I agree with "It's how Postwork is used." Magazines correct so many skin flaws of the images of public icons on the covers of their magazines until the final image is almost completely fake. Nobody has skin that perfect. You decide if they just inhanced the photo or created a misleading perfect image instead of what was real. I call it Postworked. I feel sorry for the people who want to look as good as they do. Of course if they retouched there photos of themselves in a good 2d program, they can look that good too. No postwork means not altered after the fact. That's all.

later

** Tiari - I think your post was pretty much spot on. I too see alot of images here that just need a little postwork to get rid of those imperfections. Even though some of these imperfections are slight, the human eye detects them & the image loses it's value, in my opinion anyway. This is not to say some artists work is perfect, I don't think anyone can get perfection, but even just a few minutes in postwork can make all the difference.

thixen - I like the idea of that tutorial. I think it would make some people change their perception on postwork, knowing that just small touchups can improve their final image.

I must mention the most commented/rated section in the galleries. They are in general a farce. Yes, I love to see some of the great work there, but I'm sick of seeing the very average renders with so many flaws in them with loads of 'friends' comments on them. Please, let the cream rise to the top, so many great artists get unnoticed. When I have the time I will search through the galleries & it's amazing what little gems you find that have largely gone unnoticed.**

Post working an image is over a hundred years old-probably a lot older.

Clear back to the 1904 San Fran earthquake the newspapers there postworked the papers photos to make it look like much much less damage had been done as had actually happened. Economic reasons.

And they were just as good as anybody is today.

I as an inexpirenced 3d artist and I would say expierienced artist. Would say this....
To me it depends on what you are going for  I think images such as fantasy  can have alot added to the image using post work. I am working on one now infact that if I can pullit off will utilize quite abit. It all depends on what you are going for. I would most definatly like to become one of the greats on here that can push poser to its limits but that will all come with time wich I dont have a ton of right now. To me art is what ever you decide it is but that is how I grew up in the art world not everyone is goona like it. some will be more then others. Dont worry about what other people think. If you are fullfilled doing what you do then do it. Now if you are trying to go professional and make money doing it. Then you will have to do what the people you are working for wants. That is why I never want to go professional in art because it woudl take the fun out of it for me.

 re·touched, re·touch·ing, re·touch·es

*v.**tr.*1. To add new details or touches to for correction or improvement.

2. To improve or change (a photographic negative or print), as by adding details or removing flaws.

3. To color (recent growth of hair) to match hair that was tinted, dyed, or bleached at an earlier date.

4. Archaeology To modify (a flaked stone tool) by secondary flaking along the cutting edge.

An amusement of note:  Postwork, Post-work, Post Process, Postworking and all derivitives are not found in the dictionary lol.   Something new I learned today.  We use the word, its not in the dictionary how odd!

conniekat: Actually the word retouched is the correct word for fixing or improving a render.  This though isn't an english word class, that wasn't my point.   Its the "idea" of the word we use Post-work, has a stigmata attached to it by some render purists.   I actually find a huge load of big brown stuff (use your imagination) with 3d-art purists, who feel any form of any retouching is sacrelidge.  EVERY image, wether photograph, render, scanned in oil painting can use gamma correction, sheesh lol.  They use it too, they just don't say they do, because correcting gamma or levels well, thats postwork!

Postwork implies post and work, meaning any work done after the initial process..... So drying my dishes after washing them is postwork, flossing after brushing is postwork.... retouching implies a certain media, not generalization.

I know I'll tick a few off, but here goes!  Lemme get into my kevlar for the aftermath!

*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."
*Or not at all?  Really?  
To assume users who use a 3d program for any other purpose than 3d are in the "not at all" catagory is rather ballsy of you.  That assumes that those of us that use the program or any 3d program who expand it beyond the realm of the render window are somehow unskilled.  Its quite insulting actually, such a vast generalization.  

To say, that someone who retouched an image to fix a figures joint problems has failed some great challenge of elistist perfection of 3d usership, frankly, is beyond arrogant and pompous.  It is my desire and hope that that is not what you meant of the comment, but that is precisely how it reads...... something like, "If you have to use photoshop, go home!".

I have a better question for the general arena, on the subject of postworking/retouching.  Why are people making art?     This is not to say, everyone must have a concrete reason for making art of any kind, but its a question to ask yourself now and again.

