Just thought I'd see what the rest of you thought about Postworking images. Hope I'm not opening a can-of-worms here! I do feel that using Postwork in images shows off the talent of the artist and NOT the power of the particular 3D package. If you had good postworking skills there really isn't the need for the advanced clothing room and realistic hair for say Poser - you could just paint them in. I think I would like to see more 'untouched' renders in the Gallery as it would inspire me to get the best out of the package. If an image is heavily postworked then I know with my lack of artistic ability I would never be able to produce the stunning images shown there. Actually when you think about it, Postworked images should really belong in a 2D gallery since strictly the image is no-longer 3D (3D implies you can reproduce the image from any angle) Certainly if someone is looking for a 3D package and wants to see what a package can do, there would be no point in looking at a Postworked image as it does not demonstrate the power of the package. As a case in point, when Curious Labs first released Poser5 they ran a competition to show off the power of Poser5. Believe it or not, the winning image, fantastic as it was, was rendered in Vue with imported Poser figures! I hope no-one bouught P5 on the strength of that winning image or they would have been sorely disappointed! The Gallery images at Curious Labs still feature heavily postworked images and I think this should be highlighted for any potential buyers! I know some of you will say that art is all about the image and not how it was produced but if that were the case, why split the galleries into the various packages (Poser, Vue, 3d Studio etc) - all images should be in the one gallery. Perhaps there should be galleries for 'True' 3D work witout ANY postwork. It would at least give some of us non-talented artists the chance of maybe getting in that Top 20 Gallery list! What does anyone else think? p.s. I've cross posted this in both the Vue and Poser Forums to see whether there are differing views although I must admit, there is much less Postworking goes on in the Vue Gallery and some of the images are pretty close to photo-realistic straight from the render output!

I have a foot firmly in both camps here. 1. I hate postworking because if I rely on it, I learn nothing about the capabilites of the software I use, and cover up all my shortcomings with paint. 2. I love postworking because it enables me to produce a finished image in a fraction of the time I would need to spend in order to achieve the same effect in Poser. Short answer is, it depends why I'm making the image. I'm not a 3D purist. To be honest, that's something akin to trainspotting, IMO.

I see your point. For myself, the end image is the thing, not necessarily how you got there. So if you have postwork and it looks great - great, if you don't and it looks great - great. They're both great to me. I'm not going to split academic hairs on how you did it, as long as YOU did it. Then again I can see the value of knowing that image x is an untouched render as an exposure of what the given software can do, and what someone did with the given software. Personally I would much rather have as much work as possible done in the software, so it's always good to have people testing the limits and showing us what they learn. So I don't see the need for separate galleries, but it would be nice if more people gave more details on what they did to produce their images. We'd all learn more from that. Unzipped

People would still submit their postworked work to the Poser galleries because it gets the most traffic. And those people would never sacrifice losing those precious views by putting things in the correct categories. :)

I see a lot of good images in the galleries which would be much better with a bit more postwork. Of course in Poser4 the most noticable boo-boos are the elbow/knee folding. In Poser 5 the thing I notice most is 'hair floating' off the scalp which should be taken care of b4 rendering but could be touched up in postwork. As to representation of a product, most of the graphics in the store are marked as 'no postwork'...I never buy something on the basis of a gallery render. I go by the pix at the store w/o postwork and can determine from them how much postwork was necessary to make the gallery image look good. I enjoy the postwork process more than actually putting the image together...postwork is where you can put all your of graphic skills into play.

I don't generally do any postwork on my renders, but only because I'm not very good at it yet. I'm actually generally happy with the final render straight out of Poser, except for the usual problem areas of unexpected mesh kinks, spiky knees, elbows, etc. when there's sharp angles in the pose.

The closest I've got to it in any of my Gallery pics so far is the last one, where I had to render in two layers and use alpha channel masking to place the figure in the scene. It looks OK, I think, but I still wish my one-lunged little PC could have rendered the whole scene in one go.

FWIW, I'm not much of a 3D purist either, I'm more of a go-with-what-works (or -what-looks-good) type.

