Post Working your Images
Rashad Carter
Posts: 1,799
I've recently become interested in learning how to apply post work to my rendered images. Often, post work can add realism and reveal details when it is used conservatively. I've always been afraid of post work because I see some people who seem to truly rely on it and are unable to produce desired results from within the render engine itself. I am at the point now where I feel I've got a decent handle on the rendering concepts, and can use post work as a time saving method when doing things legitimately will be too time consuming.
Since everything art is highly individualized, I'd like to hear about people's personal experiences with post working images and why they do it in the way that they do it. I am completely open minded so any and all advice will be gladly accepted.
And that brings me to my questions.
1. What type of post work do you usually employ? Examples being; contrast adjustments, sharpness adjustments, tone mapping, heal brushes, etc...
2. When you are setting up the render, do you tend to have post working steps in mind? For example, when a light source is being edited do you edit the light source until it looks perfect from within the application or do you just get it "close," and then tweak it from there in post work?
3. Have you seen examples of poorly applied post work? If so, can you identify which unspoken golden rule of post working these images might be faulting?
4. How much is the final impression your image makes on viewers dependent on the post work? In this case I am looking for a percentage. Such as; "the post work I apply to my images probably contributes 50% to the final overall impression of the work."
5. How many years of practice did it take you to get good at post working renders? Do you think that if you did not have post work as an option that it would push you harder to seek means of producing the wanted affects within the software, or are some things just not worth the effort?
6. Lastly, in the case of Bryce, how powerful do you think a range of post working effects could be for the next update of Bryce? In this case I am asking you to not only tell me if post processing effects would be useful or not, but I'd also like to know which types of post processing effects you'd like to see. I for example would like a means of producing lens flares that is more sophisticated than what we have now. Which isn't bad, but it isn't a true post processing effect as it is in Carrara or say Octane? Generally speaking, there are lots of photography camera specific errors such as vignetting that if applied to a rendered image can actually make it look more like a photograph. But when to and when not to is a total mystery to me.
Thanks to any and all participants for your insights. If you are sharing techniques it will be nice to see side by side comparisons of the before and after so I can learn how these ideals apply to real examples.
My primary 2d app is Paint Shop Pro X6 64 bit.
Thanks all for your time
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Interesting questions.
1. Combining multiple renders into one, say background rendered with direct light and foreground rendered with TA masked.
2. Yes, see above. Planned masking to take use of different render modes. Eg. TA is not a good friend of voluemetric materials.
3. Yes. Failure to match effects to whole lighting scheme of render.
4. 100% in the case of composite images.
5. It depends if time is an issue. For commissioned pieces I often rely on postwork so I can make small modifications to the renders without having to re-render huge images (eg, print production sizes in the range 5000x9000 pixels).
6. The ability to render out the image in an intermediate format that allowed not the geometry to be changed (obviously) but the contribution of each light source to be encoded in such a way that the lights intensity and colour could be adjusted and multiple channels exported for further processing.
1.Depending on the image of course, it can range from small adjustments in colour to complete backgrounds. Usually with me it will be the sky that gets the work because of the sci fi element involved. Others may be atmosphere such as light rays that can be done in Bryce but ramp up the render times to unacceptable levels.
2. Same as above. Regards the lighting example you gave it is rare for me to resort to postwork.
3. Over worked blending modes so the image starts to look fake. I have been guilty of this but it's part of the learning process of postwork.
4.Hard to say really. I'd like to think that the fact I have gone to the trouble to make my own models or landscapes gets more appreciation than the postwork. So I'd go for 30-40% based on this reason. Others may beg to differ.
5. I'm still learning. The first post worked image that I was really satisfied with was from 2009 so that would be 7 years.
6.Lense flares and light rays would be a useful addition.
For this there was the basic figure rendered in the room along with an object mask. The ships were rendered under the same lighting conditions and applied via a separate layer. The stars and planets were made in photoshop then arranged accordingly. Finally the scene was blended together with colour adjustments and gradients. This image involved more postwork than I would usually use.
@Rashad - I'm completely aware that the final art is what counts, not how it was accomplished. From reading books I know that most folks using those great famous and expensive pro 3D softwares up to the movie industry heavily depend on post work to get the desired result and save hugely on render time. And then, there is also pre-work like drawing colours that fade out on the images that are mapped on the objects to fake those radiosity effects because they need so much time to render - Bryce TA is not the only way for long render times. More advanced 3D applications do have a post work option right built in. So, post work is a legitimate way.
That said, my goal is, however, to get what I want out of Bryce without resorting to post work. If I have to use contrast adjustments on rare occasions, I consider myself as having failed to achieve my goal - wasn't careful enough with the lighting rig. I know it's a silly attitude trying to be a purist. From a technical point of view, it is a bit less silly because you learn the capabilities, shortcomings and possible workarounds of the application, i.e. Bryce.
