Raw render VS Heavy PS enhanced images

[bajrohamdo]

Everyone has different taste and rendering style, some do the job entirely in let's say 3dsmax, some do all the job in PS, and I was wondering, are those valued equally really. Which one of those have the advantage in the business, extremely detailed ones, in terms of materials and textures and the model in general or the ones with the greater artistic impact, or is it simply the matter of taste?

[frog_a_lot]

Everyone has different taste and rendering style, some do the job entirely in let's say 3dsmax, some do all the job in PS, and I was wondering, are those valued equally really. Which one of those have the advantage in the business, extremely detailed ones, in terms of materials and textures and the model in general or the ones with the greater artistic impact, or is it simply the matter of taste?

 

Different jobs require different styles.. some need a million renders quick and there isnt much time for PS.. others need a super artistic style and require lots of PS.

 

On the other side.. there are often things that are 10 times quicker to do in PS than in the RAW render, so why waste time doing them in the redner.. sork smarter not harder.

[Corey Beaulieu]

I don't think that there is a big debate when you are talking about specific images. It is hard to render a perfect image and it is hard to Photoshop one. Good is good. Now if the image is bad, it is easy to say they should have done this or that, rendered instead of Photoshop or the reverse.

 

Regardless, I would say that I think every image, first review or last, should see a few minutes effort in Camera Raw. It is a really powerful tool that can create huge differences on any project. It is the same as using Lightroom only it is built into Photoshop and Bridge.

[rogue3d]

Everyone has different taste and rendering style, some do the job entirely in let's say 3dsmax, some do all the job in PS, and I was wondering, are those valued equally really. Which one of those have the advantage in the business, extremely detailed ones, in terms of materials and textures and the model in general or the ones with the greater artistic impact, or is it simply the matter of taste?

 

Depends on what the person paying for the rendering needs. Sometimes there is no real project and it's just a proposal, these are the ones that can be very artistic because you're only selling an idea or concept. Other times, the design is final and the rendering needs to be a visual representation of exactly what is going to be built.

 

All images whether created by a physical camera or a 3D application should have some basic post work done to them.

 

If you're talking about the images where 80% or more of the work is done in post.....I don't think it really matters so long as the client is happy in the end. Personally, I've been burned too many times by additional views added after the fact or significant camera angle changes, that it's always made more sense to do as much in 3d as possible.

[braddewald]

In my opinion, the rendering gets you to the redzone and Photoshop gets you the touchdown. I'm not talking about phtoshopping in photos of things or images of people, or crazy lens flares -- I'm talking about things like exposure adjustment, color balance, and surgical color correction for individual materials and objects. That being said, the best image shouldn't look like Photoshop was employed at all.

[M V]

Knowing when it will save time and money to use either is the most valuable.

[Derek Forreal]

i liken post processing to make up...

 

most of the time subtle is best, but occasionally, in the right situation, more and OTT is better.

 

and sometimes no make up at all is just right.

 

depends entirely on mood and context.

Edited February 16, 2015 by derekforreal