What worries me is a slew of poser users...... who couldn't draw, paint, take good pictures, or color coordinate a wardrobe........ buy a copy of poser, pop in some figures and they are "artists".......... and pulling loads of soap box diatrabes of drama on their rights as artists.

There are new users of course, and then there are, "I wish i could be artistic .....wait, lemme get poser".   No names of course, but I've seen that around on other sites as well, canned vic, canned pose, lack of clothes (cant paint them dont want to buy them), with the gray default background.  C'mon now, you know you've seen these!

Its that darn "make art" button that caused a lot of the postwork/nonpostwork issues in the first place.  I get a distinct feeling the rift between those who do, and those who dont will get wider and wider, the more people who failed art class get a copy on their computers.

Quote -  conniekat: Actually the word retouched is the correct word for fixing or improving a render.  This though isn't an english word class, that wasn't my point.   Its the "idea" of the word we use Post-work, has a stigmata attached to it by some render purists.   I actually find a huge load of big brown stuff (use your imagination) with 3d-art purists, who feel any form of any retouching is sacrelidge.  EVERY image, wether photograph, render, scanned in oil painting can use gamma correction, sheesh lol.  They use it too, they just don't say they do, because correcting gamma or levels well, thats postwork!

Ah! Gotcha! I hear ya - emphatetically!

Personally, I've given up trying to correct or worry about various peoples' misconceptions, extremisam, deviations and prejudices... it's too much like beating my head against a brick wall, and whether something has their approval or understanding really doesn't change whether someting is a fact or not.
LOL, to play a devils advocate, even saving a jpg at 80% or whatever it needs to be to fit the image size for the gallery could be seen as postwork. So... where does one draw the line?
See, that's just it, when people are generalizing about things, it's impossible to draw the line.

Eventually I found it much easier tto train myself into not worrying what the perverbial 'they' think and do my thing ;)  Look at it this way, there's so many of 'them' and only one of me. Plus, most often 'their' criticizing has very little to do with the actual value of techniques, and everything about personalities and feelings.

You know this conversation goes on and on in every thing we do in life, for instance Welding I say this because I by trade am a welder. The same standard conversation goes well your not realy a welder because you can't weld pipe or you can't use every process out there. Same stuff. Its all about the desire to be on top.  You know what I have learned about the top? There is always some body better then you I don't care who you are you might be on top for a  while but then someone is going to make it there goal just to take you down. They will succeed!! Why? Because that is there burning desire to do so. To me in the world of art and I know some would disagree  there is no place for it. Art is for people to enjoy and create a common ground on wich people who care for it can unite. I know that I am not the best artist out there and am definatly not in the top 6,0000000  Do I care not at all!! I strive to get better and that is all that matters. There are so many amazing artists just on this site alone. I am awwed and humbled by some of the images I see here and I am even more humbled when people who are that great share there knowledge. I am also humbled by the people out there that create textures and differant props and such for free.

Real is extreme? I guess fake is also. I don't care either way as long as nobody is misleading me by telling me fake is real and real is fake. Some people don't know the difference and some people don't care either way. Whatever. You decide.

I figure you just use whatever tools you need to to make the final image look the way you want/need it to. If you are aiming for a certain effect that your renderer can't duplicate or can be done better/faster/easier with something else, then you use that something else.

I'm not aware of any single application that can do everything, or that can do everything that it does do better than all the rest. It would be foolish, IMO, to limit yourself to an inadequate tool for a specific purpose when a much better one for the same purpose may available to you.

I gave up some time ago trying to please anybody else's tastes, unless they are the one signing the check.

Sometimes you use a brush... sometimes you use a palette knife.

Sometimes you draw with a pencil, sometimes with charcoal.

Sometimes you take a little piece of cloth or a scrunched up piece of paper or a putty eraser or a brush loaded with a different color -  and you just fix that bit that went wrong...