As for photography, that's an other kettle of fish. The sensor or film can only get what's out there and I either set the controls right (I'm mostly operating the camera manually) or not and I get a decent composition or I fail to do so. Whenever possible, I shoot HDRIs because this gives me more control to correct the flaws and to give it the mood I was after. And there is cropping, of course.
I mention photography because this can be part of the pre work. Materials made from photos or use photos together with procedural, light gels, HDRI, backdrops (spherical or flat), Orton effect, converted for terrains and all those possibilities.
To answer your questions:
1. Contrast and light - in rare cases, and when I save as 96-bit TIFF tone-mapping, vibrancy.
2. Post work is not part of the workflow when starting a project - again except if I go for a very special effect and save as 96-bit. The Orton effect I create from one render completely in a 2D graphics application.
3. Mostly lens flares no physical lens creates.
4. I cannot answer this question.
5. I'm not good at it - maybe I'm a purist because I'm so lousy at post work.
6. Post work possibilities belong in every 3D application to have the option to use or leave it. Bryce has only the options to leave it or to leave it. The only true post in Bryce is Gamma correction and without a possibility to adjust it, it is useless. However, I put post work ability to low priority, there are more pressing affairs to consider. Some lens flaws can already be emulated in Bryce without much effort, like vignetting, dirt, distortion, star effects. However, we've failed so far to create colour aberration - though we've spent quite some time at it and the practical offshot of these experiments and labours is the anaglyph lens.
1.) Everything that may contribute to a better final image. Contrast/luminance adjustments are basic adjustments and done to most of my pictures.
2.) My approach is to achieve a render that's as good as possible meaning less post-work is needed. I'm also a photographer myself and there it's the same as with 3d rendering: the better the basic raw material the less you have to do in post-work. For example: taking a photo of something where a distracting element (trash bin or so) is in the background. Of course you could stamp out that thing later in Photoshop. But in my opinion it's much more convenient to choose another perspective or just move that element a bit for the minute you take the photo. It's the same with rendering: If I can for example work out a light as good as possible I don't have to adjust it's brightness, color or so later.
3.) That's highly depended on your taste. For example I don't like images so much where bloom is used to excess.
4.) Same with David, 100% as for composites.
5.) It always depends on the image and the effects that should be achieved.
6.) I'd be totally happy if Bryce at least had better and more render outputs. I don't like to do post-work in the 3d app, but would always prefer Photoshop, AfterEffects, or something like that. Like it separated.
Very very interesting! Thanks to all of you for answering such an odd set of questions. I am already beginning to see some areas of my own work where post processing could be very useful. I also think I can see from the comments that Bryce might do well with the ability to output render passes for later compositing and the like.
Orbital,
I remember that image in particular. This is brilliant work, far beyond my way of thinking. If by some chance my mind had conceived of such an artwork, I would have tried to rig the whole thing to render as a single frame in Bryce, imagine that? This is a great example of powerful postworking done right.
I also like that you explained post work faults on the learning curve. I should well prepare myself to really do it wrong before I start getting it right. I will keep that in mind.
I, like Horo, have been classically a purist, and again like Horo, its probably based mostly on the fact that I sincerely suck at post work. I spend hours tweaking things other people would have already moved on from by now. So again I thank you all and look forward to any further insights you may divulge.
Horo,
You say that when you send images out as hdri that you then apply vibrancy filters in post. This would be a great ideal to see a side by side of the difference the filtering makes in the final impression if you have the time.
Fun fun!
Interesting questions which made me think about my level of use both in Bryce and GIMP, the program I use for post work--it fits my price range.
1. The only post work I've done is to adjust contrast in an image, and it isn't done for every image. Well, there's also using GIMP to add a signature, but that's far different than adjusting the elements of an image.
2. I do not setup an image with any prior thought to using post work for enhancing any part of the image. This doesn't mean I won't use post work after I see what renders.
3. I'm not sure I'd recognize bad post work, but I would recognize an image which doesn't look right if all the elements of the image are compared. Because I don't use post work all that much, no, I couldn't identify the unspoken rule of post work. But whose rule it is anyway? Perhaps what's overdone is what the artist is trying to achieve, or statement trying to be made. We must remember not everything created appeals to everyone.
4. I'm not really thinking of the viewer when I create something. I'm trying to create something pleasing to me, which others might like to see. If I were dependent on viewer impressions the percentage of post work used would depend on what level of experience I have with a particular software, and whether that level of achievement required me to apply post work. And, if the software being used allowed things to be done that could only be done using post work.
5. I have no years of experience when it comes to post work, so anything I do is either hit or miss.
6. I can't really answer this question, I'm not proficient enough with Bryce to know when Bryce can do something I would do using post work.
