making jewelery out of playdoh? Would you be suprised when said silversmith inserted their rubber faced mallet into some part of your body and twisted? LMAO.

You second argument, "why 'limit' yourself if you can 'save time and improve the image' with postwork". False again I'm afraid... First of all, 10mins vs 4 hours, the usual lie told ever since a professional 2d mac using corporate photosnob artist heard a 3d artist say he could do some fancy image in less time... "Well mr. VP sir, I can suck the design for the product straight out of the engineers cadcam system and start texturing it today but mr. photosnob says it would take him a week to paint it by hand..." and feared for his job.

Postwork is NOT always faster nor is it always better. Many a render has been ruined by overblown postwork.

Ultimately, I think the problem is all to do with that corporate imageslave mentality, must make corporate marketing images faster, coupled with the highly paid 2d realisation dept managers fear that these uppity 3d people might take his job away from him, a false fear because there will always be work for good 2d artists, it's easier to do text overlays on advertising copy in 2d, it's easier to crop the images and montage them into fancy page layouts etc.

But the fear is there, and the mob mentality. Look at this thread, one 3d person says "Do ps if you want but dont if you dont want to" and suddenly a whole bunch of people are whining about evil 3d 'snobs' picking on poor abused photosnob users.

Then look in the newsagents, for every magazine title on 3d, there are a dozen or so promising to teach you how to become hollywood pro graphics artists in a 4 page tutorial using the 30 day demo of photosnob on the cover disk.

So, lets talk limits? Does photosnob do raytraced reflections? Radiosity? Accurate shadows? Caustics? HDRI? Displacement? Or does it just allow you to paint in fake everything to whatever limit your 2d talents allow?

I don't make 'corporate marketing copy', I make 3D renders. If you want to do something different do so, but back up out of our faces with this 'limiting' crap, and this 'photosnob uber alles' approach.

Some people are good at postwork.  Some people have the equipment/software/whatever to do it.  If they're good at it, I say more power to ya.
Some people suck at it.  Some people don't have the equipment.  Whatever.  They either make do with what they have, or they push not only their program, but their talents, to the limit.
And, yes, in the end, it's all Art.  It may be a different type of art, but it's still art. 

We all have our own opinions.  We all know the saying, I don't need to repeat it ;) 

I don't usually do postwork, mostly because I'm just not that adept at it.  I do, however, do pre-work, meaning textures, lighting, etc.  I have the equipment, but I don't have the skill that goes with painting delicate items, such as lace, gauze, or hair.  I'll texture them in on an object if I can.  I am more skilled at manipulating materials and surfaces than painting the effects in afterward.  Do I look down at someone who postworks?  Nope.  They're artists, I'm an artist. 

Quote - Is there eanything wrong with post work, I have been told that post work is for people that cannot conpose images,, is this so ?,,,,,dose that make me a bad artist if I enjoy post work,,

Look at it this way. Anyone that states post work is for people that can not compose images are the ones that can't use a program to do post work in

I have got to know many artist on this site and other sites nearly  all of them have been doing 3d images for years, they all do some form of post work to an image. In my opinion you are better off with a little post work than none at all.

OK. Thought I would chime in here. About 10 years ago, I began applying my ten years of knowledge in Photoshop to doing Photo manipulations and paintings ala Rick Van Koert. It was really crude stuff, but I look at my images now and I thank goodness for that experience.

I've been really lucky to have worked in Photoshop since it came out, and when I found D|S , well, it made a HUGE difference in what I was able to achieve. I didn't have to rework all the models in an image to put the thing together. I didn't HAVE to redo the lighting, and I didn't HAVE to create my own reflections. I could leave the math up to the software and concentrate on the composition of the scene as opposed to those other issues.

Does that make me a bad artist, because I don't hand paint everything? Or because I don't use strictly 3D tools? No. It doesn't. It makes MY art more diverse than IT was. Notice I didn't talk about anyone else's art. That's because in the end, my challenge is to achieve my work the best way I know how. And I believe I am doing that.

As it sits, we have enough artists from more traditional and established mediums throwing the BS flag on us for using digital formats. Do we really need to segment ourselves and our acceptability that much further?

OK, gotta chime in, too. I use what was referred to above as Photosnub every day for my job. I get to toot my own horn here and say I'm good at it, so I'm comfortable using it to do extensive postwork on my images - texturing blanks walls, pipes, adding lighting effects, defects and embellishments, etc.

Whatever I want. Why? Because it's what I want for MY images. Little touches that as Arcas pointed out would usually take up huge amounts of time in either sculpting or rendering times when I can do it in 5 minutes - and there's a little touch that no 3D program I use can give - MINE.

I am not an artist, I am not a painter, I'm a computer tech, I do 3d because it amuses me, and I'm one of those people who's brains are wired up for 3d geometry, the people who can get a sofa up the stairs WITHOUT getting stuck half way or ripping the wallpaper off because we can figure the correct translates and rotates in our heads.

Good for you. I think we DO understand. You are much more comfortable using DS' tools to create your images from start to finish - you are not comfortable with doing postwork since you don't have any formal training (it seems) in either drawing/painting or Photoshop (or Painter, CorelDraw, or PhotoPaint for that matter). That's just fine - it's what you like to do.

The argument about telling a silversmith to use playdoh... That's an out-of-the-blue nonsensical argument - no one would.

And that's the point of this debate - NO ONE can tell you how to conceptualize, start, create, and finish whatever image you come up with, or dictate what you use in the process. Nor can they tell you that your methods are inappropriate.

The ONLY time your methds are dictated are usually when it's in the form of a contest where they expressly forbid anything other than straight out of the software render.

If someone is not good at (or comfortable/practiced with) using certain programs, or certain methods, those who are/do shouldn't be looked down upon, or made to feel their creations are less worthy.