Nobody's perfect :D

An artist uses the tools of his/her choice, usually it's more than one tool.
The division of galleries by tool is quite artificial IMO, and a source for (often rather heated) discussion of "purity".
I'd rather see the galleries divided by genre (as it is now), possibly with "sub-genres", and drop the tool selection. Instead, a "Tools used" section on the upload page, similar to the merchant credit upload facility could be used. Most images of mine would then look like this:

Genre: stills/fantasy
Merchant credits 
(...)
Tools used, in order of importance to the image
Poser
Vue
3DS Max
Photoshop

I realize I'm coming a bit late to this thread, but I found it interesting. My view is that there are very few images rendered with Poser figures in them that don't need a little "postwork". There's almost always a bit of poke-through, an odd looking joint, a missing shadow, a too dark area that needs fixing.

I agree 200% with svdl!

Quote - An artist uses the tools of his/her choice, usually it's more than one tool.
The division of galleries by tool is quite artificial IMO, and a source for (often rather heated) discussion of "purity".
I'd rather see the galleries divided by genre (as it is now), possibly with "sub-genres", and drop the tool selection. Instead, a "Tools used" section on the upload page, similar to the merchant credit upload facility could be used.

As an art community, it's time we move away "software centric" gallery catagories and just went with the genres ala deviantArt for example.

Postwork makes my tail fur get all wet and smelling of turpentine.

I don't have any philosophical problem with postwork / re-touching and I even make ham-fisted stabs at it myself for Poser or Vue images.   As far as photographs are concerned, I may remove little specks of dust, but doing much more than that seems to me to defeat the object of photography, which is essentially to record what is in front of the camera.   OK - if you have made that once-in-a-lifetime-trip to, say, Namibia and you took a film camera, so you don't know until the films are developed how the final photographs will look, a little bit of repair work is acceptable.   It may be possible to turn a badly taken photograph into a very successful image, but I think that it ceases to be a true photograph in the process.  

Cropping is a separate matter, obviously, as there's no reason why the photographer  should employ the full frame, except where cropping is consciously used as censorship.   There was quite a good book, published about a dozen years ago, called "The Commissar Vanishes", which showed how photographs of Bolshevik bigwigs would be doctored to cover up their having become unpersons.   Quite often, it was done with an appropriately brutal lack of subterfuge:  the censor obliterated the deceased with a black pen.   On other occasions, though, considerable efforts were made to edit photographs, to make the edited versions look seamless and authentic.   There is a famous picture of Stalin with Lenin that is really a concoction from two completely different photographs.   Books covering the period quite often make the mistake of treating it as genuine.

It wasn't just photographs, either.   While the Belomor Canal was being constructed, at a huge cost in human life, Genrikh Yagoda was the big cheese in the secret police.   The slave labour even, it is said, had to create an ice sculpture of him.   By the time the canal was approaching completion, however, Yagoda was in terminal trouble.   At the official opening of the canal, Stalin was accompanied by Yagoda's executioner, Nikolai Yezhov, who was sketched at the scene with Stalin and a few other yes-men for a large-scale oil-painting.   The trouble was that, round about the time that the painting was nearing completion, Yezhov paid his own one-way visit to the Lubyanka's basement, so the painter received instructions to edit Yezhov out of the picture, which he dutifully did.  

In the UK, traffic cameras used to contain film.   Part of the reason for that was that digital photography was in its infancy, but the better reason was that a photographic negative is very hard to fake.   Digital images were not considered acceptable as court evidence, because they could so easily be manipulated.   In recent years, photo-manipulation has become ever easier, but digital images are now accepted in the courts of England and Wales (and, judging by the number of speed cameras between Glasgow and Argyll, the Scottish courts probably don't object, either). 

So I suppose the lessons for Poser-folk are twofold:  don't drive at 65 mph between Loch Lomond and Inverary and don't accept the top job in the Russian secret police. 

Attached Link: Example of postwork

No, because sometimes postworking involves compositing, and sometimes it involves even more work, whether via digital painting, or filters, or whatever.

For example, if one didn't know any better, could one tell that the linked to figure is basically a poser render?

I know professional photographers that would disagree with you Morgano. But then, I know others that wouldn't :P.

The point or purpose of photography is as ambiguous as the definition of art. It's entirley individual.

Knowledge of your equipment and conditions will yield limited results, regardless of how they are exploited. But if the desired result is beyond what is possible via traditional means, 'post-work' then becomes a must.

