HOME | DD

shibashake [2017-06-07 23:40:18 +0000 UTC]

Wow! What an interesting discussion. 

One interesting argument that I have seen bandied about in the Daz Forum is that some people would like to be able to tell what is possible with just Daz Studio. I think some people get frustrated when they see an image that they like, and are unable to get similar results with a pure render. 

I think a problem is that postwork can cover a broad range of things. Some people paint over the entire render and just use it for reference, some people only use filters, some people only add sigs, etc.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Laspe [2017-06-05 19:44:48 +0000 UTC]

I absolutely agree with you, and my line of thought is that neither DAZ Studio nor a digital camera are image editing software, and thus the approach I take is somewhere along the lines of getting the right exposure and light balance in camera/DAZ Studio and then resorting to post-work to enhance the look. Personally, I usually do not do complex post-work, like creating effects and such, but that is a matter of time, laziness, and taste.

With that, I think raw renders are good to view and maybe even compare from time to time, if there was for example a challenge or a contest for straight out of DAZ Studio image (like some photography sites have challenges for pictures without postwork), but I don’t really understand those who out of some principal or for other reasons decide to never do any post-work, or even say that a post-worked render is not a render ( Yes, I have seen a comment like that ). That only demonstrates that they know the software well, can set up the surfaces, get the right exposure and light balance in the software, which is not rocket science. To that point, as far as I know some of the filters in DAZ Studio (like bloom filter, and maybe effects of a few other sliders as well) are actually similar to post-work, only the quality of that would not be the same as doing it in Photoshop, which, as we all know, allows for lossless image editing.

But in the end it is of course a matter of taste and personal preference.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

BlackTalonArts [2017-06-03 20:13:03 +0000 UTC]

ugh, don't even get me started on the whole purist bullshit.  Chemicq said it perfectly.  Even mjc3d made a perfect point about Ansel Adams....he manipulated all of his photographs in the darkroom using dodge, burn methods or whatnot....art is art and you create for your tastes and it's all the same.  So there is a saying I grew up with, it's rather harsh but effective. lol  So be prepared.  If they don't like it, "Fuck'em and Feed'em Fishheads!"  and just to add to that humor, go read the urban dictionary meaning to that phrase 
www.urbandictionary.com/define…

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Chemicq [2017-06-03 17:58:53 +0000 UTC]

Some purists just love to mention they don't postwork their images because they want to show the world how good they are, great info if you compare yourself to the part of the world also doing no postwork. However, every image can use some postwork, you can make a bad image into a less bad image and you can make a good image into a very good image. Filter effects are cool but that's not what I understand when someone mentions postwork but most of the time that's what really fucks up an image and what purists hate about it. Rendering is important, so is postwork

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

mjc3d [2017-06-03 17:42:40 +0000 UTC]

I couldn't agree with you more. Baffles me the utter fixation with "no postwork" I see plastered all over the place. And not just Ansel Adams but EVERY photographer does postwork (as you said outside of journalism - and even in journalism a photographer still might need to adjust lighting levels in their images!)

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

pygfaust [2017-06-03 17:38:01 +0000 UTC]

I've mentioned it elsewhere, regarding the same topic, that even the great Ansel Adams did heavy darkroom "postwork" on his famous images.
Nothing to avoid or apologize for. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 0