Ps the resolution of the render is very low, rendered in 4 minutes

without GC

Original on left - Gamma corrected, I mean, ahem, adjusted in photoshop on right.

GC in Poser on left -- GC in Photoshop on right.

I think sometimes it's a matter of preference and workflow. (Artifacts are result of playing with very low resolution images.)

Using adaptive exposure, I get a third, somewhat different appearance. Layering them, I have even more options. Rendering with HDRI optimization, even more.

In this case, the uncorrected has a more spookie dramatic effect to it!

For the record, I always render with GC enabled these days because I prefer it too. :) But I don't think it kills a render to postwork it.

I notice that the colours in the Poser gamma corrected image look slightly richer (e.g. the woods and black chair leather) than in the Photoshop gamma corrected one... least they do to my eyes, on the value-range acer monitor that I'm currently sat in front of?

The colors look quite different, yes. But whether they are "richer" is likely a matter of taste. Maybe if I'd tried to reproduce the Poser version rather than just posting a very quick adjustment, I'd have learned something more. Poser GC certainly stays closer to the original colors than a very quick Photoshop adjustment, indeed.

But since adjusting gamma in Photoshop isn't a on/off toggle, but a whole range of values, you've got a lot of choice. I didn't touch saturation or contrast or exposure or black/white point or anything like that.

The main disadvantage to postwork GC is that an image exported from Poser using any of the common file formats will be 8 bit only, meaning that you have far less data to work with which limits the scope of what can be achieved. The severe banding on the ceiling of the postworked version is likely to be due to working with 8 bit data.

Poser can export 32 bit image formats but you (a) need to have software that can handle those and (b) have to have some expertise in working with such file formats.

There's an analogy to be had in photography, where you have the option to work in RAW mode (typically 12 or 14 bit) or jpg (8 bit)

I can achieve what I want in Photoshop, but using render GC is, for me, by far the easiest workflow (and, of course, it doesn't preclude postwork too).

Indeed... my notion of "richer" is just subjective here...

I'm just beginning to explore post-work really... there's nothing much in the way of post-work done for any of my gallery posts to date. Not even cropping.

I'm not anti-postwork by any means. Got Photoshop CS5 Extended and plan to use it more!

I'm just short of time and impatient :biggrin:

The idea of rendering HDR from Poser and then playing more in PS is something I keep meaning to do.

I also habitually render a depth-map. But as yet, I've not actually played around much with this technique to implement depth of field effects... again I mean to though in due course...

Quote - The main disadvantage to postwork GC is that an image exported from Poser using any of the common file formats will be 8 bit only, meaning that you have far less data to work with which limits the scope of what can be achieved. The severe banding on the ceiling of the postworked version is likely to be due to working with 8 bit data.

Poser can export 32 bit image formats but you (a) need to have software that can handle those and (b) have to have some expertise in working with such file formats.

There's an analogy to be had in photography, where you have the option to work in RAW mode (typically 12 or 14 bit) or jpg (8 bit)

I can achieve what I want in Photoshop, but using render GC is, for me, by far the easiest workflow (and, of course, it doesn't preclude postwork too).

I've been doing photographic HDR landscapes for several years now, both with a single 14 bit raw and also with multiple exposures (as many as 60). It's addictive. Photoshop handles HDRs just fine these days. No special tools required.

Merging multiple exposures, though, does require some skill, at least in the taking of them, else you get fuzzy birds and wing trails and ghostly branches and all manner of strange things.

You'll always get artifacts and noise when playing with a tiny jpeg downloaded from the web, though. The banding is pretty severe in the OP. But it is certainly exacerbated by being brutally adjusted, yeah.

Quote - Indeed... my notion of "richer" is just subjective here...

I'm just beginning to explore post-work really... there's nothing much in the way of post-work done for any of my gallery posts to date. Not even cropping.

I'm not anti-postwork by any means. Got Photoshop CS5 Extended and plan to use it more!

I'm just short of time and impatient :biggrin:

The idea of rendering HDR from Poser and then playing more in PS is something I keep meaning to do.

I also habitually render a depth-map. But as yet, I've not actually played around much with this technique to implement depth of field effects... again I mean to though in due course...

Of course "richer" isn't subjective when we're talking about bank accounts. But I agree that the Poser GC version is closer in hue to the non GC'd version.

Oh, you should so play with your toys! Photoshop DOF is a blunt and imperfect tool but it's way faster than rendering with DOF.

