HI I am confused this is a screen cap of your post
are you saying the one on the LEFT near your name& Avatar
is the "ugly" one???

I strongly Disagree
the one to the RIGHT of "8:56 pm" is flat and the shadows lack depth particulary under the chin. even though the LEFT  image is a little "muddy" but easily Adjusted in Photoshop in seconds NOT "HOURS"

Cheers

personal choice indeed,I prefer the left image which has a much better use of lights & darks & is the more interesting image to look at.

I also agree with most of Wolfs comments,its sad that so many here are treated like pariahs because they dont use GC...its being treated like the holy grail for Poser users but I've yet to see anything remotely photoreal come from Poser.
also bear in mind the majority of Poser users are fantasy artists,GC is pretty much irrelevant for that.
I see a clash here between those that approach this as an artform & those that approach it from a scientific point of view...nobodys wrong.

I might use it in Poser if there were other advanced/photorealistic features like physical skys,photometric lights & physical cameras..but just GC alone seems to create nothing but washed out renders where theres a lack of rich darks & brights to bring the image alive.
basicaly the glowing nostril syndrome on a global scale.

 I've used it a few times in 3dsmax(in conjunction with the features mentioned above)..but I still prefer rendering without it,but I also render everything as a seperate element (spec,reflect,shadow,light,ao etc) & control it all in post.
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=132&t=882838&page=5&pp=15
then again postwork is my favourite part of the process & when a straight render doesn't require it I tend to feel dissapointed.

to each their own..just dont tell people they are 'wrong' for not using it and all will be good :)

I thought we were in agreement that Gc brightened the render, so it is necessary to reduce the intensity of the light sets.  Hawarren's renders only prove there is a difference and adjustments to lighting under Gc need to be made within Poser to correct it.  Of course, the image can be postworked, but lets see if the same results can be achieved by illumination reduction.

Oh come on, we've been through this time and again: what is superficially more pleasing to the eye is not necessarily what is correct. hawarren's comparison clearly shows the GC render as far superior in tonal balance and contrast, but because the lighting was adjusted to be correct for the non-GC render, the non-GC render may appear more pleasing to the casual viewer.

In other words, the comparison is skewed.

But if you adjust the lighting to be correct for the GC render, and then switch GC off, the non-GC render will be complete trash. This would skew the comparison the other way, with far more dramatic results.

Quote"Oh come on, we've been through this time and again: what is superficially more pleasing to the eye is not necessarily what is correct. "

By that logic, IsaoShi, what is superficialy wrong to the eye is not necessarily wrong, but when we talk about images if it is superficialy wrong to the eye then it is wrong. And could we see the two faces lit for GC Hawarren please, because I am with Wolf, the left looks better to me so far.

" I think we might be flattering ourselves to think that we're reaching a large part of the Poser community."

You're preaching to the choir there. I've always maintained that this forum represents only a small fraction of the program's users and the advanced users here are yet another (smaller) subset.

"...why is gamma-correction considered a pro feature?"

I think I can sympathize with what you're saying in terms of wanting it to be available to everyone. That would meet the needs of those with the skills and motivation who just can't justify spending money on a Pro version. But they had to save some of the leather seats, walnut trim and Bose sound system for the deluxe model. You got air conditioning (i.e. mega content manager) so maybe next year’s model.

Part of the problem with 3D goes beyond money though. It has always been a techie field. If you look at publishing, video, even programming, the tech barriers have steadily been lowered to the point where the proverbial "anyone" can get into it. There has been little incentive to change that within a limited market. If anything, the "pros" are disinclined to see things get less complex.

Of course, the mantra is 'these things are just complicated...,' Within limits, I agree but the software industry has always been able to reduce or hide the complexity. Anyone who ever looked at the code to get a simple window on screen using C++ and then looked at VB or Delphi knows the paradigm. Do you give up some power and flexibility, yes. Do provide an incredible amount of power and flexibility to many more people just the same - absolutely. Daz, with their one click, anybody can be a 3D artist approach in some ways is carrying on that original Poser spirit. They've also spent a lot of time, IMO, thinking about the mass market and how to make their features easy to use.