The problem then becomes at which point does a photograph cease to be a photograph? There's that ambiguity again! :)

No, I don't agree.   Manipulation of photography is a perfectly valid art-form, BUT the degree of manipulation potentially diminishes the right of the eventual  image to be regarded as a true photograph.   Photographers may manipulate their work as much as they like, naturally, but that manipulation can soon go beyond the point where the image genuinely represents what was in front of the camera.   Now, the magistrates' courts may refer to the results as "evidence" and the photographers may refer to their "art", but I don't think anyone can legitimately describe a heavily doctored picture as a "photograph".

I'm not sure what you don't agree with Morgano.

Your statement was complimentary to mine, not opposing :).

What I was trying to say was that the initial creation of the camera is the true photograph.    That can survive minor corrections and still be considered, more or less, the true photograph.   Once more drastic adjustments are made, it may become a work of art, or it may become a train-wreck, but it can no longer legitimately claim to be the "original photograph", or, by extension, a true photograph at all.

My point was the same - although I went on to say that the title of 'true Photograph' is ambiguous.

Are level adjustments acceptable?
What about grey-scaling?
Emulating Infra-Red via post-work?

How about removing a logo from a building?
Smoothing a figures complexion?
Removing clouds to improve composition?

My point is, there's really no way to draw a line in the sand. I for one would not be comfortable defining what is and isn't a photograph based on the post work it has recieved.

Quote - My point is, there's really no way to draw a line in the sand. I for one would not be comfortable defining what is and isn't a photograph based on the post work it has recieved.

No kidding!  That would be like trying to determine which shade of gray is the separation between calling something white or black. 

[kitty looks at her tail and ponders how to separate hairs making up different color stripes]

Sometimes I think that the answer to these types of questions is really simple: It's your picture, so do what ever you wanna do. If it's "art" then there are no rules. Do what ever it takes to get your idea on canvas, or on jpg or whatever. Unless ofcourse that "do whatever it takes" involves hurting other people, then it gets complicated....But that's extreme.

Othertimes I'm constantly worried about what other people might think of what I do.

Most of the time I realise that people don't really care, and what I do is not "art", so I really don't have to worry about upsetting anyone.

Many times people here say that :"It's the end results that count", and I think there is some truth to that. If it's a good picture, it's a good picture, no matter how it was done (unless ofcourse you had to hurt other people while doing it and even then it might be a good picture).

But I have to say that I really do not consider myself as an artist, in any shape or form. It makes things simpler. I do a picture and try to make it look good and that's all there is to it. Let the wiser men and women be artists. Idiots like me keep rendering till judgement day come ;P

Ahh Peelo, I've seen your gallery and calling your self 'not an artist' isn't exactly correct. I think a lot of the problem here is the snobbery of the 'Art World' technically anything borne out of creativity regardless of quality is art and anyone who creates from creativity an artist. It doesn't matter if they work in oils and canvas or mashed potatoes thrown against a wall (would adding gravy after the fact be concidered postwork?).   

in photography, that would be retouching vs. manipulation.  Once you Manipulate a photograph, that is, change the contents drastically, its no longer a photograph persea....... as, a photograph is a still life of reality captured on film.  Change the reality of what was before the camera, well then, I suppose its a farce.  Its still art, but its not a true to life photograph.  Changing color corrections does not change the actual contents of the image..... so on so fourth, yadda yadda lol.

I still think, most poser corrections are retouching........  once you start manipulating a poser render, to me, thats more like painting.  The sample image of the poser render, well, thats not telling me was it rendered as a sketch, outlined somewhere else, so I cant lable that one, but I'd assume thats more of "sketch art" than poser work.  Unless of course sketched by poser.

Since I'm not omnipotent, I'll wait for the methods used lol.

A poser image ceases to be a poser image, when it wasn't one in the first place.  If you are rendering out a pretty much blank crash test dummy figure in greyscale and take it to a paint program (like i do most of the time) and airbrush the whole thing, it never was a "poser" image in the first place, and could hardly be considered "postworked".  The poser influence is minor....... so minor in fact, its litterally only performing a minescule function in some cases.

Clawshrimp said, "Whatever you do, stay away from lens flaire and diffuse glow. They're sooooo last year". How about a nice page curl effect, LOL!

I was just gonna use some default paint daubs on mine!