If I'll ever happen to have an inspiration ... :roll:
Post work on images is a personal thing and depends what the creator wants to achieve. I do a lot of post work on my photographs, sharpening, colour correcting, brightness and contrast mostly, simply because there is usually something I don't like :) I haven't done anything to renders because they are usually the way I want them because I can re-do them over and over. I think the main reason for post working them would be to add or remove elements e.g sharpen something more in the background that DOF has blurred; sharpen the main character and blur the area around it; change the colour of an object; add an element to the foreground; change the sky rather than re-render the whole image etc.
I've been messing about with skies lately trying out a few of my own in the renders and using them as HDR lighting. I could have done it in PS4 but I wouldn't have been able to use it for lighting the scene and the haze wouldn't have worked so rendering with the image as a backdrop is the better way rather than dropping them in post work.
To me post working is a tool you need but you don't always need to use it :-)
Here is an image using a picture I took last week in Tenerife behind a Bryce generated terrain. I don't think dropping it in post work would have given the same effect as the picture would have been too sharp and would have needed a bit of blurring and post work in PS4 to get it even close. Post work isn't something I think about until I am looking at the image and decide if it needs any or not, not every image will need it.
Mostly I do not need any postwork for my pictures. But here i have postwork in mind (contrast and glitter).
http://www.daz3d.com/forums/viewreply/685026/
To see what post work can do for an image I returned to one I did a while ago.
Image 1 is the straight render.
Image 2 is after post processing in PS4.
I think my answer depends a lot on what the purpose of my Brycing is.... If I'm purely playing with Bryce for my own interest then I like to get it right, though I don't mind a bit of colour correction in post work and also saving as .hdr.... When I convert back to 8 bit in Photoshop, Photoshop doesn't handle the resulting image very well so I usually have to make adjustments at that stage.
However, a lot of my Bryce work is not for myself but for the clients who are paying me... In those cases the priority is the end result and not how I got there... The client isn't bothered either, they mostly don't understand the processes involved as long as the result looks like what they want.
Primarily I am graphic designer and use any and every application at my disposal to get the finished product. It is my love of Bryce that has lead me to try at every opportunity to incorporate Bryce renders or at least elements of renders in to the designs.
So as an extreme example of post work, this design uses elements rendered in Poser, the type was laid out on Adobe Illustrator and the antique effect was added in Photoshop... The Bryce element: Well I couldn't find any bongos for the gorilla so I made a pair in Bryce and rendered them along with an object mask and then composed the whole poster in its various layers in Photoshop.
'Post' work tends to fall into two categories: corrections or enhancements. One is about removing or covering up perceived flaws, the other is about editing the image with abilities that are either unable to be done by the source production method (Bryce), or are impractical to be done by the source production method (takes too long; requires special hardware).
I understand a user's desire to stay within Bryce, to see how close to a desired outcome you can get wholly within the application. Bryce has a lot of power in terms of lighting, composition and materials. But consider volumetrics: designing a scene with volumetric lighting can be prohibitive, as volumetric settings can cost days worth of render time for a still. And what if something gets overlooked? You'd have to make the correction and re-render. Consider glows and glares: these can be replicated to an extent within Bryce, but again, these are pricy in terms of time and hardware: not everyone has the computer power to deliver results in a timely fashion.
If I'm making a Bryce production, I now have a keener sense of how I can use different tools to achieve my objectives within an acceptable timeframe. I might model in Blender, render and texture models within Bryce, then bring the finished result into Photoshop to add enhancements if it's a still, or if the output is a movie I might bring it into either Final Cut if i need particle effects, mattes or glows, or perhaps back into Blender if I need camera tracking (when you sync 2D-movies to an internal 3D animation) or moving oceans or grass.
There are people who make fantastic work with large blocks of ice and chainsaws. There are people who create incredible works of photorealism with a brush and ink. There are also people who create watches: practical timepieces that can be incredible works of art in of themselves, but require collaboration between metallurgists, jewellers, manufacturers, software and many more disciplines, each of them artists in their own right.
I suggest an artist's job is to evoke an emotionally positive reaction from their work. How they do it is their business.
Watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjHiC0mt4Ts
Tell me your jaw didn't drop.
@Oroboros: That's incredible.
@Oroboros - incredible. Difficult to do it exclusively with Bryce (a purist's nightmare) :coolsmile:
My brycemade ans postworked picture.
@Roland: The post work you did on that image now makes the results look like an etching. Which in and of itself is a nice effect.
I have make this with Gimp and the filter Cartoon. Then i make a black & white color picture and then i adjust the contrast.
Thanks to all of you who have contributed to this thread. I will shortly pot a few images of raw renders and then my attempts at post working them. I will ask you all to tell me how effective the post working may end up being. Talk to you all soon. Again, thanks for your time and insights.