I'm not carrying water for Daz. I've just started playing with DS3, but I'm impressed with the way things work. One can sniff at how it doesn't do this or that, but I think that misses the larger point. There's nothing wrong with adding features but if you only address that subset of a subset, is that a viable strategy long term? By all means, GC for everyone, but as long as the perception is that it is advanced or difficult then SM has less incentive to do that. If just ticking the box doesn't provide instant nirvana and the answers to basic practical questions require equations and graphs or Nvidia tech papers, then the plebes will stick to bread and circuses, the Visigoths will keep battering the walls and the Emperor will dream on of becoming the Maya king’s favorite consort.

To a great extent, Poser broke the mold for it's part of 3D - human figure rendering. It made 3D truly accessible for the hobbyist and casual user. Now, it is becoming more and more like the other applications. That’s cool as long as they don’t forget the girl who brought them to the dance.

“The comments in this thread by comparison have been much more diplomatic and considerate…”

And I suspect that in the back of our minds we all know why that is but I’ll keep it in the back of my mind.

“…its sad that so many here are treated like pariahs because they don’t use GC”

No one ever said or implied such a thing. Remember that Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia, and in alliance with Eastasia. Please return to your flat and watch the prolefeeds. Absolutely stunning render BTW.

Just my 2cents, the image on the left looks better to me, the image on the right leans toward those images you see where the poster hasn't worked to get decent shadows on the image.

Just my take, bye:)

A rule of thumb: in Poser, we pretty much consistently use subjective assessment to discount objective fact. We use what we see to prove or disprove what cannot be assessed visually. (Like hyper-colours, for instance).

It's really quite simple, folks. Poser needs linear data to process colours correctly. Poser Pro offers that capability within the software, Poser 5-6-7-8 do not. You can try to argue that away, but it remains a simple, incontrovertible fact. BB has provided a material-room solution to accomplish that. Take it or leave it.

Whether or not the solution is correct (as opposed to corrected-sRGB or some other colour-linearising schema) or whether this solution produces better images is entirely up to the user to decide.

Whether Poser processes colours correctly using PoserSurface without some form of colour-linearising is not a matter of discussion.

It does not. Simple as that.

great statement, RobynsVeil.  the only thing i'd change is:

"Whether [any renderer]  processes colours correctly without some form of colour-linearising is not a matter of discussion."

the D|S way is great if you want independent developers locked out and high barriers to learning.  pretty much 0 of the techies for the various aspects Poser have equivalents in D|S, because cost and contracts keep the community much more closed.  pretty much 0 of the techies for Poser would been in forums sharing information,  because they either wouldn't have paid for the privilege to be a developer (by their own words), or they wouldn't have shared information they payed to acquire.

it's the Apple style solution, which is great if you don't mind being completely dependent on a relatively small set of developers and innovators who don't share information or let in new blood much at all.  not so great if you'd rather spend time than money, or you're a developer who's not blessed.

all here that use GC (and i'm seeing more and more that silently incorporate VSS PR3 into their content) can do so for no extra cost beyond paying for Poser 6.  it's probably possible for D|S, but there's no one in the D|S community to explain how to make advanced materials based on physics for D|S.  there's no one making free, advanced level tools.

it's a huge assumption that most Poser users outside of the forums are less advanced users than the group of techies here.  that's completely the opposite of what i've seen.  year after year, i watched non-techie college students learn to use aspects of Poser most claim are way too difficult to master.  but the ones i showed this place for certain freebies were driven away by all the "slutty" (their term, not mine) women.  they all made their own content, and were comfortable doing so in a very short period of time.    the same students had to use some of the media editing programs lmckenzie referred to, and they had more problems with those.

most uses of Poser i've seen outside of this community have been far more advanced than average, and rarely  use any commercial content.  when you aren't spending money on every little advance, or even every  render, and you really don't have a choice,  Poser is apparently pretty easy to learn.

i think people are really misunderstanding the issue, because they keep bringing up the "quality" of the eyeballing it method.   linear workflow isn't about individual quality choices.  it's about addressing specific color problems, which are both with darks and lights, in a way that involves less guess work and is therefore more reliable for most. it's like following a blueprint.  for most people, that's going to be easier than eyeballing everything.  but people can and did build incredible structures just by estimating everything and doing everything by hand.