"I see a lot of good images in the galleries which would be much better with a bit more postwork" Oh god. Don't say that in any of the other forums around here. ;-) Poser is one of the only programs I know that relies so heavily on "overpainting" the final render. The software's shortcomings are a big part of the reason why. But another big part is that it appeals VERY MUCH to people who do 2D art for a living or hobby. The interface is amateurish compared to other programs, and it's very easy to get started using (try opening Maya or 3dsMax for the first time and see how long it takes to catch on). I'm not a 3D "purist", but I do like to see good renders done with no postwork. It shows what a program is capable of in the hands of a good artist. That's one of the reasons I frequent the other forums/galleries on this site as well. 3dsmax, Maya, and even the Bryce galleries are a good example of some great PURE 3D work. Rarely would you ever see an image postworked in those galleries.

"Actually when you think about it, Postworked images should really belong in a 2D gallery since strictly the image is no-longer 3D (3D implies you can reproduce the image from any angle)" Well I see your point nothing is truly 3D. When you work on your computer in a 3D program you are approximating 3D space in 2D and previewing the results on a 2D monitor; the same applies for the visual mediums of film and broadcast. Even the film itself is heavily color timed to produce a more pleasant effect. If you can't grasp an object in the real-world then it's not 3D. If a person wants to showcase their modeling skills they can use a flat grey shader on their model and render in radiosity. If an artistic wants to demonstrate their entire skill-set and what they can do to improve and existing image that shows off talent. As a former VFX supervisor for film I can tell you that we never released a shot straight from a render - compositing (2D) was not only a necessity but is the most efficient means to merge, color correct and time various 3D elements. Nothing that looks good is real only imagined by the artist.

"As a former VFX supervisor for film I can tell you that we never released a shot straight from a render - compositing (2D) was not only a necessity but is the most efficient means to merge, color correct and time various 3D elements." Yes, but that's not exactly the same "postwork" that is being discussed in the cases indicated here. I do (and have done) animation for television, and still images for magazine ads. The work that's done for television (or movies) has to be perfected as much as possible in the 3D environment as you probably know already, since painting over imperfections in photoshop, like can be done for still images, is not a realistic possibility. ;-) I think the main issue is the degree of post-painting versus 3D render, and how that effects the final claim. In other words, if 90% of the "work" is done in photoshop, does it cease to be a Poser image or 3D render? I think in some cases it does. We all know that 3D isn't REAL 3D, but it's still constructed in a computer environment that represents 3D. So the issue becomes how much of an image is showcasing one's talent with a particular 3D program, and how much is their talent with photoshop or the like.

I personnally postwork an image until I get the look and feel I want. I don't do images to show off what my app can do, and I frankly don't care what someone uses to make his picture,it's wether or not it touches me. I'll grant you that it often is a lot easier to adjust lighting in Photoshop than to tweak a light array. But again art is not a question of being a better dial twiddler than the other guy, it's the emotional response the artwork ellicits.

To me, the final image is all that matt3rs, and how you get there is of little importance. My art teacher from art school said "Da Vinci used every tool available to create his artwork including cutting apart dead bodies. And YOU balk and using a xerox or scanner?" An artist SHOULD use every tool avaialable to them. If someone paints kickass hair, then why even bother with jerking around learning poser hair? That's what's great, and makes every artist's work unique.. we all have different talents.

"An artist SHOULD use every tool avaialable to them. If someone paints kickass hair, then why even bother with jerking around learning poser hair?" Well, you're absolutely correct. The final image is what matters. BUT... this website makes it a point to break galleries down into software genres. Why do that if all that matters is the final image? The point is, is a work that is essencially 90% photoshop really a POSER image? Does it belong in the Poser gallery? Many if not MOST of the users here do not like it when an artist uses another more powerful application to render their Poser figures (note that such a thing is NOT allowed in the Poser monthly challenge). Yet it's perfectly acceptable and applauded when someone simply paints over a naked poser figure - background and all. I don't know. If the site wasn't so fragmented into which program you use, I would agree that the final product is all that matters (and in the real world it IS), but in this community, does that - no, SHOULD that apply equally? That's the question as I saw it.

