Looking through the galleries it seems many Poser artists do no postwork on their renders.
As Poser characters' joints don't bend naturally, I find I need to postwork out the creases around shoulders, knees etc. Smudge some stark lines etc.
I see a lot of imperfections on my final renders regardless of how hard I try to perfect them with endless test renders.
A little postwork on some images would do so much to enhance the final result, turn a good picture into a great picture IMO.
Are people too lazy, don't look carefully, don't care?, or is postwork looked upon as being some sort of Poser heresy.
Im sure even the great painters throughout history did a little dab of paint here and there the day after "finishing" their work.

'Postwork' is a nice word

Some obsessive people think they must use a 3D program as if it was one of the Immutable Universe's Rules. But all painters since Stonehenge corrected their little bugs doing their art 

Some people post work, others don't.

Some who post work do so to an inch of the image's life so that they don't even look like "Poser" images anymore.

Some like to see what they can do exclusively inside Poser and  try to learn how to push the program to it's maximum ability so they don't do any post work.

While others either don't have the proper tools, or talent or patience or even time to commit to spending weeks to post work beyond making a thumbnail...and some don't even do that and let the server generate them.

Art is individual and it's what you (general you not directed at anyone) want to make of it.

If you want to post work, then do so. But don't do it because you feel you have to do it to keep up with some of the Jones' around the galleries. 

If you don't post work, don't feel bad about it either.

And then we have the ones who are only into Poser for the TITillation that it provides them  :tongue1:

Think of all of those bad joints and what you perceive as "imperfections" as "abstract art", Picasso did. All of his figures are grossly distored and deformed....far from perfection.

Some people prefer their work to be "as it comes out of the application".
There is also a rule about not using postwork if you are producing images to be used as product promos.

But in general, I agree with you. I never quite understood the attitude, myself.

I don't think anything is wrong with postwork at all, but I don't know a lot of it myself so I do very little.  I also don't really care for a lot of the things that are done with postwork in an artistic sense, e.g. a heavily airbrushed or fogged look in an attempt to duplicate Luis Royo's work.  I think there are good reasons for certain aspects of postwork that I am anxious to learn - on the other hand, achieving certain things with physical paint and brushes is a real measure of skill, running a canned Photoshop filter is not.  Plus there is often no real artistic reason to do an obtrusive postwork effect, and it may take away from the image more than it adds.

Particularly in cases where you plan to re-use a character many times, like in my work (planned graphic novel), you really don't want to be postworking the same fixes every time if you can avoid it, imo it's a lot more sensible to fix as much as possible in the scene itself before rendering to avoid duplicate work.

Some of my earliest images have no post work at all because quite frankly, I didn't know how; and I think this is true of many Poser users.

Now? I couldn't live without Photoshop. But I do admire those that aim for perfection in their raw renders.

There are extremes of both groups:

The Poser purists that refuse to post-work for no reason other than bias;
The Poser 'artists' that apply post-work far too liberally, regardless of their results out of Poser.

Whatever you do, stay away from lens flaire and diffuse glow. They're sooooo last year :).

Postwork means a lot of things:

it could be a way to add an effect you could never achieve with your 3d app, or never succeed to learn how to do

It could be a way to correct your mistakes, or the app generated mistakes (or what you suppose to be a mistake)

it could be a way to enhance your pic if you're running after real-life look as Acadia said above (i.e. painted hair if you have the skills...)

it could also be a way to turn a color you don't like into another one

it could be so many things...

Sometimes, you realise your postwork has completely turned your pic into something completely different that you were willing to have. It could be a good thing or a bad ne, it depends.

I don't think postwork is different than prework, you do what you have in mind and what your picture requires.

Joint points... usually they are 99% of my postwork

And... over all to get special effects and save time. If I need a DoF effect, I prefer an easy ten minutes Photoshop postwork than waiting zillions of hours Poser getting the same result (and most of times, imperfect) 

I'm not really talking about a creative effect, more about renders aiming for "realism" (posted to the Portraits/Realism sections).
If your aiming for realism ....  well my armpits and knees don't have gigantic flaps of skin sticking out, (not yet anyway). Nor are my nostrils a glowing light sourse. Two minutes in Photoshop or any 2D program is all that's needed.
Maybe we've been looking at renders of Mike and Vicki so long we've forgotten what real people like.

ps. I'm not into heavy postwork myself. If I can't go from idea to Poser to publication in2 or 3 days, I ditch the project. (Many would say that this explains the quality of my gallery and they probably have a point.)