Quote - Clawshrimp said, "Whatever you do, stay away from lens flaire and diffuse glow. They're sooooo last year". How about a nice page curl effect, LOL!

You know, I use those things all the time. So apparently it is a newbie thing to do, but it still looks good. If it makes people laugh, then I guess thats something. You have to start somewhere and making people laugh seems like a good start to me. Hey atleast it's something.

I read somewhere that art has been hijacked by intellectuals and maybe, that's not far from the truth. All the time we spend wondering, what we can and cannot do. What's art what's not. It's like a never ending philosophical debate, when the only real questions is: "Under what section should I upload my image?"

some contests don't permit postwork because they mean to measure how well the 3d app ur using works and how well u can use it. they usually don't permit any photography either and it makes sense because their end is to measure how well the app works and what the individual artist can do with it. i remember coming across one artist that was showing her work in a gallery made for poser. it didn't even look like she used any poser at all. there were a bunch of beautiful nude pictures of herself that looked like they were worked in with a lot of adobe work to look like they were made with poser. i evidently wasn't the only one that wondered about her work because some months later i looked at her work and instead of it being in the poser gallery it was in the photo gallery.  poser 5 i think may have used photos for some of its textures and i wonder if they didn't take them out just because they were worried about the phot issue. many people i know when they show their work in the poser gallery at renderosity use photos as backgrounds and textures and do a lot of postwork as well. i certainly can see nothing wrong with it. i do think though u should be creating with the app whose gallery u r exhibbitting in and following their rules of sub mission.

*""What I was trying to say was that the initial creation of the camera is the true photograph.    That can survive minor corrections and still be considered, more or less, the true photograph.   Once more drastic adjustments are made, it may become a work of art, or it may become a train-wreck, but it can no longer legitimately claim to be the "original photograph", or, by extension, a true photograph at all.""

*I can understand your ":opinion" on this when it comes to significant changes - ie photoshop filters what not - but I've taken a few classes on the subject and haven't had an instructor yet who snubbed the idea of fixing flaws. 

My individual taste. I like real and origanal things. I like to see things that are real as they are. Photos of popular people now are so doctored that the real person is erased and covered up(to me anyways). There was this popular female star that had a noticable gap between her two front teeth. Nowadays they might fix that with dental caps, but I thought it was for her sexy and gave her character. Like breast implants and other body alterations. It's plastic and artificial. "Cookie Cutter." Take fat stars for instance. Is it the their body or personality that makes them adorable or otherwise? Not naming  names but some stars have zit craters all over their face, but when they get put on the cover of a mag' their skin is smooth and soft looking(after postwork). It's also true some stars will only be photographed from say the right side because their profile looks better that way or in their films made to look taller than they really are. Old films revealed more natural flaws than todays, but we relate to them anyways because many of use may have these same flaws. By erasing them they make them appear perfect and we relate less and cannot reflect and think hey, if they can look that good with it maybe I don't look that bad either. Maybe it even enhances my looks like it does theirs, but today they often erase or repair these so we never see them. pity! It propagates the idea natural flaws are to be ashamed of. Are they flaws even? Does everyone have to fit the same mold?

"Are they flaws even? Does everyone have to fit the same mold?"

Absolutely not.  On the other hand my bridesmaid wasn't too thrilled with that giant zit on her cheek in the wedding photographs.   There is obviously a line. 

Another question then:

If some people claim that postwork is a shame, and that all have to be done with your 3D ap. Then, what about pre-work?? I mean, when you prepare a texture map in Photoshop, when you model something in another ap to import it in your scene after,...

If these "purists" were hearing themselves, they should only use node made textures, even not importing third party models (V3 and other banned? Hard for Poser... ;)

We would see a lot of James with strange colors on his shirt... lol

Whatever you can get out of a 3D app no matter how good you are or think you are , the image can be improved with postwork , isnt the whole goal about the best end result you can get !

These threads are about as comical as the photographers that say Photoshop is cheating LOL

Rod

Quote - Whatever you can get out of a 3D app no matter how good you are or think you are , the image can be improved with postwork ...

It can also be made worse with postwork.  It can also be made into something different, but still gain no improvement from postwork.  ^_^

Too much postwork kills the work...

Well said pjz99.

Last night I  worked on an image in Photoshop for over an hour. I thought I had finally gotten somewhere when I decided to compare it to the raw render...and it looked worse!

