Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
If you are worried about the high price of buying or leasing photoshop.... I suggest you go add up the cost of all your DAZ content purchases... nearly all great products but you use most of them only rarely... you will likely use photoshop to postwork and improve almost every render so I think it is worth the price. I have CS4 and very happy with it ... will stick with it probably as long as my computer keeps chunking along.. maybe longer.
Sorry, but I cannot agree with that, at least for me. Of course there may be many people who buy everything they can get and never use most of it.
But my budget for all the 3D stuff is very limited, because it is really "just" a hobby. Even if I could spend more, I do not want to. I am very careful with my purchases. I buy only content that I really need and that I plan to use frequently. And most of the things in my library I bought on sale or fast grab.
You are right that some kind of postwork is done with nearly every render. But, to be honest, the images do not get better only because you use the most expensive software :-) Software is just a tool.
Edit: Oh, and when I buy something for a few bucks, I own it and I can use it as often and as long as I want. If I had to pay a monthly or annual fee for my content, I would not have bought anything.
Sush you...don't go giving anyone any ideas.
Sorry, but I cannot agree with that, at least for me. Of course there may be many people who buy everything they can get and never use most of it.
But my budget for all the 3D stuff is very limited, because it is really "just" a hobby. Even if I could spend more, I do not want to. I am very careful with my purchases. I buy only content that I really need and that I plan to use frequently. And most of the things in my library I bought on sale or fast grab.
You are right that some kind of postwork is done with nearly every render. But, to be honest, the images do not get better only because you use the most expensive software :-) Software is just a tool.
Edit: Oh, and when I buy something for a few bucks, I own it and I can use it as often and as long as I want. If I had to pay a monthly or annual fee for my content, I would not have bought anything.
...agreed. Been in the same position myself all these years (and worse now). Have to be careful with content purchases so I only get what I feel I will really use. On my previous budget, a Stonemason set was a major purchase. Only picked up PSP (X3) because I got a super great deal on it just before X4 as rolled out and afterwards received upgrade discounts for future versions.
Had I been making a slightly more comfortable living, I would have seriously considered PS. In its defence, the major advantage I see is not so much it does "better" postwork as it allows for a smoother, cleaner workflow. Not having to say, convert files (like Deviney's wonderful brushes) from one format to another is just one aspect. PS also has a much wider array of filters and effects (even Elements has this) at it's disposal that are more useful to the CG artist as well as very useful plugins like FilterForge. A lot of this is due to the fact that PS is the "industry standard" for 2D work, so it's natural that there would be more development (including from third party sources) to support it than the others.
PSP while a nice programme is primarily geared towards amateur digital photographers than CG artists. It's one major advantage is an easy to use layering and text overlay system, but many of the effects and filters it has are not all that useful particularly for the CG artist. PSP also has some quirks where you can't always freely switch between different tools without needing extra steps.
While the "filters" palette in Gimp is more useful and it is simpler to switch between tools on the fly, I find working with layers is a bit more tricky than in PSP. The one feature Gimp has that I really do like is the "undo history" where you can select a specific point to undo all changes from instead of having to keep clicking the undo icon again and again. (I think more applications could use this). Another feature I like is "re show [filter/effect]" which is real handy when testing how much of a filter or effect to use on an image. on the down side I wish some of the preview frames were better (for example many are too small, especially the one for placing a Gradient Flare in an image) while some effects have no preview at all so you have no choice but to take more time apply them to the image to see the outcome (then usually undo and try again).
This is where workflow breaks down as I usually have to employ both programmes to get the effect(s) I need whereas I could probably do everything I need to within PS. Even when I was working the Elements 30 day trial, I found it better for my workflow. Performing layered rendering and compositing was a lot simpler and cleaner, text overlays were a snap, and the library of "useful" filters and effects was far more comprehensive. Instead of trying to minimise what postwork I did because of all the bother it was workflow wise, I actually found myself beginning to enjoy it.
So yes, I feel there is something to be said for paying a little more for your tools if you can afford it.
That's incorrect. Photoshop CS6 is $699 and the Extended version is $999. With the extended version, you're paying $300 extra for 3D capabilities.
Is the 3D capabilities worth the extra money? Can you do anything with it you can't do in other 3D programs?
Is the 3D capabilities worth the extra money? Can you do anything with it you can't do in other 3D programs?
For serious modeling I'd say save the 300 and get a dedicated modeler, but it's good for some small things.
-Using 3D lighting on 2D scenes http://planetphotoshop.com/3d-lights-on-2d-images.html
-Turning 2D images into 3D objects with Repousse. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvT6ERmKq_g
-You can use it as a 3D painter, it will paint over seams and wrap images around objects. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WmEIvNFx8k
-You can bring full 3D scenes into it. I've used the U3D and Collada import from the DS bridge a few times (mainly just to tinker, never did any final work this way).
All in all, I haven't used the 3D side much. I tend to live by the expensive motto of, "I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it." lol
Is the 3D capabilities worth the extra money? Can you do anything with it you can't do in other 3D programs?
For serious modeling I'd say save the 300 and get a dedicated modeler, but it's good for some small things.
-Using 3D lighting on 2D scenes http://planetphotoshop.com/3d-lights-on-2d-images.html
-Turning 2D images into 3D objects with Repousse. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvT6ERmKq_g
-You can use it as a 3D painter, it will paint over seams and wrap images around objects. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WmEIvNFx8k
-You can bring full 3D scenes into it. I've used the U3D and Collada import from the DS bridge a few times (mainly just to tinker, never did any final work this way).
All in all, I haven't used the 3D side much. I tend to live by the expensive motto of, "I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it." lol
Yea, that's my motto too, and yes it is expensive... :)
Thanks for the info (and sorry for my late reply). Bought CS6 Standard last year as I got a good deal - would have liked the Extended version but that would have been $400+ extra (no deal on that one), so I skipped it. But maybe I'll take the cloud subscription offer, I assume that's the extended version you get there?