I use lighting, directed views, misdirection, and elaborate explanations in lieu of postwork..;)

The point is, is a work that is essencially 90% photoshop really a POSER image? Does it belong in the Poser gallery? Many if not MOST of the users here do not like it when an artist uses another more powerful application to render their Poser figures (note that such a thing is NOT allowed in the Poser monthly challenge). Yet it's perfectly acceptable and applauded when someone simply paints over a naked poser figure - background and all. I don't know. If the site wasn't so fragmented into which program you use, I would agree that the final product is all that matters (and in the real world it IS), but in this community, does that - no, SHOULD that apply equally? That's the question as I saw it." Hmmm.. well then the problem to me, is the perception problems of the viewer. If they ONLY want to see bare Poser renders, then that is their problem, not the artist. The artist determines what is a "poser" render, and what is, say, a "lightwave" or "Vue" render. I think the catagories are more to generally make it easier to see what work can be done with the various programs and tools available. I don't think it needs or should be anything more, or less then that.

"The work that's done for television (or movies) has to be perfected as much as possible in the 3D environment as you probably know already, since painting over imperfections in photoshop, like can be done for still images, is not a realistic possibility. ;-)" You're kidding right? Inferno and Henry are both real-time broadcast/film quality painting and compositing systems. You can do EXACTLEY what you do in these systems that you can in Photoshop. I them everyday; Henry for broadcast work and Inferno for 2K film res files.

"I think the catagories are more to generally make it easier to see what work can be done with the various programs and tools available. I don't think it needs or should be anything more, or less then that." Well, that's the point then. If someone paints over a Poser render, at some point is ceases to showcase what can be done with the tools in Poser, and focuses more on the photoshop skill of the artist. That's all good, but it's not showcasing what can be done in Poser aside from using it as a painter's stencil. So again, why then is there a double standard here? Why are there specific galleries that are program-specific if people are allowed to freely cover up the capabilities (or lack thereof) in a specific program with work that's done mostly in another program? And why then are renders done with Poser figures using other apps frowned upon in those same galleries that applaud excessive photoshop work on their renders? I don't mean color correcting a render, I mean totally painting a render... such as hair, background, clothes and more. I wouldn't even care if this wasn't a site that broke down galleries into specific applications, but still allow Photoshop use as if it's something that comes bundled with Poser.

"You're kidding right? Inferno and Henry are both real-time broadcast/film quality painting and compositing systems. You can do EXACTLEY what you do in these systems that you can in Photoshop. I them everyday; Henry for broadcast work and Inferno for 2K film res files." Of course you can do that if you have the budget, but many, if not most studios tend to perfect things as much as possible before final render so as to save on the excessive postwork expense. Blur Studios and Animal Logic for example do tons of composit work for film and tv, but tend to do the majority of the FX and shading directly in the 3D application. Animal Logic recently did a few scenese for Discovery's Extreme Martial Arts that was a combination of composit and actual 3D environments, but rendered completely in 3dsMax using Vray render engine. PS: by expense I mean time as well as $$.

If maxxxmodelz has his/her way, I think nobody would post in the poser gallery. Most of my images are 80% poser 20% photoshop. I only have 1 image in my gallery that's pure poser. I guess I can't post in the photoshop gallery. But if I can't post in the poser gallery either, then I think I should leave renderosity and let the purists have their ways. If you sell a product, it is recommended to post a pure poser image. But in the gallery I don't think some black and white ideas about the purity of a render is just ludicrous. Come on, artists live in a gray world. Black and White worlds are for mathematicians and suits. Just my 2 pennies. JV.

" If maxxxmodelz has his/her way, I think nobody would post in the poser gallery." Nonsense. ;-) I'm simply asking why it's OK to postwork with Photoshop, but not OK to render in another app. The galleries are one thing, but the Poser Challenge for example is another. There's no specified limit to the postwork allowed in the challenge, but it IS specified that you can't use another app to render. If the point is showing off what you can do with Poser, then isn't "sweetening" the imperfections using Photoshop as much covering up one's abilities as rendering in an outside app? Particularly when there's no set limit to just how much postwork one is allowed to do. But I digress. It matters not to me since I haven't participated in the challenges, but I like playing Devil's Advocate sometimes. ;-)

I stop participating in challenges. They just don't appeal to me anymore. I think putting restrictions to what one can use to achieve one's vision is just not fun.

Stealth1701 - I agree with you completely. Long time ago I tried to run a campaign against postwork in the Poser Gallery - it failed. I never use postwork, because it does not show the capabilities of the real 3d program its often only used to hide flaws or to add effects which are not in Poser. It usually takes me several months to get where I want, and I have projects sitting on m y HD for more than a year. This is the header of the Poser gallery: "This gallery is primarily for images rendered within Poser itself. Images of Poser figures rendered in other applications are still welcome, but what's the challenge in that? See how well you can do using it's basic rendering tools!" Postworked pictures should go into the Mixed Medium gallery, this is where they belong.