Quote - "

“…its sad that so many here are treated like pariahs because they don’t use GC”

No one ever said or implied such a thing. Remember that Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia,

 

Really??
Well not to mention any names
but I know of a thread where a person
asked for advise on lighting in a render
and certain high profile Guru asked
"Did you GC your materials?"
the OP said: "No"

the GURU said rather tersely:
(paraphrasing)"GO BACK.. USE GAMMA CORRECTION!!!
and come back to us and we will continue
this discussion....."

I found that very off putting
and after being browbeaten with alot of node formulas and non comprehensive
gobbledygook from the GC evangelists, the OP took her scene into vue and got a lighting/shadow result she liked.

Frankly when I see statements like
"You can spend hours in photoshop or let
poser do it right in the first place"
I  start to suspect that
GC in poser is the new sacred refuge
of the evangelical antipostwork,
anti "cheating "purists".

cheers

So the issue isn't really GC per-se, it's the manner in which it's presented? Does that matter?

Have you been on a real CG site, Wolf? This is coddling, here.

ETS: Alright, I apologise, Wolf. While the manner is abrupt, the message is clear. And that's really all that matters. If someone presents with an issue that has already been fixed in a previous post, then one can imagine patience wearing thin.

Quote - So the issue isn't really GC per-se, it's the manner in which it's presented? Does that matter?

Have you been on a real CG site, Wolf? This is coddling, here.

ETS: Alright, I apologise, Wolf. While the manner is abrupt, the message is clear. And that's really all that matters. If someone presents with an issue that has already been fixed in a previous post, then one can imagine patience wearing thin.

Both matter.
and in the thread about which I speak
neither the node formulas and stream of non comprehensive gobbledygook,
nor the Condescending tone of the "GURU"
resulted in improving the OP's render
but ironicly rendering the scene in another program did the job nicely.

and yes even on CG.society.org
ill mannered "help" is rebuffed
by other thread participants and moderators.
as far as someone presenting an issue that has already been "fixed" well this entire thread is debating the question weather
poserpro GC is an absolute "fix"
especially for people with no basic lighting skills in the first place.

but Ive made my view on the matter
clear enough I think.

Cheers to all

The issue has never really been GC. Nobody minds being advised of a useful technique that might help them in their endeavours. Why would anybody?

It's always been about the way it's presented, which has often been rude, patronising and inconsiderate. Wolf's example is but one of countless that could have been given.

Does it matter?

Depends. See the antipathy, devisiveness and resentment that's been generated. You just have to decide whether any of that matters. For some it will and for some it won't.

We all know that you have to be thick-skinned to survive in public internet forums, but that doesn't mean anyone should go out of there way to make people feel ill at ease in this one.

As I've said above, I'm a GC advocate. I love it and am very grateful for the knowledge and tools that have been made available to me for free.

But I don't play an active part in any GC debates here simply because I don't want the embarrasment of being associated with the arrogance all too often associated with the GC 'message'.

If anybody asks me in private about GC I recommend it strongly and explain why. I would, however,  never, ever suggest that they can only produce 'crap' without it.

Call it coddling. I call it politeness.

To those who said hawarrens' left hand render looks better:

Of course it does, if you had understood what he said in his post you would know that the lighting was correct for that particular render, and incorrect for the render with GC.

This does not in any way alter the fact that ONLY in the right hand render are the shaders operating linearly and accurately, because GC was used.

Using linear shaders does NOT automatically equal great renders.
Using non-linear shaders does NOT automatically equal bad renders.

How many times do we have to repeat this before we stop arguing back and forth about two points of view that IN NO WAY CONFLICT WITH EACH OTHER?

Quote-"Oh come on, we've been through this time and again: what is superficially more pleasing to the eye is not necessarily what is correct. hawarren's comparison clearly shows the GC render as far superior in tonal balance and contrast, but because the lighting was adjusted to be correct for the non-GC render, the non-GC render may appear more pleasing to the casual viewer."