When I first started out in Poser, Yes it was a dirty word for me, I wanted pure Poser renders. But now I have realized it's not possible if you want certain effects and enhancements. 
Look at all the "top" artists here and all their work is postworked, very few actual renders. The postwork could be added layer effects, painted hair or cloth etc.

Nope, to me it's not a dirty word!!

Quote - Nor are my nostrils a glowing light sourse. Two minutes in Photoshop or any 2D program is all that's needed.)

Gosh, don't let bagginsbill here you say that,  LOL

FIxing Nostril Glow inside Poser

Quote - Maybe we've been looking at renders of Mike and Vicki so long we've forgotten what real people like.

This is a very good point in general and is completely separate from postwork.  You'll see lots of people who are very fond of heavy postwork who make the same mistakes, and I'm not claiming to be any kind of perfect myself.

Then you have those who do so much post work that their images all start to look the same after a while.

I used to be able to tell certain artists images apart from others. However so many have taken to doing so much post work that those images all kind of look alike and don't really have anything that distinguishes them apart from their other images or images from other artists who also do heavy post work.  At least that's what I find.

I don't postwork nostrils anymore, though I used to. AO now kindly does that for me.
Hope you did a nice curtsey when you said His name Acadia.
He's a legend and has taught me so much.

Quote - Then you have those who do so much post work that their images all start to look the same after a while.

Then they could use a photoshop automate script to save time... lol

Seriously, i'm trying to tend to realism for my part. And as my gallery is mostly filled with portraiture, i have not a lot of joint bug to correct  :)
But some prob sometimes occur that NEED some postwork, i.e. map seams visible, or polygon shapes pointed up on rounded edges like shoulders (as i use Vue, there is no "smooth olygon" option).

Attached Link: Pablo Picasso

Not all of his art was like that, only those pieces that he produced towards the end of his life.  A lot of his earlier work was more of a neo-classical form.
DPH

I guess he had used the "auto balance" option here...  ;)

That underarm cut sure is high.

Post work is painting- and that is yet another skill set in a long list of skills sets in 3d that scares a lot of people.

  I would suppose that I could be considered a universal heretic by purists.... my only guideline? if it does the job, use it... if something else does a better job, use that. Lou.

I use postwork when needed, and when it suits my end goal.

At the same time, postwork takes time, effort, know-how and extra tools that not everyone has.
There are people whom like to show off, or push, their technical skills by showing off how much can be done with no postwork. 

If the goal if the image is to show off modeling and rendering technical skills, and one uses a lot of postwork, it can be considered cheating. Sort of like using a calculator on a math test that has a 'no calculators' constraint.

On a broader scheme of things, when the end goal is an image that tells a story, there's no reason why someone shouldn't use all the tools they have.

just my 2c :)

  Exactly, Conniekat8. Lou.

I rendered something recently and due to being very busy at the time I actually forgot to postwork before I uploaded it.  Pretty sure that was the only time that ever happened.  Photography is my true love and postworking is my friend.

In the end if others like it, that's super - but I'm really only out to please myself so I don't much care what others think about postwork vs purity blah blah lol.  I've probably been guilty of being over the top in filtering, - probably many times.  With my art there is a vision - demon - in my head, and Ill do whatever it takes to get it out.

Quote - With my art there is a vision - demon - in my head, and Ill do whatever it takes to get it out.

tee hee... I love the way you described that :)

I rarely do postwork simply because most of my images are simply vignettes to tell a short story with an image. If my story comes across, no high art is needed. Sometimes I'll do a portrait nude male simply because I'm playing with a new skin texture, but those times I'm usually just playing with realism, not really striving for it.

I usually only do post work on projects that I consider truly serious endeavors or for added effects that you can't get from Poser. Most of the images that I've posted on this site the by line is the only post. This is because I use this site as a way to work out my skills and to get knowledgeable opinions on how to improve them. If I masked the image with too much post members who critic my work wouldn't be able to give me honest opinions on what I need to work on. But this is just my preference, if you're goal to comming here is something different then you're workflow can be what ever makes you happy. 

On the other hand I've seen several images on here that are in the Poser galleries that probably should be in the photoshop galleries. The work that they've done in Poser was beginner at best, but their post was outstanding elevating the work to a new level, but it would be like me working out a texture for Viki in Photoshop, rendering it in Poser and then posting in a photoshop gallery for opinions.  