Hi Well I certainly seemed to have opened up a can of worms here! However, I think a few people here are missing the point of the discussion and my original request. I was NEVER saying that postworked images should not be allowed and I agree that artists should express themselves with whatever mediums they can to achive the final result - some images even NEED postwork because the concept and mood would be impossible if the renderer produced phot-quality images . BUT, I think there should be a section that allows PURE 3D work to be posted. Isn't the ultimate goal of a 3D program to allow someone to produce a photo-realistic render WITHOUT postwork? Why should CuriousLabs have any motivation to produce Poser6 if the majority of people are willing to make up for its shortcommings by importing into ANOTHER package like VUE or with some clever use of Photoshop. Also, the reason why I as a Poser user, look in the Poser section is to see what I can do with MY package. Although its great to view the fantastic images, postworked or not, I will never be able to achieve some of the images myself because I don't have the artistic 2D talent. Lets give credit to those that manage to push the 3D packages to their extremes and give credit to those who obviously have talent in the 2D arena. I definately would like to see competitions where NO postwork is allowed. I too have stopped entering comps for this reason. Why spend hours composing and lighting a scene when someone else wins the prize just because they are a better painter and can use Photoshop better! Like I said before, postworked images belong in a 2D gallery and not under the specific package sections- or could we at least have 1 new sections where we could put all Pure3D images?

So what are we actually saying counts as postwork? In my last gallery image I took a Poser 5 render and used Photoshop to add a montage background and to perform some desaturations/sepia/graident colourings to the image - I was trying to get the colouring of a faded Victorian photo yet the sharpness of a modern photo - I could not have got that effect in Poser alone. Surely the degree and nature of the postwork defines which catagory it is in - and whether the artist has declard what he/she has done.

Elgyfu - this is a good case in point. If you had used Poser4 could you not have achieved the same results since you only used Poser for the actual person in the image? Would people have rushed out to buy Poser5 thinking it offered Sepia effects etc? I'm sure your image looked fantastic but I think it ceased being a POSER image the moment it was imported into Photoshop. If I had a Poser figure, imported it into 3d Studio to add some detail then rendered the final image in Vue, which gallery would it go in? My agrument is that it should go into the Vue Gallery as that is where the fial render was done. Alternatively if it was then removed from Vue and had lots of special lighting effects added it should be in the Photoshop or mixed medium gallery. Again I'm not taking anything away from the image itself - just where it should be posted. This of course exludes that all important copyright signature which obviously does have to be done using a 2D package ;-)

The question is, is poser a standalone program. the answer is NO. Poser renders are dark, overly saturated and blurry. Rendering and displaying raw poser renders just ain't the way to go. At least have the decency to run some adjustment layers and unsharp mask. Thats just meeting the standards of viewability and effective visual communication. So postwork is not just a good idea, its a NECESSITY. But I don't think thats the kind of postwork we're talking about. We're talking about the fantasy airbrush fluff that dominates the Hot 20, DAZ and CL galleries. Personally I can't stand that "art" and I find it about as exciting as a Barry Manilow record. If someone takes a naked, untextured poser figure, renders it and then postworks it to death THAT AINT POSER. Its something else, kinda like those motivational posters in your guidance counselor's office or breakroom at work. Now if you wanna talk about some real deal ALAN ALDA photorealism, thats what Im all about. Give me Alan Alda digital clones, or don't waste my time. C'mon people, make that face room work. And use some hot GI lighting while you're at it. :)

.."Isn't the ultimate goal of a 3D program to allow someone to produce a photo-realistic render WITHOUT postwork?".. And here I was thinking it was to create an image. Never could understand why this is an issue for some. You use the tools that let you realize your own individual vision. The galliers are used to display that vision,not to show off what one softwear can or can't do. Perhapes people that are more into the softwear than artistic fulfillment,would be happier posting in the ProductShowcase gallery (or hanging out at the softwear's website and talk "spec's"). If you feel satisfied that your untouched Poser render fulfills what your trying to say to the viewer,...then that is how you should work. While Poser has improved in features since version 1,the basic functions remain the same. If you read the advertising for the first release of Poser,you will see the intended use for the program... "Photoshop,Painter,filters,tracing templates,special effects,exporting to other render programs like Ray Dream"....etc. Looks like what they had in mind,was a very openended use for Poser...

