Attached Link: Sketch

I know that there are a lot of tutorials out there for instance at Good-Tutorials, but there are too many.. some are several years old. Surly by now some kind of best practice has envolved?

Well here is my findings so far.

If nobody else answers it have to do..:))

1. 3D models. To soften the edges make a copy of the layer with the object and give the uppermost layer some gaussian blur, about 1-2. Then set blend mode to "Darken".

2. When all the models are done. make a copy of all layers by holding down shift,ctrl,alt and press letter E. Then make a new copy of the resulting layer, select this new (uppermost layer) and apply the filter "Underpainting". Set blend mode to Soft Light (or experiment).

3. Smudge painting. Set the Brush Tool opacity to ca 30-40%, sample size of Eye Dropper Tool to 3 by 3 average (this is resolution dependent). Then work throught the whole painting while constaltly sampling the colour by intermingling with the alt key.

To  apply a really good persico skin tone for Poser models use the professional  program Neat Image (removes noice but expensive) For example RGUS uses it.

To completly change your work into another style, use Erick Nguyen's watercolour method, check link (paste as one line),

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1006&message=12322628&q=ErickN+Watercolor&qf=m

This method can also be adapted for other styles.

Wonderful link! Great shots from you too.

guido,

Thank you. I am constantly amazed that it is so little interest in these things. It should have top priority!

When I see all the ugly 3D renderings at Renderosity with no postwork I get sick.

well, if you want to paint the image, all of it I mean, perhaps painter would be better since you can simulate the use of watercolors, it takes more patience doh.... however it s a beautifull rendering and well done work, I don´t think I´d have the patience for both ways doh....
anyhow cheers

graphicnovel, "I don´t think I´d have the patience for both ways doh...."

Even if you did five total rerenderings, going through all the trouble with resetting light and shadows, changing most of the material between each and have to make new normal and displacement maps as well as taking into account occlusion, specularity, etc etc.

Even if you did all this you would not even get close to all the work the old masters did before they began to paint the final painting.

"When I see all the ugly 3D renderings at Renderosity with no post work I get sick."

I don't get sick or anything, but nothing is finished for me until I've done the post work.

I find a lot of renders could use something I do. In traditional art, it's called underpainting. In 3D art, you can't really underpaint. But you can achieve a similar effect to a wash by slightly coloring the lights and choosing your color palette carefully. Coloring the light unifies the image similar to the way a wash does in watercolor and often in oils. Choosing a unified palette further unifies the image by complementing the color of the light.

"1) 3D models. To soften the edges make a copy of the layer with the object and give the uppermost layer some gaussian blur, about 1-2. Then set blend mode to "Darken"."

You might also try giving the top layer a gaussian blur of about 5, then a[pplying ther layer in the luminosity mode. It gives quite a lovely effect.

I also use Painter, but it's not sdomething I'd recommend to everyone. It can be quite a hard program to handle, with a learning curve just as steep as Photoshop. It does do quite a lovely job of simulating watercolors and oils, though.

To really use Photoshop effectively to paint, you have to have a tablet. I don't have one, and I wish dearly that I did. It's absolutely necessary to do a good painterly job in Photoshop.

bonestructure,

It is the post-work that is the creative part, the fun part. And you are right about underpainting, it makes wonders. In fact, the underpainting is more powerful than it is for traditional artists because we can make non-destructive changes, something the Flemish old masters (who invented the technique and could use up to seven layers of underpaint) could never do. Just add a mask over the underpainting layer. Of course since they were masters they managed anyhow! :)

I was a bit harsh but I always gets irritated when no one answers my post! I see quite an interest in the post-work phase, popping up here and there. IMO, when you upload to the gallery it is always interesting to see the work both before and after, so you can discern what is post-work or not.