When speaking about art your statement is absolutely false.
A friend of mine who works at a production house put it this way, "We like our work gamma corrected because that way we have a neutral canvas to apply post production enhancements. If what you're going for is dramatic lighting then you don't want "tonal balance". In fact you want the opposite"
In the above pair of renders the one on the left is clearly more dramatic and therefore more interesting.

What is superficially pleasing to the eye is what art is all about.

Quote - When speaking about art your statement is absolutely false.

I thought I was making it perfectly clear that I am absolutely NOT speaking about art. This is NOT about art at all, but about mathematical accuracy in the software we use.

I'm speaking about shaders operating accurately in linear colour space; or shaders operating inaccurately in non-linear colour space.

As for bb's absence (I don't mind saying it) I sometimes cringe at his direct methods of presenting things, but I sympathise with the following view...

If we have some software that we know to be flawed - in this case, inaccurate shaders operating in non-linear colour space - and we have the means to eliminate that flaw, why in heaven's name would anyone NOT want to do so?

Well, here are several perfectly good reasons to be going on with:-  I don't understand it; it's more effort than it's worth; it's an unnecessary complication to my workflow; etc. For what little it's worth, I personally have no argument with any of those reasons. (It's easy for me - I positively want all my shaders to be linear, and that's why I use Pro).

Then there are the not-so-good reasons: I don't like anyone telling me what to do, so I'm not going to do it; I'm going to tell everyone else that it does nothing but mess up my renders even though I don't understand why.

I just don't see an eye-popping difference I guess.
Both the examples in this thread (M4 and the one above) look better to me without it.
Perhaps if I save and example using the simple application of GC I might change my mind.
Maybe the above example could be posted with the lighting corrected for GC.

Quote - I just don't see an eye-popping difference I guess.
Both the examples in this thread (M4 and the one above) look better to me without it.
Perhaps if I save and example using the simple application of GC I might change my mind.
Maybe the above example could be posted with the lighting corrected for GC.

There's that "see" again.
Mathematically correct is not something that can be visually assessed.

I agree with IsaoShi: BB's style can be brusque, but no more so than many other posters on this forum, including posters on this thread. Me being one. So, if one is going to let the lack of politeness keep one from considering a new but accurate concept, there's going to be huge holes in that person's understanding. My University profs didn't bother with politeness. Valuable information comes in all forms.

I'd prefer to accept everybody the way they are.  if I'm wrong about something, they should not
be afraid of violating some unwritten code of niceties when telling me how to fix it. 

this is how critics of poser renders have been received since day 1.  be kind and polite and say
"wow, great pic" and ye'll have no arguments, but be honest and get to the point with no formalities,
and they'll march on the castle with pitchforks and torches.  this is why they're still dumping stuff in
poser galleries that looks like it came out of poser 3 or poser 4.

p.s. they're not saying ya gotta use GC, they're just saying it's a mathematically sound way of
dealing with imgs that look like they came out of poser 3 or poser 4.  but there are many other
ways.

Kirwyn, can I ask a serious question, I'm not being funny or awkward, does the figure on the right have VSS applied?

Not a problem.  I should have mentioned that both were rendered in Poser Pro 2010.  VSS was not used.  It sounds crazy, but I bought Pro strictly because of the one button Gamma Correction.  I liked the way one could setup GC in Poser 8, but all those nodes in the Material Room were driving me daffy. 

*If we have some software that we know to be flawed - in this case, inaccurate shaders operating in non-linear colour space - and we have the means to eliminate that flaw, why in heaven's name would anyone NOT want to do so?

This would be true if everyone was using a perfectly tuned sRGB monitor, like BB and you probably do. I have a two monitor setup, one capable of sRGB setting and a one that hasn't that feature.  I also have two colour-printers: a laser and an 8 colourinkjet printer. But there is absolutely no way to make a image that looks  the same on one of those mediums, inspite of every calibrating tool I used.
I use the sRGB monitor for rendering, because that is supposed to be a "realistic" setting, but as a matter of fact I like the tonemapping of Poser8 more than the GC-feature of Posepro

But there is more: the human eye can see colours by three receptors, red, green and blue. There are more receptors for green and blue, so the eye is more responsive to greenish colours, but.... the red receptors are more active when there's more light. So in broad daylight we see more reddish colours and in the twilight we see more green-blueish colours. Also the amount of red,green and blue receptors is genetical determined, some people even lack some of the receptors and are colourblind.
In other words: there is absolutely no way to determine if  someone sees a colour the same way as somebody else does, except by statistic inquiries. And just like ergonomics, which is also a statiscal "science", the difference  can be huge.
So there is nothing like a correct way to correct  your shaders, everything is literally in the eye of the beholder.

best regards,

Bopper.