There seem to be two parties: - one party of people wants to reach an artistic effect in their pictures, no matter what tools they use - and say its only the result that counts. I have nothing against postwork but its not my challenge. - the other party (like me) talks about a three dimensional Virtual Reality generated in 3DCGs. This has absolutely nothing to do with showing off what one software can do. This is not the goal - the goal is to create a realistic good picture, where a world with its own physics is simulated by a computer. Thats in my view a bigger challenge than using the Photoshop stamp and smear over a picture. This is 2D not 3D, sorry. I like to move around with my camera in 3D and make different shots from different angles, or make the shadows look realistic from any angle and so on. In the past I had discussions with some people here, let me give you oneexamples: The picturee represents a 3d Vicky as pinup- then apparently a pinup from an international collection was cut out, and just the hair and the clothing was used. As most people probably did not know the original, but the picture went up into the top pictures. This has nothing to do with 3D. Another example are the promo renders at every place. Okay advertisement always lies - but its for instance forbidden to use photographs in order to advertise for a TV screen. And I see this custom here used continously - I call this a case of severe treachery to trick people into buying products and then being left with something that does not work at all. Look at all the posting and questions : How do I set up my lights, how I render skin etc. This is the outcome of frustrated buyers. These are probably two completely different aims which demand completely different skills (probably). So why not give us our playground ?

The question is, is poser a standalone program. the answer is NO. Poser renders are dark, overly saturated and blurry. Rendering and displaying raw poser renders just ain't the way to go. At least have the decency to run some adjustment layers and unsharp mask. Thats just meeting the standards of viewability and effective visual communication. So postwork is not just a good idea, its a NECESSITY. Excuse me but this is nonsense. If your poser renders are dark or overly saturated you haven't put the right lights on them. And if they're blurry you're antialiasing them too much or using textures of a wrong resolution. Poser is very much a stand alone program, if you know how to use it properly. Especially Poser 5, since the renderer is better. But what is the point is: Does it produce photo real renders? Well, sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. Depends a lot of the models and even more so of the TEXTURES used. You can't expect photorealism from a painted texture. Sure it can be beautifull, but it won't be PHOTOreal. I don't do much post on my pictures, not JUST from puritan reasons, but also from lack of skill and general laziness. Granted my pictures aren't in the Hot 20 either, and the pic I have made that has the highest number of views HAS some postwork. I agree with whoever said that people post in the Poser gallery coz that's where the hits are. I've posted a few in Mixed Medium and they've hardly had any hits at all. I've also posted more or less the same pic in 2 different galleries with a HUGE difference in views. Go figure. I can't really blame people for posting in the Poser gallery allthough the pic doesn't REALLY belong there. A closeup aof a poser character, rendered in Vue, with a filter from photoshop applied.. where do you post that? It would ideally belong in Mixed Media but I think a lot of people THINK of it as a POSER picture, since that's where the major part of the work took place. And lastly an example of a non-postworked pic that IMO turned out pretty good. And yup, it's even an attempt at photorealism.

"If your poser renders are dark or overly saturated you haven't put the right lights on them. And if they're blurry you're antialiasing them too much or using textures of a wrong resolution" Actually I think thats a bunch of nonsense. Last time I checked, theres two anti-aliasing option; on and off. So I don't know how I could be "antialiasing them too much". As far as lighting goes, even with the best lighting poser renders are dark and overly saturated. Obviously the better the lighting the better the image, but theres no excuse not to at least run levels and sharpen the image a bit. Unless you like sloppy poser renders. :)

I will agree with you up to a point. Poser renders very easily DO get too dark, but they don't NEED to be. It DOES depend on your lightning, and granted, Poser's lights are somewhat special. :o) The antialiasing, sorry I am getting too used to P5 terms where you have different levels of antialiasing. You're right, in Poser 4 there's only on and off. But I've never expirienced "blurry" renders though. Blurry textures, yes but that's because of the resolution of the maps, not poser as such. The edges of things are nice and crisp imo. Some have even complained that they're TOO crisp G So I think it's partly in the eye of the beholder, in other words what are you aiming for? I'm not saying that Poser is the final answer but it IS a stand alone program if you take the time to learn it and learn all it's quirks :o)

Learn how to set up lights correctly and do it yourself not using prefabricated ones - and you will never have to use Photshop to make adjustments. Poser in Firefly is able to make cristall clear renders depending on you setups. but doing this takes time and a lot of patince. for some pictures in my gallery I made more than 100 renders before posting it. Again (and for the last time) its not a question of pro or contra postwork, its a question of the challenge you take. If you like postwork, post your stuff to mixed media - this is where it belongs, nowhere else.