Ultimately I'd say post for the sake of post is just as bad as no post for the sake of purity IMHO.

I do post work on projects important to me or for a client. There are things that poser doesn't do well and post work is the only to get the affect or look you want. When I first started with poser many moons ago and got exposed to the 3D world and these forums post work was a must. There used to be a lot of tuts about post work hair painting being the biggest 'cause then there were really no good hair items like today. I feel post working is still very important and a necessary skill to have. It fits right in there with basic modelling.

I post-work when and as I like.  It's just a tool like any other.  LIke Poser itself.

I actually HATE the word "postwork".   Why?  Postwork is a general term slapped on any artist that uses poser for any reason.......   so what i do is classified as postwork?   Postwork??  Er...... no.     I really find insult a lot of times in someone saying i am trying to "unposerify" an image, when i used poser only as a basic structure sketch and spent two months airbrushing, in yes, photoshop with a wacom.

People actually argue with me saying I can't call it "painting" because it has a poser "core".  And because by some technical aspect, photoshop doesn't have physical "paint".

Some can actually get beautiful straight up renders out of poser.  Kudos to them!   However, oh, a good 80 percent can't.  There are some images I see, where i wish ...... yes wish, that they WOULD postwork.

Do I use photoshop effects?  Yes.  Do I use poser?  Yes.   Do I try to hide its "poserness".......  well..... yes and no.  

I use poser for what it was actually ....... deep breath deep breath MADE FOR!  As a model when there is lack of a LIVE MODEL.   Thats what its made for.  But now, if you use it, you aren't a painter anymore....... sheesh.

I will continue to postwork images within an inch of their life..... (I know you didnt mean me specifically pjz99 lol, just the same fitting phrase), if thats what digital painting is called these days :)

To be fair, that's what Poser 1 was made for.

I think it's safe to assume it's intended use has evolved over the years.

Tiari:
No, actually I treat your stuff and Ken's stuff as proper painting.  As you say, they're not in the same category as "postwork" at all.  There's a big difference between, say, RogueElement's finished result, and someone taking a minimally morphed V4, whatever the latest clothing item might be, and laying a canned airbrush filter over it, and kicking out 1 of those per day (not naming any names but I think some examples may come to mind).

I have a theory that some artists who lack an ability to create art without computer assistance are more inclined to try for a “painterly” look through post work while those who have painted in real life are more likely to try for the "photo realism" of a pure render. This is a case of "the grass is always greener" syndrome. Still, postwork for joints is often required, unless you use Apollo--the only figure that comes close to bending properly.

Interesting theory Paloth, and one that will no doubt win you some colourful replies :).

I don't agree, but then, that's just my opinion.

Art for me, someone who does not consider himself an artist, has always been about expression of a thought or idea...not about a look or style.

The evolution of many artists does not peak at photo-realism, but true creative freedom.

But what would I know? I'm just a hack! :) :) :)

*...while those who have painted in real life are more likely to try for the "photo realism" of a pure render
*I'd disgraee with that,I think those who have come from a painting or sculpture background will make use of all the tools available..it's about the final image rather than what you can do with one particular tool..
for me at least..postwork is where the fun starts,it's the part I look forward to the most when creating a final image

Postwork can be a dirty word when a software company uses it to sell rendering software programs and does not admit or tell it's buyers the images posted around it could not have been created in the program all by itself. It's called false advertisement or misleading the consumer.

Saying there is no Postwork in an image can be impressive and it also makes clear that the image was created in "The one" program and that single program coupled with the artist's talents were all that were involved in the creation of the image or images. Other than that Postwork is fine. Some people try to see how good they can make renders without the use of it and take pride in their ability.

My opinion, :) 

**I personally use postwork in all my work, sometimes in small amounts to finetune the image or alot of postwork to create an added effect. I don't think there's any problems with using this method if the end result is all the better for it.

"**someone taking a minimally morphed V4, whatever the latest clothing item might be, and laying a canned airbrush filter over it, and kicking out 1 of those per day (not naming any names but I think some examples may come to mind)."
pjz99 - I defintely know of someone who does this. If seems as though they use the same lights in every image as well. I'm not really complaining, it's their choice to create what art they see fit. But when this kind of art gets all the plaudits over the true 'artists' on here, it does seem a little unfair.