Quote - *If we have some software that we know to be flawed - in this case, inaccurate shaders operating in non-linear colour space - and we have the means to eliminate that flaw, why in heaven's name would anyone NOT want to do so?

This would be true if everyone was using a perfectly tuned sRGB monitor, like BB and you probably do. I have a two monitor setup, one capable of sRGB setting and a one that hasn't that feature.  I also have two colour-printers: a laser and an 8 colourinkjet printer. But there is absolutely no way to make a image that looks  the same on one of those mediums, inspite of every calibrating tool I used.
I use the sRGB monitor for rendering, because that is supposed to be a "realistic" setting, but as a matter of fact I like the tonemapping of Poser8 more than the GC-feature of Posepro

But there is more: the human eye can see colours by three receptors, red, green and blue. There are more receptors for green and blue, so the eye is more responsive to greenish colours, but.... the red receptors are more active when there's more light. So in broad daylight we see more reddish colours and in the twilight we see more green-blueish colours. Also the amount of red,green and blue receptors is genetical determined, some people even lack some of the receptors and are colourblind.
In other words: there is absolutely no way to determine if  someone sees a colour the same way as somebody else does, except by statistic inquiries. And just like ergonomics, which is also a statiscal "science", the difference  can be huge.
So there is nothing like a correct way to correct  your shaders, everything is literally in the eye of the beholder.

best regards,

Bopper.

Trying to sort where Poser's need for linear colour data to process colours correctly falls into that.

r. e. Oceania

Wolf, I thought that you of all people would have gotten the 1984 revisionist history reference. I assume you deliberately ignored it :-)

Even I am getting tired of hearing myself repeat myself so I’ll try to summarize my thoughts on this.

GC is a good and important tool. How good and how important will vary between individuals based on their experience, interest, taste and ultimate goals.

GC in isolation is not a magic ‘make good render’ solution.

Comparing what is pleasing to the eye with what is physically correct is probably a bad tack to take with artists. Not an invalid argument, just an unfortunate confluence because what looks good is going to beat what is correct seven ways to Sunday with artists or even non-artist viewers. If you’re talking Homeland Security trying to deduce explosive components from the light spectrum of a blast, then yeah, but Vicky, not so much.

The notion that science can, will or necessarily should influence the real world based on objective truth alone is naive. Politics have an influence even inside the laboratory and they have a profound effect outside of it. Politics is all about presentation and persuasion and to say that the way science is presented is irrelevant is simply wrong. It is wrong that is, if your goal is to win people over to your point of view – see vaccines, climate change etc. You can’t use dismissive, dogmatic or arrogant rhetoric in support of your position and then express dismay that people don’t buy what you’re selling. You can say that presentation shouldn’t matter when you have truth on your side, but I’m sorry, it does matter – it matters a great deal.

There has to be a medium between overawing people with numbers and essentially saying ‘if you don’t understand that then just trust us and do it or your work is bad.’ If Stephen Hawking can explain cosmology in a manner accessible to the reasonably intelligent layman, it can be done. In my experience, the people here are of above average intelligence, though not all are mathematically inclined. They are passionate about art, curious and certainly willing to learn new techniques. Most of them however don’t like being talked down to or having their questions or ideas dismissed out of hand. None of us are perfect on that score but sometimes it goes a little too far – acknowledgements appreciated.

If you don’t want to influence anyone, don’t care how your ideas are perceived and think that politeness is a synonym for weakness or capitulation then certainly ignore all of the above. Good ideas have a way of prevailing even when [their] proponents are sometimes their own worst enemies.