Well, without getting into all the other tangental topics here, I postwork 99% of my images, even if it's only just smoothing a joint or adjusting the levels or something. I do it because it's what I want to do, simple as that. I'm not a "CG purist" or whatever you want to call it, and I generally can't get the end result I want without some postwork. I think it just depends on your orientation and preferences and goals. bonni

I think that many who use the most current versions of Poser forget it's original intention was to aid an artist in creating body shapes for their artwork - The artist could then draw the figure gasp outside of a computer!! Poser was never created to produce the final product until P5 which is still buggy to many and not as widely used. So rather than asking if postworking should be allowed in the Poser Gallery - why not ask what the app was bought for? I doubt very many people bought Poser for the out of the box images it creates. The majority of users bought Poser as the starting ground to create "art" with (I say "art" because it is all relative) not to show off what the app could do for them but to use the software to make it easier to finalize their visions. In that scenario (of using it to "aid" in their creative process) then postworked images in the Poser gallery are exactly right and what the product was intended for. Heck even CL uses postworked images in their advertising because it isn't about the postwork, it's about "aiding an artist" (hobbyist or whatever one calls themself).

Since Poser is far perfect - the models have odd shoulder, elbows, sometimes tex seams are visible, reflections and lights are not always what you want, hair can be 'off' - there are many reason to postwork. I do it for fixing the mess Poser can't do rigt r the mesh can't handle. Typical example is V3's catastrophic shoulder creases when she has her arms down. M3 is even worse :o( Purism concerning an issue like this is just silly. If you're a modeler or a merchant showing what you can achieve without post, fine. Otherwise - what's the point of avoiding it? Unless of course all your efforts only make things worse lol... :] Fish

While I agree with the general consensus that the end justifies the means and what's important in a still image is the end result not how you got there, there is also a point to be made about NOT postworking: ANIMATION I have infinite respect for those artists, merchants, etc who can put in hours of meaningful PRE-WORK and INNOVATION to achieve results that when rendered are mindblowing because, face it, you can't postwork 400 frames. Now, granted the galleries are only limited to still images but that's only at Renderosity for the most part. Other 3D sites do concentrate more on animation. So, I guess it depends on why someone is using a 3D package. If they're looking to create still images, professionally or as a hobby (in my case) they can postwork to their heart's content. If you work in animation, gaming, etc sorry but you need to know how to use your 3D programs and get the most out of them and in most cases that means spending much more time in preparing everything before a render than postworking it.

I am voting for a new gallery : Poser no Postwork PNP join me

Kalypso, you CAN postwork 400 images. Does it take time? Hell yes. Does it require more expensive software? Usually yes. Do hobbies have both of those? Mostly not. Almost every cartoon you see released today was digitally produced in some way, and ALL use postwork after renders. Many effects can be automated in some way, unless you need to specificallyfix something by hand. This thread just seems like nitpickiness from people who have too much time on their hands. Go make some poser only renders, and post them in the poser galleries! ;)

Attached Link: "Pleasing Everyone"

bonni

Artists posting in galleries (in general) are doing so to show off their own skills, not the power of the software. The only places where the power of the software needs to be showed off is on their own marketing pages....a gallery for artists is to show off their skill, wether it is their skill with poser or their skill with painting or their ability to work with both to produce art. my2