I don't completely agree with your point Tiari, that photography is only within the realm of capturing the moment as it is seen before the camera. How about those wonderful light anomolies from lens refraction, or any of the countless, (sometimes luck accidents) that occur that couldn't possibly be seen with the human eye. Knowing your equipment, knowing your conditions, and purposley captureing something on film that could not be seen...doesn't that go against your definition?

Just playing devil's advocate here. I don't personally worry about defining or categorising 'art'. I simply like whatever knocks my hair back :).

Peelo. Don't worry about the lens flair and diffuse glow comment. I use them all the time too! :). They're great tools, just used in moderation.

Yea, a big zit is where the line could be drawn. A temporary unsightly thing, but maybe a funny conversation piece or memory. However acne craters are permanent. Later somebody may ask what happened to your face. Were you in an accident? It's not in any of your photos. Then privately they think to themselves afterwards, they must be ashamed of their appearance or they wouldn't of had it removed. A picture is worth a thousand words they say. I think it's true.

Capturing a lense flare that isn't put in after with photoshop is a photography phenome thats awesome to see, its part of how the camera works, and is captured....... but I wont debate on that point.

PJZ99 Ha haha!  Yes I've seen some "attempts" at postworking and retouching and alterations so bad........ i just sit there in awe like.... no offense but we've all thought it....."someone really thought this was a good effect?"

I've seen good renders, renders that, seriously left me dumbfounded as to why it was created in the first place....... again, eyes going to the laws of nature and physics half the time....

Henceforth, I throw my own final thoughts on this matter.  Yes I love postwork.  I adore it, though some go mentally insane (and innane!) with it, on the whole, its a gift to me...... a sheer treasure I relish.  Why?  I'm glad you asked!

After "trying out the latest daz item" at about the fifty trillionth time,  I dont care how good the image is....... I've seen it.  Would you watch a rerun of the jeffersons as many times as you see the same figures?  Probably not.  Those that "Postwork" it or paint their own hair, yay!!!!  My eyes TINGLE at the new sensation that greets them! LOL.

So for reitteration....... Koz Hair, the MFD in all its disguises, eyes with no depth and blank stares..... you get the idea.   If people can render those out great, wonderful and i've seen good stuff, but trouble is, after seeing it rendered out BEAUTIFULLY oh.......... how many times? It gets old fast.

Since no one can afford the amount of money it would cost to have oodles of stuff in their folders to have new eyecandy in EVERY picture they post....... i say yay for postwork.

Quote -
Since no one can afford the amount of money it would cost to have oodles of stuff in their folders to have new eyecandy in EVERY picture they post....... i say yay for postwork.

True.
Same goes for most of the postworking tricks - we've seen them, over and over again.

But It's not the uniqueness of a model, a texture, or painted hair/clothes/whatever that makes an image unique. And using the same old building blocks over and over again doesn't necessarily lead to the same old images. Although it often does. I agree, the typical blank stare of the umpteenth new Victoria character set doesn't tell the viewer anything but "Look, I bought this new character. Cool, isn't it?" 

It's the vision of the artist, and the way he/she gets the vision across. Doesn't matter what tools or techniques are used. Does the artist want to tell the viewer something, and does an image manage to tell the viewer what the artist meant? That's what makes an image worth looking at, IMO. 

agreed!

RogueElement is a fraken 2D God that can hold his own against Royo,Boris.

Royo is my Fav Artist.

Not that I care but some would argue there not realistic.

I get conforming hair and cloths are used more then dynamics,there faster easier to pose.

It's fatter to paint 2d hair.

But if ya going for realist not going to work.

If you wanted realistic.

Ya would use dynamic, hair cloth fix bad bends with morphs.

Then again if ya want realistic why not take a photo,it's faster.

Some post renders every other day if not every day.

RogueElement does not.

Realsitck 100% 3D does not.

Do you want a 100 kool renders or 1 absolutely killer work of art ?

Do ya think the Killer Artist care what others think about there media ?

RorrKonn
http://www.Atomic-3D.com

'I dislike postworking. Its either you can 3D an image perfectly with skill, or not at all.'

... also, if you use too much postwork in your renders you'll have to give back the propeller beanie :)

• Rick