I don’t know that I learned a whole lot more about GC, but I have been motivated to look at it more and in that sense this has been more valuable than most of the other threads on the subject. So I thank everyone for a fun, interesting and civil discussion.

*“*A leader takes people where they want to go. A great leader takes people where they don't necessarily want to go, but ought to be.” - Rosalynn Carter

Thanks kirwyn, 

GC looks very effective on the image you have posted and I can see it being of value in particular renders. I'll have to investigate the node setup as I'm working in P8.

Cheers :)

Quote - > Quote - I just don't see an eye-popping difference I guess.

Both the examples in this thread (M4 and the one above) look better to me without it.
Perhaps if I save and example using the simple application of GC I might change my mind.
Maybe the above example could be posted with the lighting corrected for GC.

There's that "see" again. Mathematically correct is not something that can be visually assessed.

OK, now let's be really honest, I know everyone is dying to say this, so let me be the one. Who in the world cares if an image is mathematically correct or not if no one can see the difference. If I'm using any feature and I can no see any difference at all, but all it does is make my image mathematically correct, I don't see a use for it.

As a regular user I could care less if my image is mathematically correct or not, I'm not really into math that deeply that I could care about that....... All I see is results. If the results are not pleasing to the eye, then mathematically correct is of no use to me at all.

Back again, just spent some time doing GC v Non GC renders using Bantha's Wacro which seems to be endorsed by Bagginsbill on the thread where you can download it.

Pros:- Very quick to apply to a figure using the Wacro, it's something that you could use without it becoming an issue.

Cons:- To be honest I wasn't overly impressed by the result, the Wacro works fine, I don't mean the python scripting, what I mean is that the textures seemed to wash out too much even after lowering the lights to compensate. When I lowered the lights even further to aleviate the wash out, the whole scene seemed too murky. On first try it was a bit too much like VSS which I don't use due to the washed out waxy look it gives to skin shaders.

On the whole I find the Real Skin Shaders do a much nicer job and will probably continue to use them, when I render in Poser, as GC ing and VSS doesn't produce anything like a good result for me.

Also on the newer V4 M4 etc textures the nodes seem to be set up to give a Real Skin Shader type of result, so to me GC and VSS are not really necessary and don't give as good a result.

I used a plain old V3 skin to do my tests and the effort to compensate for the wash out of GC and to try to put some decent shadows back into the image seemed to negate GC ing in the first place.

As for the mathematically correct argument, well I don't like maths and have no interest in it. If the programme can't do the maths properly in the first place then that's down to Poser. I don't need to buy Pro 2010 as I have other applications in which I do most of my renders, and maybe that's why I don't render much in Poser these days except for tests to get things set up.

I gave it a try but I'm unimpressed by the results I was getting, perhaps I'm doing it wrong but if so then it's a bit of a time waste as there are quicker ways to acheive better results for me.

If it works for you then that's great, I really mean that.

Cheers.

Um, if you read that thread of Bantha's, he did say that the GC nodes will need a bit of adjusting, particularly if you use the GC2 wacro. Acts like a point-and-click, but there's a bit more to it.

 I've been following this thread closely over the past few days, and I've read a lot of stuff that's useful and interesting, a good deal of stuff that's not quite right, and some stuff that's completely wrong. Gamma Correction is really quite easy to understand, but explaining it to other people is quite difficult (I'm trying to write a short thing about Gamma and GC in Poser, currently on about my 10th edit).

If you don't understand what "gamma" is, and what gamma correction does, I don't think you should be using it. When you get results you don't expect, you won't have a clue why.

Also, GC in Poser in anything other than PoserPro is a pain to set up. Yes, you can do it using the many techniques discussed in this and other threads on the subject, but you need to know what you're doing and why. Adopting a gamma-corrected workflow just because someone says you should is crazy. You will only produce better work with GC if you understand it.

Well it's my understanding that GC in Pro 2010 is just a check box that twiddles the node settings, that's point and click. I don't have Pro2010 and if there's more to it, like you have to have an understanding of Math to get it to work in Pro2010 then it's not much of a selling point.

