"Photshop is good but lightwave is one step ahead"
http://www.realsportsflorida.com/alchemy/onlinepics/harbour.jpg<\img> While photoshop provides tools crucial for custom image work. You would be limiting your arsenal without a application like Newtek's Lightwave. In a age where no image is at it seems. Professionals and serious amatures should expand their horizons and at least explore the great new graphical applications available.
#1. "RE: Photshop is good but lightwave is one step ahead" In response to Reply # 0
Salt Lake City, US
Lightwave is 3D rendering program. Photoshop is an image editing program. I don't object to you inviting Nikonians to explore the potential for combining rendering and photo imagery (I do it myself using Caligari Truespace), but I think it's misleading to compare applications with completely different intent.
For anyone interested in creating their own large breasted manikins with rendering, be aware that there's a significant learning curve to using any 3D application (at least if you want to do it well). It can be fun, but don't go looking at Lightwave and similar programs thinking it's an alternative to Photoshop.
#2. "RE: Photshop is good but lightwave is one step ahead" In response to Reply # 1
LAST EDITED ON Apr-16-01 AT 06:01 PM (GMT)
I must disagree with the commentor, to a degree. Yes the learning curve is steeper than with a consumer oriented program as photoshop. But then Lets look at features beyond image manipulation that expand creativity. My post was aimed at digital artists that may use photographs as part of their work. The above image was for promoting a Sports website. This organization is going to produce a swimsuit issue. The character is on a mission searching far and wide for the finalists. And is representative of the capabilities of rendering virtual photorealistic items within a photo frame.
In photoshop the control of a composited element is severely limited. Lighting control cameras focal length and a host of other post processing filters and effects, just do not exist. Today advertisers like everyone are trying to cut costs. CGI characters are cheaper than real people. No long term contracts, no unions to deal with or tempermental models. The future in film and in fashion photography is the digital human. Better realize it now. Oh there will be still need for the real people, for live appearances. But this is quickly changing as the technology gets better.
These 3D modeling programs are not image editors and do not offer the same tool sets, They do share many similar functions. They are not replacement for photoshop but rather creative tools that are becoming predominant in the digital imaging industry. The professional programs are not cheap. Newtek Lightwave sells for $6,000 and others are more expensive yet. They let the artist work with full motion video and animations as well as are the tools used in creating every CGI effect from Star Wars the phantom menace to the Perfect Storm and the raging ocean. There are several consumer priced software out there that have low learning curves and produce rather nice results quickly. Curious Labs Poser and Corel Bryce.
The commentor seems to like to poke fun at the characters attributes. He does alot to highlight the merits of this software. The artist has complete control over every aspect of character creation. That young lady could have been blond, afro american, short haired, shorter, taller, male, and any body type that exists naturally and all that do not exist, at least not on this planet. The wardeobe can be changed on a whim. Just to give a further example lets take a image that I created as a Public Service notification for our Community board.
In our community you are not allowed to park Recreational Vehicles, Boats, nor commercial vehicles in residential driveways. Well I put a humorous twist to it and included something else to the list. This image was used as a reminder to residents in the local community magazine.
#3. "The merits of other software..." In response to Reply # 2
Salt Lake City, US
LAST EDITED ON Apr-16-01 AT 06:41 PM (GMT)
I certainly don't have a problem with either discussing rendering software or showing what the programs are capable of doing. In fact, I'd enjoy it!
I only had a problem with the way you set up your post. Someone not familiar with Lightwave software could be mislead that it's a competitor to Photoshop, and we both agree that it's not. Perhaps your phrasing could have been more direct.
I use Bryce, Truespace, Painter and other non-Photoshop applications to create images for advertising work. Lightwave looks powerful (although it appears to be a Mac-only program at their website). It should be for the cost. There are several choices that would probably be better for someone wanting to get started in rendering for only a few hundred dollars.
Here's a little composite image of my own I did for a Christmas card (I built the lightbulb models and rendered them in Caligari Truespace):
Don't anyone be mislead. It's a lot of work to create you own object models in any 3D rendering package. You can use models made by someone else, but setting up realistic lighting is also a challenge. However, it's lots of fun and once you get a handle on the process you can do things that would be difficult or impossible otherwise.