Let's see - it's Thursday. Which dead horse should we be flogging today? Oh - it's about time for a Postwork/No Postwork "mass debate". Quick note: animation has been mentioned in the thread (see "Film and TV work" type comments). But the one question that I've never noticed a satisfactory answer to - if it's ALL ABOUT THE ART then why does it matter what gallery it's posted in? Surely "Mixed Media" would be suitable and fine and dandy for "mixed media" work leaving "Poser Purists" to post in the POSER specific gallery/ies without fear that their creations will pale by comparison to images largely not produced in Poser? Or that the amount of effort they've put in to their Poser render won't be seen against images of equal quallity but which are effectively mosaics of Psoer and magazine photos? Of course, I MAY have read the answer if the true and accurate answer is "It's not ALL about the art - it's mostly about the hits". In which case all the arguments about purety and artistry and, well - any arguments either way are completely moot. They won't affect a thing because the artists are not out to produce great art but to be told they produce great art by the maximum number of people possible - maximum gratification. I can't see that anything other than "Actually you'll get more hits by posting to (a specified galelry) could possible sway them in the slightest. And then probably only to adding that gallery to the list of places to post to.... I don't, for the record, produce "great art". I DO sometimes wish there was a Poser animation gallery mind you :) Cheers, Cliff

I feel it is the final image that counts and ANY tool that helps achieve the desired results is ok. Of course if one want's to use "pure" poser that is ok so long as they are only using what is supplied with the original program only and no other downloaded or purchased additions! I am smiling.

Maybe there should be a no-postwork Poser gallery. It would be interesting to see if it gets as many hits as the current one. I'll usually do color corrections and sharpening and minor touchups on every image, but haven't had the time to really go wild with postwork. I'm worried about seeing too many people getting caught up on a pure Poser render the same way so many higher-end application purists get over the process of doing something wholly in their program of choice. To me, postwork or no postwork is a question of which is the fastest way of achieving what I want. If it's easier to fix a bad looking elbow in Photoshop instead of playing with joints in Poser, I'm going to fix it in Photoshop. If I can get a good looking wind-blown hair with a dial in Poser versus painting it, I'll use the Poser hair. I'm using Poser because it gets me to a final product faster than doing a painting. I'm trading time and putting more work in laying out the image in Poser, but the rendering process is quicker to a final product. I'm not using Poser to create the best Poser only drawing. Poser remains a means to an end, not the sole means of getting there. There seems some interest in a no-postwork gallery, but I suspect it will be a small niche gallery with compartively few views.

it's all about your style. Poser is a program..it does some things well, it does other things not as well..it's a tool. If you just want a hammer in your toolbox, that's your right, but unscrewing things is gonna be a challenge..;)
the real issue is 'does it make a good picture'? we go over and over this argument, but the end result should be what counts. I'd agree that if you just use the one program, you're going to learn a lot more about it, but if you're a pro (which I ain't..;) you get paid on output..so why reinvent the wheel? 'nuff said..;)

"Maybe there should be a no-postwork Poser gallery. It would be interesting to see if it gets as many hits as the current one." Does it not strike one as odd that in order to have a place to put Poser renders as opposed to mixed-media artwork, we need more than a mixed-media gallery and a Poser gallery?

This is beating a dead horse because most of you dont get the point. It is absolutely not about showing off the capabilities of a software or Poser or whatever - its about the creation of virtual reality in a 3d environment. The fact that you fix an elbow later possibly is because you are not able to deal with the 3d anatomy and its limits. I am here for a long time - and there was a time when postwork was not tolerated, it came up slowly and suddenly the effect was put over the 3d work. This community has mutated from a 3d community to a photoshop or whatever community. This is my opinion and now I give really up.

I saw about 8 posts using the phrase "(postwork does not)...show the capabilities of the software package." Are we in the business of advertising the software? I thought Poser had good sales figures already. You want to see what it does out of the box, go to the company's website. (But don't look at the box art. Most of the 3d programs I've bought had cover images modelled in other applications, rendered with plug-ins not included in the base package, and were composited and color-corrected after!)

I couldn't run a marathon, but I could do the trip faster and more efficiently than most if I took a taxi :) I suspect that photos of me at start and finish as proof that I did the course would be seen somehow as "cheating" by those who ran (or walked, or crawled) the entire race themselves.

Well, if the purists insist, why not propose a "no postwork" genre in the Poser category to the admins. That way everybody can have their cakes and live happily ever after. :o)

Or we could propose a "mixed media" gallery for those who want to use Poser output as a good solid base for their artwork?

I believe that the US Congress should pass a law which forbids postworking of any kind.

And the US Supreme Court should find postworking to be un-Constitutional.

As for all those international postworking criminals out there, those that are outside of the jurisdiction of US law (and you know who you are) -- they should all be tracked down by Interpol. And brought to face justice at the Hague.

Just one man's opinion.