I don't mean to be facetious but I get the impression that it's the latest toy and everyone who doesn't buy the toy is lame.....all of a sudden:)

BTW, just so everyone knows, I'm using BB's VSS skin shader PR3 AO.  The Gamma value was changed to 1.0 (GC off) in the left image and remained at 2.2 (GC on) in the right image.  Both images were rendered in Poser Pro with render GC turned off.  The render settings were as follows:

Raytrace bounces = 1
Irradiance Caching = 0
Pixel samples = 2
Min shading rate = 1.25
 

Quote - Not a problem.  I should have mentioned that both were rendered in Poser Pro 2010.  VSS was not used.  It sounds crazy, but I bought Pro strictly because of the one button Gamma Correction.  I liked the way one could setup GC in Poser 8, but all those nodes in the Material Room were driving me daffy. 

Kirwyn, your GC'd image looks beautiful on my monitor.  Thanks for posting your test.  I plan to upgrade to Poser Pro 2010 later this year.  I'm just waiting a few more months before purchasing it to ensure that most the bugs have been shaken out.

BTW, my monitor is a 32-inch NEC MultiSync LCD 3090 WQXi.  What kind of monitor do you have if I may ask?
 

Ok I've had another try to understand the positives.

First image V3, Very old texture, my standard light set up of one infinite light and one spot, shadows set to 75% on both.

Second Image same set up, a bit ice creamy and lacking the shadows but not particularly horrible either.

Is one better than the other, I'm open to suggestions, and don't forget I've only been trying GC for a few hours. Very quick to set up but not too sure of the benefits yet. Sorry if the images are a bit big but I wanted them to be clear and I'm not too up on posting images to the forums, took me a while to figure it out.

Cheers.

Quote - Well it's my understanding that GC in Pro 2010 is just a check box that twiddles the node settings, that's point and click.

It is pretty much point-and-click. That's what makes it worth having.

When Poser 8 loads an image map, it gets gamma-corrected (for accurate display on monitors) which means they become 'non-linear'.  That's not ideal, because all the fancy math shaders that might be applied to the image are 'linear'. Mixing linear with non-linear makes things unpredictable.

 When PoserPro2010 loads an image map, it gets gamma corrected (because Poser uses standard image codecs), but then gets un-corrected. In other words, it is re-linearised. Now everything you work with is completely linear, and it makes setting lighting and designing shaders much simpler and more predictable.  

Quote - I don't mean to be facetious but I get the impression that it's the latest toy and everyone who doesn't buy the toy is lame.....all of a sudden:)

However did we do without it? All the fiddling around with lighting, node values and so on, with numerous test renders each time a change was made, is actually us, the users, getting round the gamma correction thing by trial and error.

It's only since the release of PP2010 that I've abandoned that old way of working so it's all a bit new to me too. Having tried to do GC in Poser 8 I decided it's way too much hassle.

When all's said and done, it's the end result that counts: if you're getting good results without GC, I wouldn't start worrying that you're in any way 'inadequate'. 

Nice examples hawarren

10:11 am Non GC looks better to me GC a bit to washed out. I'd probably prefer something in between.

10:18 am GC looks better.

Grimmley, the GC version is looks better to me mainly because the shadows around the eyes are too extreme on the Non GC one, almost like a mask.. The complexion on the GC one is perhaps a tad like pancake makeup, though not displeasing. You seem to be losing the wrinkles on the GC version though. Again, my taste would probably be for splitting the difference.

hawarren, my monitor is a Gateway XHD 30" LCD.  And I should mention that I'm a little disappointed in the GC in Poser Pro.  More than likely I'm doing something wrong, but so far, I can't solve the problem .  The results of GC using the node setup in Poser 8 versus using the one button GC in Poser Pro give me different results.  Everything seems to be setup properly, but I get a slightly redder tone and reduced specularity in Poser Pro.  I've tried it in PoserPro with the normal node setup and I've tried it with the GC nodes in place changing the 2.2 to 1.0.  Either way, I get the same exact results: a render that is not a duplicate of the render in Poser 8 with the Gamma Correction node setup.  Shouldn't it be?  If math is about precise measurements, then I'm left scratching my head, wondering if someone missed a decimal point when configuring Poser Pro.  Like I say, more than likely I'm missing something very simple, and hopefully I'll find the problem.  But as it stands right now, I'm lost for an explanation of why there should be any difference, however slight, in the renders.