Thank you for your tip most useful. I have added it to my arsenal. :)

scuse me I only said that I don´t really have the patience to paint in painter or to try to simulate any old master..... I do believe that it is foolish to try to compare what someone did five hundred years a go to what we can do today, that is not to say that I do not look at da vince, raphael or michelangelo and go bananas trying to figure out how did they do it, however I do not work with natural media, I did some acrylics a long, long time a go in a galaxy far, far far away....  I do believe, and work trying to figure out my way into this programs and to create something with I´m happy with, and also that my clients are happy with it..... still I wonder if any of those master could look at what we creat today, what would they think? provided they could understand what is being done..... There are a lot of people out there that have mastered lightining and so on both in 3d and also in hand drawing.... Still isn´t this the path of an artist? to do the best you can with what you have? to find yourself and than express yourself trough colors, lights, shadows? U know I look at my work and I look at other peoples work and I do see how much I can grow, and change and so on.
Vintorix, do not let your self go with what people say, let your self go with what you have, that will garantee that u don´t get and ulcer like I did.... hahahahhahahaha - joking ok?
Anyhow Painter is a great program, and I don´t find it hard to use it, I found hard to get colors right, light, contrast..... but yes, there´s a learning curve, as such to master the computer, the instrument....
oh well, I always talk too much....
hope that helps
vince

graphicnovel,

You don't have to excuse yourself everyone is entitled to his opinion! But you do not have to go to the old masters to see what is quality or not you don't even need to go outside Renderosity..

Look at waheednasir for example. I would be quite happy and satisfied if I could paint like him. And to take an example from my own country -Linda Bergkvist. When she won the CGtalk competition Master_and_Servant she worked just as hard and meticulously as the old masters and she also have an old 18th century painter as rolemodel. (the name evades me just now)

So you see, the most skilled and succsessful digital painters of TODAY utilize, knows and use the technique of the old masters. Anyone can see that there are as much difference between works of artists like Linda/ waheednasir and ordinary 3D as from here to the moon. An untreated 3Drendering is just ugly IMO.

Attached Link: LiL Red Riding Hood

 I can't really understand what we argue about. THIS painting (LiL Red Riding Hood) is one of your own favorite images..do you call that an ugly 3D rendering? :)))

No of course not..one of the best digital works I ever seen. It appears we have the same taste!
Just a though. How long do you think he worked on that painting?

?

I love the old masters, Rembrandt especially because of his lighting. But come right down to it, I'm a preraphaelite follower. I call myself an illustrator, as it's more accurate to what I do. And my first real exposure to 'art' was the amazing illustration of the 20s and 30s and 40s. Mostly all preraphaelites.

I don´t know why in the seven hells we did it, but the wheel weaves as the wheel wills it.... hahahahahahaha, being reading the wheel of time too damm much.... oh well, don´t mind my blabing, anyhow I agree with you, there are a lot of fantastic artists here on renderosity, and cgchannel is fantastic.... I also wish I could do half of what they do, and perhaps one day I will make it there, still nowadays I ready to let that happen when that happens you know? still I devote all the time that I possibly can to it....... anyhow I do like the 3d/2d mix on the link that you got there, still my biggest desire now a days is to find something quite unique,not that is not unique, but still looks too much like poser/daz look..... wich is good, maybe I´m just tired of seeing it you know? or am I going bananas allready? I do think that with a little more effort the result would be more like a painting and that would please more my nowadays taste, if you catch my meaning...... I´ve been looking a lot into some of the new comics work that has been going on in europe and some of those guys are just incredible! I think that 3d is fantastic but I´m tired of that super clean look, I think that those guys from ice age did an incredible job because their renders don´t have that computer look to it, contrary to pixar..... Well, thats about it......
now, those ilustrations from the 30´s to the 50´s are fantastic, pin ups were great.... and.... I also call my self an ilustrator, but maybe, nowadays well, I´m going more towards video, but still have the same love for comics.....  oh well, the wheel weaves as the wheel wills it.....
cheers
vince

Cheers! :)

Hm...interesting! :)
I'm working on my "own" style of getting images in render then postwork to have powerful vibrance and colour
latest piece:
http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1921767

I've already seen it, and put it into my fav list!

bows :)

Thank you all for this thread, very interesting stuff. The artwork on display is of a very high standard. I do agree that the basics are and will always be based on the old masters studies. Time and effort also contribute in creating a good result.