Just experimenting with adjustment layers is fun for me. But then I started with photography, so I still have in my mind that once the pic is taken, there's no going back to fix it in camera, as it were, and that sort of playing around is like knitting in front of the telly -- relaxing.

Quote - Photoshop handles HDRs just fine these days. No special tools required.

At several hundred pounds for a copy, you could argue that Photoshop itself is a special tool ... HDR support isn't found in many cheaper alternatives.

Quote - You'll always get artifacts and noise when playing with a tiny jpeg downloaded from the web, though.

It's not the resolution so much as the lack of dynamic range, which affects high resolution images in jpeg format too.

Postworking GC is fine if you have the tools and the skill and the time. Render GC is pretty good for those who don't.

Oh, and David's point is valid too: while the GC'd versions are clearly more accurate, the non-GC'd original does have a certain eerie and slightly ominous artistic impact ...

I never use JPGs until I'm uploading to the web. They are an evil invention. The resolution is an issue because my eyes aren't good enough to see details in tiny pictures! ;)

Photomatix tone maps and converts HDRs, and it aligns multiple merged exposures (and it's arguably better at it than Photoshop CS5) -- for $39. It works perfectly well on Poser HDRs. I haven't looked to see if there are any cheaper, or even free options.

I'm not disputing the value of GC in Poser. But I found it to be a royal PITA when I wasn't using Pro. Enough of one, at any rate, to not be necessarily worth the time and (and time spent acquiring the necessary skills) adjusting all the materials in the scene pre-render.

A Poser render is a render as all other renders. Photoshop on the other hand is art. Or at least a try for art. Abstaining from Photoshop removes all your artistic aspirations. A relief for some!

Quote - I'm not disputing the value of GC in Poser. But I found it to be a royal PITA when I wasn't using Pro. Enough of one, at any rate, to not be necessarily worth the time and (and time spent acquiring the necessary skills) adjusting all the materials in the scene pre-render.

When not using Pro, I have to agree with you entirely :-)

Quote - > Quote - I'm not disputing the value of GC in Poser. But I found it to be a royal PITA when I wasn't using Pro. Enough of one, at any rate, to not be necessarily worth the time and (and time spent acquiring the necessary skills) adjusting all the materials in the scene pre-render.

When not using Pro, I have to agree with you entirely :-)

Actually, I found the few material adjustments necessary in Poser Pro to be an inordinate pain... until you provided the solutions. It is a wondrous thing to find oneself so utterly dependent on the hard work and generosity of a couple of people.

Well, I would say a few things. Poser isn't exactly a world-class render engine ;). It wants to be but it's not. However, you have options in Poser. You can export to Luxrender or you can use a render engine like Kerkythea. You can even export (as obj) to Blender and use Cycles - all better renderers, but they have their drawbacks as well. You can do postwork, but like anything else, it takes skill too. Each renderer has its advantages and it's faults.

Laurie

my 2 cents:

while Photoshop CG does the GC-job after rendering only, Poser Pro GC performs a pre-render anti-GC as well. The net effect is a full GC on the "play of light" (shadow, highlight, ...) and a reduced or even absent GC on the object coloring themselves. And... GC reduces the brightness contrasts by definition.

So, the spooky effect on the non-GC (compared to any GC's image), as well as the stronger colors on the Poser CG (compared to the Photoshop GC'd one) are within expectations, at least mine.

Suggested further reading and more details: http://www.book.artbeeweb.nl/?p=317 (Missing Manuals site, Poser, Corrections).

As someone said, there is a lot of free or moderately priced external renders nowadays. You can not only save out in 32 bit and manipulate different exposures and postadjust light and shadows there is also multipass that render different parts of the picture seperatly, ready for compositing. Its a whole new world. Combined with Photoshop it has no limitations.

I am a little perplexed that these possibilities are not used more.

"only a hint of a hand-created element can activate a surface, instill passion and energy into a medium, and reassure the recipient that human understanding and insight are the foundation for the message.” Josh Chen

i'm a little confused by vintorixs' statements?, are you saying that a render without postwork is not art? and how can the "hint of a hand created element" be applied to photoshop?, if a filter or airbrush can be considered a hand crafted element then surely the same applies to a primitive or light in poser or daz or any other modelling program. I can understand how the statement might apply to a painting or sketch done entirely by hand, but to attribute the same rules to CG in any form baffles me.