Trying not offend here - but probably will - sorry in advance.

All the renders of faces in this thread look like plactic people - useful for cartoon work but nothing anymore serious.

To GC or not to GC? does anyone have any renders of faces with good face maps and variable skin texures that use GC?

VSSPR3 with the skin template from BB.

Quote - Nice examples hawarren

10:11 am Non GC looks better to me GC a bit to washed out. I'd probably prefer something in between.

10:18 am GC looks better....

 
Lmckenzie, thanks for the feedback.  In the image above, I reduced the front spotlight's intensity and turned off the rim light on Akisu's right.  Again, left image is non-GC, right image is GC.  Let me know if the GC image still looks washed out on your monitor.  Thanks a bunch.
 

It seems a bit "less 3D" to me. I still like the image to the left. Maybe it's my new monitor as I have viewed it on my old monitor where I like the right image better as that monitor has a problem showing dynamics clearly. But it also a cheap monitor.

Quote - hawarren, my monitor is a Gateway XHD 30" LCD.  And I should mention that I'm a little disappointed in the GC in Poser Pro.  More than likely I'm doing something wrong, but so far, I can't solve the problem .  The results of GC using the node setup in Poser 8 versus using the one button GC in Poser Pro give me different results.  Everything seems to be setup properly, but I get a slightly redder tone and reduced specularity in Poser Pro.  I've tried it in PoserPro with the normal node setup and I've tried it with the GC nodes in place changing the 2.2 to 1.0.  Either way, I get the same exact results: a render that is not a duplicate of the render in Poser 8 with the Gamma Correction node setup.  Shouldn't it be?  If math is about precise measurements, then I'm left scratching my head, wondering if someone missed a decimal point when configuring Poser Pro.  Like I say, more than likely I'm missing something very simple, and hopefully I'll find the problem.  But as it stands right now, I'm lost for an explanation of why there should be any difference, however slight, in the renders.

Kirwyn, your monitor is really high-end.  I bet you have a lot of fun rendering 3D scenes on your 30-inch wide screen monitor.

I hope BB or someone from SM can explain why there should be a difference in the renders.  I do not have Poser Pro 2010 yet, and I've never been able to set up the shaders just right so that they would look good with render GC in Poser Pro.  I've been experimenting with BB's VSS PR3 AO skin shader and I'm quite happy with it.  What you're doing is way beyond my knowledge of how shader nodes work in the Material Room.
 

Pardon the stupid question, but is it a hard and fast rule that GC has to be set at 2.2 if you're using a PC?
Couldn't it be set at 1.2 or 1.3 if less of the effect were desired?

Quote - Pardon the stupid question, but is it a hard and fast rule that GC has to be set at 2.2 if you're using a PC?

Only if you need it for you monitor. I never heard it was a rule as that would f**kup my images.

Quote - Trying not offend here - but probably will - sorry in advance.

All the renders of faces in this thread look like plactic people - useful for cartoon work but nothing anymore serious.

To GC or not to GC? does anyone have any renders of faces with good face maps and variable skin texures that use GC?

Apple_UK, take a look at AtlantiStyle's products in the Market Place.  His textures are very realistic, and his sculpting skills are exceptional.  In my opinion he's a Michelangelo of digital art.  Let me know if you like any of his products.  I happen to own both Basile and Andre so I can probably do a test render of non-GC and GC images for you.  Below is the link to his product page.
 
http://market.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/index.php?vendor=483952
 

Quote - It seems a bit "less 3D" to me. I still like the image to the left. Maybe it's my new monitor as I have viewed it on my old monitor where I like the right image better as that monitor has a problem showing dynamics clearly. But it also a cheap monitor.

Thanks for the feedback Zaycrow.  I will further reduce the intensity of the IBL light and crank up the spotlight just a bit to see if we can get the GC'd image to look more 3D.  What kind of monitor is your old monitor?  And your new one? (if you wouldn't mind)