Quote - I actually HATE the word "postwork".   Why?  Postwork is a general term slapped on any artist that uses poser for any reason.......   so what i do is classified as postwork?   Postwork??  Er...... no.     I really find insult a lot of times in someone saying i am trying to "unposerify" an image, when i used poser only as a basic structure sketch and spent two months airbrushing, in yes, photoshop with a wacom.

People actually argue with me saying I can't call it "painting" because it has a poser "core".  And because by some technical aspect, photoshop doesn't have physical "paint".

Some can actually get beautiful straight up renders out of poser.  Kudos to them!   However, oh, a good 80 percent can't.  There are some images I see, where i wish ...... yes wish, that they WOULD postwork.

Do I use photoshop effects?  Yes.  Do I use poser?  Yes.   Do I try to hide its "poserness".......  well..... yes and no.  

I use poser for what it was actually ....... deep breath deep breath MADE FOR!  As a model when there is lack of a LIVE MODEL.   Thats what its made for.  But now, if you use it, you aren't a painter anymore....... sheesh.

I will continue to postwork images within an inch of their life..... (I know you didnt mean me specifically pjz99 lol, just the same fitting phrase), if thats what digital painting is called these days :)

For me I see nothing wrong with this at all. As I said back in the day, and some of the older folks here will agree, we didn't have all the wonderful clothing, hair, props, etc like we have now and we didn't have the powerful programs or computers to run them on. It was common place to bring your basic poser render into a paint program and go to town on it to get a decent finished image. My fear is postworking will become a lost art and to some degree you are seeing that now. But it is what the artist chooses to do some don't mind postworking and others really don't want to be tied down with it either. Then there is the everyday hobbist that just wants to make a nice image without all the other hassels. To each his/her own is what I say ; )

Of course you can just keep pounding on that 'make art' button until something comes out  :biggrin:

come on you knew someone had to say it  

If you're just making a still image, post work is fine. I'm more interested in animation than still images. So for me... "Postwork" is kind of a dirty word. You try painting over imperfections in 24 picture in such a way that the paint over doesn't dance around when you animate that 1 second animation and you'll understand. It's all the work of a single great render, then 24*(every second) that you not only need to postwork, but postwork EXACTLY the same way as the last fram but with the minor differences required each frame. Even outside animation, postwork is ussually something you want to minimize if you're using 3D. Not because it's bad, but because if your going to spend that much time changing the figure after you render it, you might as well have just painted it from scratch. I don't think Postwork should be considered a negitive, but lack of need for it is definatly considered a positive. If that makes any sense. Also... I consider any postwork in product shots false advertising.

   Isn’t postwork the opposite of foreplay?
 

People like postworking an image made from a 3D program. I dislike postworking. Its either you can 3D an image perfectly with skill, or not at all. I choose to gain skill with out postwork, and I do not postwork at all. Gosh image, doing animation and then have to go frame by frame to postwork each frame. That will take forever.  

""Its either you can 3D an image perfectly with skill, or not at all.""

OR you simply don't want to - care to - see the need to.  

I also crop photographs.  Not because I lack the ability to get the shot right the first time, but because I prefer to take a larger shot and ponder the crop later.

Some people (as have stated here) actually enjoy the postwork process.    I think the view quoted is entirely too narrow. 

I think it depends on the purpose of the postwork, and the purpose of the image itself.

When preparing a commercial illustration, under constraints of time and budget, some things are more efficiently done with postwork, others are more efficient in 3D, any paid illustration I've done always involved a combination of the two.

there's a difference in goals people talk about here, one is for the sake of learning and practice and honing one's skills, the other one is for the sake of producing an image under constraints of time, budget or purpose...

Personally, I try to hit my skills from different angles at different times, so that when called for, I can do things more then one way, and in the best, most efficient way (that I can), given the purpose.

Again, there are many images i've seen, that are just begging for a little postwork.  Even if its simply to correct levels, gamma, and color correction.  I do find it odd that there are some render purists who balk at the very idea...... but even professional photographers do this, its called retouching.

Wether you spent 6 hours or 6 minutes on a poser render, its no different than a photographer (the means and work are different i grant you) who took 6 hours to set up or 6 minutes..... if the finished product has flaws, its flawed........ don't argue with the viewers eyes for pointing them out.

