PDA

View Full Version : Why would you need photoshop to finish your image?



Euthanasiast
08-06-2006, 01:56 PM
This is probably one of the most basic questions that anyone could ask on one of these forums, but I don't know, and you know the old saying about stupid questions...

Anyway, I am fluent with Photoshop and semi-fluent with lightwave, and every finished image that I have ever seen that has any realism to it points to post post work done in Photoshop. I would think that you can do everything in lightwave. What is Photoshop even needed for?

Sorry for the totally unenlightened question, but i just have to know.

SP00
08-06-2006, 02:13 PM
Yes, you can do it in Lightwave, but it is easier and faster to control with photoshop. Very rarely will you get the perfect setting with just Lightwave unless you are unbelievably good.

Euthanasiast
08-06-2006, 02:18 PM
So what kinds of things should I be looking to accomplish in photoshop as a final production to my images?

JamesCurtis
08-06-2006, 02:18 PM
Photoshop is also used for doing imagemap texturing - so you can go far beyond what proceedural texturing in LW can do.

Wonderpup
08-06-2006, 02:22 PM
Clever as lightwave is there will always be some nuance that could be added to any image by a discerning human eye- at the moment we are smarter than our tools- one day I guess Lightwave will be using us, and these forums will be full of complaints about the unreliability of organics.

SP00
08-06-2006, 02:50 PM
You should learn how to do multipass rendering. That way you can control how much light, reflection, specular hightlights, shadows, etc. without having to redo a render. Just control all those settings in photoshop.

Bog
08-06-2006, 02:50 PM
Adding tiny bits of detail, such as barely-seen nurnies, can often be added in seconds in Photoshop rather than actually modelling in loads of detail that's only going to be seen from one angle.

Tweaking the shading - and even shaping - of fur, grass, anything procedural can be vastly more rapidly dealt with via a few swipes of the Wacom.

If it's a still. If it's an animation, it's almost always faster to just get it nailed beforehand. Even then, there are going to be elements - shattering glass, that kind of thing - which can be more easily acheived in post.

Lightwolf
08-06-2006, 04:37 PM
I think the most basic stuff to add in PS are colour corrections/grading, blurs, glows, grain etc...
Basically a lot of stuff that is a 2D process in LW anyhow (image filters) or would need hours of test renders to get exactly right (grading).

Once you'Ve done that a few times you'd want more control and start saving out different buffers or layers for even more control (as mentioned in the previous posts).

Cheers,
Mike

jeremyhardin
08-06-2006, 08:09 PM
agreed with everything said here. to sum up my reasons:

1. control
2. ease and tweaking ease

Depth of Field can take forever to render. Then you find yourself wishing you had shifted the focus slightly. Why wait another 2 hours for that frame (or day for that animation)? Just shift the focus in post.
Then some effects can be pushed a lot closer to realism in 2d than they can in 3d. Attatched is a render of HV fire, then the post work done to it. IMHO, the post version looks a lot more like fire (particularly when it's moving). Regardless, I can change the look entirely if I (or a client) wants to without re-rendering the forever-taking frame/animation.

inquisitive
08-06-2006, 09:16 PM
You should learn how to do multipass rendering. That way you can control how much light, reflection, specular hightlights, shadows, etc. without having to redo a render. Just control all those settings in photoshop.

Maybe there is a simple tutorial that illustrates this point?

RedBull
08-06-2006, 09:46 PM
Well Photoshop is used for a variety of things for myself.

Editing, conversions and manipulation of photo's or images to be used as textures in 3D production. Various functions are done far more easily then they could be in LW itself, some not at all.

Also the editing and post manipulation of final images and frames, to obtain a more specific look or feel. Post was once a dirty word in the 3D world, obviously it's hard to ignore it's many advantages these days.

Matte Paintings, obviously Photoshop is used a lot to paint not just maps but backgrounds and mattes.

Having multiple buffers as Mike mentioned, and DOF as Jeremy mentioned
are just the standard way of doing things. It allows far greater control, and flexibility and is far often easier to achieve as most compositing or photoshop
programs offer realtime creativity over the details.

I use color corrections and masks and dof passes buffers, high dynamic range
and a multitude of other enhancers on most shots i do.

As mentioned, most stuff could be done in LW, but it would require more time and effort to achieve the same results in many situations.
Having that extra ability to render in layers and buffers and alter lights and surface attributes, and alter opacities in realtime is invaluable to me.

I think renderpasses and post is as you mentioned in your post, the most important factor that sets an ameateur from a professional image, IMO.
You won't see a film or television level production shot without it.

WhiteBoy
08-06-2006, 09:48 PM
I used to be totally against using Photoshop on my renders. But then I actually tried it. I was amazed at how much I could improve an image just by adding a few minute details in post.

Bog
08-07-2006, 01:45 AM
I used to be totally against using Photoshop on my renders. But then I actually tried it. I was amazed at how much I could improve an image just by adding a few minute details in post.

*chuckles* Yes, my own stiff-spined puritanism on the matter seemed a bit blinkered once I'd crossed that particular Rubicon m'self.

Thing is, it's always good to have multiple pathways to the same goal, so you can pick the fastest route to your desired result from where you are.

Elegance vs. Expediency is always the yin and yang of deadline-driven work. But getting something fancy done in jig-time has an elegance all of it's own, IMAO. :)

oDDity
08-07-2006, 03:12 AM
Considering that no one knows if you've used photoshop on your render (if you're good at it) there's no reason not to use it. All people see is your final image. Do all you can do make it the best lookng image, since you can be sure that everyone else is.
Some people see it as cheating, but really, what is the differene between tweaking a bunch of lights and sufaces in Lightwave to get the exact tones and colours you want, or doing the same thing in phtoshop after you've rendered.
The only difference that I can see is that it's 10x faster to do in in PS.