Quote - A. I understand it. Owned all the densiometric grear in the world when I did my own color printing. B. In the context of Poser, I fail to see significantly better results using it.

C. Absolutely. See B above. I don't find it's worth the trouble in my own workflow.

The only reason I joined this post is, I hate to see newbees bullied into using GC when they hardly understand the basics of Poser to begin with. I think it is a disservice to the new users, but that's simply my opinion, cklearly labeled as such.

A: You might, but not everyone does, remember, not everyone who uses Poser or Daz Studio has a background in photography.

B: Try doing a render in Poser with a lot of dark areas, with and without GC, you'll find the GC version that you can make out details in the dark areas that simply aren't there in the non-GC version.

C: That's fine, just don't go the same route as the pro-GC people are claimed to go by implying that your way (no GC) is the correct way.

If you have developed a method of getting good renders out of Poser that doesn't involve render or material GC, that's fine. But don't try to discourage people from trying out GC and seeing how it fits into their workflow, and whether they feel the results are sufficiently better for themselves.

Your workflow is good for you, but don't presume to tell me that your workflow is superior to mine.

 

Edit: To the OP, in regards to the gamma corrected V4 looking worse than the non-GC one, that's because the default (and many 3rd party) texture has a light blue tinting of the diffuse color, to compensate for a texture that has too much red in it, and that blue becomes apparent with GC. Doing a search of threads about gamma correction should give you more information.

________________________________________________________________

If you're joking that's just cruel, but if you're being sarcastic, that's even worse.