Simply stated, would you pay for a packet of school photos of your children, or a package of wedding photos or a friend's snapshot...... (not bought for that one fo course) and want it say, hanging on your wall to look at, if there's a big unpelasant streak of light across it, red blaring eyeballs, or it was washed out and overexposed?  No?   I sure wouldn't.   I would tell them to have them adjusted, retaken or retouched.  Wouldn't you?

So in the same stroke, when I see an otherwise beautiful render and think....."wow... the crease in the armpit looks like a crater".....  thats what viewers see, they do not tell themselves "Gee, poser sucks with the joints".

The basic problem is, we might use all kinds of electronically microchipped wonders to create things to look at, but inevitably, we are viewing them with HUMAN EYEBALLS.  Poser, though making great leaps and strides in its capabilities, it is what it is.  Though some can and have made splending perfect renders, it has some astronomical faults........ we don't have all day, so I wont list them all, but I'll add in the example of the general figures used tends to be the problem.

The new to average user will come across these problems, such as "bent crinkle hair", creased crackle joints, rubber band shoulders, lighting issues, unwanted shadows, or ill placed shadows, and my personal favorite "blank eyed undepthful gazes with no shadow under the upper eyelid".

Without clever and talented postwork there, all that hard work can be overlooked with a general consensus of "ugh".  Our eyes are made to see whats just not right in front of them.  There is a difference between a perception, such as expecting a viking to have a horned hat and the image doesn't, and FLAWS.......  we are going to notice, judge, and turn away from that which is:

Too simillar to the last thing we saw (i.e. canned anything, same hair, clothes, figure, pose)
Obvious physical fault (wrong bent limbs, plastic skin, unnatural body movement and so on)
Wrong, too bright, too dark, or incorrect lighting
Too strong or too weak gamma/brightness/contrast

I think the new word of the day should be "retouching" for those that correct problems with renders .... its what the pros do to make a visually appealing image.

*I think the new word of the day should be "retouching" for those that correct problems with renders .... its what the pros do to make a visually appealing image.
*I always thought that retouching and postwork are for the most part synonymous, or at least very much related terms.  Postwork being of a more modern and colloquial origin, I think from animation and cinematography, smushed with photographic term of post-processing?

Either way, aren't we talking about the same thing, whether we say postwork, post-processing or retouching? :blink:

I've spray painted white roses lime green before - because that's what the bride wanted.  If that's not post work I don't know what is.

I spent upwards of 40 hours in the last month or so retouching yearbook photos for my daughters school.

I think in the end it is all about what the person who it is for wants.  My images are for me, and it is what I want.  

Couple of years ago, my boyfriends daughter made me postwork her braces out of her Prom pictures LOL! Then she decided she looked too wierd without braces!

I was feeling sooo... unappreciated! sniffle  ;)

Quote - If you're just making a still image, post work is fine. I'm more interested in animation than still images. So for me... "Postwork" is kind of a dirty word. You try painting over imperfections in 24 picture in such a way that the paint over doesn't dance around when you animate that 1 second animation and you'll understand.

You may be surprised to know that a lot of work you see in big budget FX and CG animations is 'postworked' by hand. A typical render of one frame for this kind of work takes anywhere from 4 to 8 hours and a human cleaner can do the work in minutes per frame. 'Dancing' is not an issue at all, since many compositors have tools specially to do overpaints and corrections without artifacts of this sort.

This used to be one of the most lucrative fields in CG cause it was largely no-brain work anyone could do and get a decent wage. Of course now its all outsourced to cheaper coutries, but thats life.

Quote - People like postworking an image made from a 3D program. I dislike postworking. Its either you can 3D an image perfectly with skill, or not at all.

But the thing is, nothing we do in 3D is pure 3D. We always rely on 2d textures, bumps, environments and so on, and in the end we output as 2D as well. So whats the difference whether you enhance your work before or after a render ? In fact you may even think of post work as being one more 'rendering' step, albeit a hand driven one.

I agree about postworking marketplace products though. That's just plain deceit.

Hey I got a neat idea for  Tiari or someone who would like to tackle this. Take Tiari's list of imperfections above and create a tutorial out of them.

I see this working as a before and after type of thing show the image before the post with the flaw and then what it looks like after. I'm thinking that a certain amount of the population just doesn't realise what they can do to improve their images. 

But yeah to another point that was brought up earlier. It really drives me nuts to see an image that I can best described as amateurish from many different points on the most commented/rated lists and see absolutely amazing pictures barely looked at just because the artist is an unknown. urggh drives me up the wall. The latter are usually the only ones I comment on.