Question is regarding DAZ 3D to Photoshop - best pratices.

Capt-Flashback

Question is regarding DAZ 3D to Photoshop - best practices.

I use DAZ to set up creative scenes, worthy of professional photo shoots with high class models and expensive wardrobes etc. I would like to make the final result as close to an actual photo as possible. That's the advantage I get out of DAZ (plus it it's fun). Going from DAZ to Photo shop via JPEG seems to reduce (or maybe it's just my eyes) the quality when I open the same image in Photoshop. Especially zoomed in. Are there best practices that I'm not aware of? I'd like to get the final result from DAZ to look like (as close to) a phot as possible. I've seen some impressive things in the gallery... I want the same from my renders. Any tips?

Thanks in advance,

Dcbaker73

Jason Galterio

I do this all the time...  Here are my suggestions...

1. Render large. At least twice the size of the final image. This will off set for some fidelity loss when you export to JPGs.

2. Render (or export) multiple version of the same image. If you are using Iray, making use of the Canvas function to export specific types of images. I also do this with different lights, isolating each light (or group of lights). Then you can layer these images to composite them.

3. Don't export out of DS in JPG format. Use TIF or PNG, or, better yet, one of the formats the the Canvas tab allows (I think these are HDR or something similar, but I can't recall the exact file format at the moment).

mjc1016

Render to tif or exr...

Jason Galterio

mjc1016 said:

Render to tif or exr...

EXR! Yes, that was the format I was trying to think of.

XoechZ

In my opinion, EXR is not needed with a render, because you never get that high range dynamics from the render engine that justifies the additional work you have to do. I always save my renders as .bmp files to get the best image quality for postwork.

Also rendering at a bigger size than needed seems to be more a myth. Yes, you get more texture details when you render bigger. But after postworking the image you shrink the size and the additional details are gone again.

My advice is to render at the size your final image should have and save the render as .bmp file.

If you have the time, try it. Render an image at normal size, then again at double size. Postwork both images the same way. Then reduce the size of the bigger image and compare them. You will see no real differences.

The only exception of this is when you want to overpaint your render. Then bigger is better. But not because of image quality, but because a bigger canvas is easier to paint on.

mjc1016

XoechZ said:

In my opinion, EXR is not needed with a render, because you never get that high range dynamics from the render engine that justifies the additional work you have to do. I always save my renders as .bmp files to get the best image quality for postwork.

Exr doesn't have to have be for high dynamic range images only,  it has many features that make it desirable for other uses, too.

http://www.openexr.com/

Cybersox

Rendering larger isn't for better detail, per se.  It's to give you fudge room if you end up needing to recompose the image after the fact, as while shrinking an image down is seldom a problem, blowing it up is seldom as sucessful.  I also normally render out the key elements in separate passes as well as a "clean" background, as it allows greater ability to to tweak individual elements, and conveniently rendering to .png automatically gives you perfect cutouts and alphas.  .   

Jason Galterio

XoechZ said:

In my opinion, EXR is not needed with a render, because you never get that high range dynamics from the render engine that justifies the additional work you have to do. I always save my renders as .bmp files to get the best image quality for postwork.

Also rendering at a bigger size than needed seems to be more a myth. Yes, you get more texture details when you render bigger. But after postworking the image you shrink the size and the additional details are gone again.

My advice is to render at the size your final image should have and save the render as .bmp file.

If you have the time, try it. Render an image at normal size, then again at double size. Postwork both images the same way. Then reduce the size of the bigger image and compare them. You will see no real differences.

The only exception of this is when you want to overpaint your render. Then bigger is better. But not because of image quality, but because a bigger canvas is easier to paint on.

I am going to respectfully disagree on the render size, as well as using EXR.

Rendering larger allows me to crop the image down if I choose to focus on one particular aspect. So that I am not confined solely by the camera's constraints. If I start the the final size image, I loose that option.

Larger images also allow me more options when working with filters. As well as the compositing step. The interactions are finer then, and the results do show up when the image is reduced.

XoechZ

Well, everyone has a different workflow and a different taste. Some prefer this, others that. And the nice thing is that there is no right or wrong. The most important thing is that the final images look as you want it. No matter how you achieve this goal.

I am personally not a big fan of this "digital clarity". I often add some grain or other things to my images when they look "too good". Simply to give them some "analog" and grungy look. So those extreme details are not that important for me.

Jason Galterio

I do as well. But I like to add those myself. And not leave it to the render. I prefer to have clarity and then work down.

I am not a big fan of realism to my images anyway. But I would with the light a lot, so I want to have as much to work with as possible.

Capt-Flashback

Thanks all for the feedback - I'm definitly going to try all the suggestions.