Is the home made model to be considered any less hand crafted than the preset in photoshop or a few strokes with an airbrush or pencil tool, and to assume that refraining from using photoshop means you have no artistic aspirations is a kick in the teeth for many poser users.

technically poser renders are art, as they're created by humans for aesthetic purposes, rather than utilitarian reasons. however, the question of whether poser renders are art is a sore subject for people who don't use poser, hence it's probably not a good idea to bring it up.

I use GC in Poser Pro 2012. I don't particularly like it because I have to put in hsv nodes on things to bring back some of the vibrancy of the color. But I use it as part of my work flow. I am in the minority in that I try to push Poser to it's limits on my machine to produce a render that IMO doesn't need postwork, just my digital signiture.

Quote - technically poser renders are art, as they're created by humans for aesthetic purposes, rather than utilitarian reasons. however, the question of whether poser renders are art is a sore subject for people who don't use poser, hence it's probably not a good idea to bring it up.

This.

Perhaps we can just link to the forum threads in which the "art/not art" question has already been brought up and discussed and debated in lieu of actually doing so again. :)

A wise woman! I HATE jpg's! A necessary evil-but I save all my renders as psd or hdr

Quote - I never use JPGs until I'm uploading to the web. They are an evil invention. The resolution is an issue because my eyes aren't good enough to see details in tiny pictures! ;)

I don't have the ability to use gamma correction myself, unless I do it the hard way, so I was kinda waiting for bagginsbill to show up. However my popcorn has all gone now. :)

Fortunately aRtBee raised the point that was bugging me, but I lacked the experience to bring up myself.

Quote - Photoshop CG does the GC-job after rendering only, Poser Pro GC performs a pre-render anti-GC as well.

In short: gamma correction in postwork is only half the story. You need to un-correct your maps for the render maths to work properly. This is why I don't do the job manually. ;) 

What I'm still a bit unclear on, tbh, is  how these pre-render and post-render phases of Poser GC apply, or rather don't if HDR output is selected?

Do I need to make sure I've unticked GC if I am ticking the HDR output option... and should I consider aspects of my shader setups, if I am looking to render HDR optimised output?

Your texture maps are encoded with a gamma of 2.2. Poser's 'Gamma Correction' actually anti-gamma corrects to get them into a linear state, hence the term 'linear workflow', which is what happens up to the point when you hit the Render button.

What happens next has nothing to do with your workflow, linear or otherwise.

When Poser saves your final render, the image file is encoded with a 2.2 gamma (as it would be from any application saving an image).

The exceptions are if you save in .HDR or .EXR formats which are 32-bits per colour per channel and have a linear response curve (i.e. have a gamma of 1.0).

So, don't mess about with GC settings based on how you're going to save the render, they have nothing to do with each other.

Gamma is just a small part of it.

Quote - Your texture maps are encoded with a gamma of 2.2. Poser's 'Gamma Correction' actually anti-gamma corrects to get them into a linear state, hence the term 'linear workflow', which is what happens up to the point when you hit the Render button.

What happens next has nothing to do with your workflow, linear or otherwise.

When Poser saves your final render, the image file is encoded with a 2.2 gamma (as it would be from any application saving an image).

The exceptions are if you save in .HDR or .EXR formats which are 32-bits per colour per channel and have a linear response curve (i.e. have a gamma of 1.0).

So, don't mess about with GC settings based on how you're going to save the render, they have nothing to do with each other.

Ah, many thanks for the clarification

my favorite hdr site :)  http://www.hdrlabs.com/sibl/index.htm

Quote - Your texture maps are encoded with a gamma of 2.2. Poser's 'Gamma Correction' actually anti-gamma corrects to get them into a linear state, hence the term 'linear workflow', which is what happens up to the point when you hit the Render button.

What happens next has nothing to do with your workflow, linear or otherwise.

When Poser saves your final render, the image file is encoded with a 2.2 gamma (as it would be from any application saving an image).

The exceptions are if you save in .HDR or .EXR formats which are 32-bits per colour per channel and have a linear response curve (i.e. have a gamma of 1.0).

Exactly. To phrase it in more generic terms: Poser Pro does what the image file format specification implies.

As a rule of thumb, low dynamic range formats such as PNG or JPEG are decoded with 1/2.2 upon reading and encoded with 2.2 upon writing or display (unless you specify otherwise). High dynamic range formats such as Radiance (HDR) or OpenEXR (EXR) are presumed linear and therefore are read and written with gamma 1.

Rendering itself is always linear.