10 Reasons Why Your Render Sucks

#378

Do the newer versions of Poser have good edge flow?
I know I would never study the edge flow of older Poser models.

#379

I’ve no idea, I’ve never even looked at the companies website, never mind their software, if they are anything like MakeHuman models (Which have very good edge flow, in my opinion) then I think they would be pretty good though.

#380

You had me up until “10 reasons Why Your Render Sucks”.

CG Society is seen as elitist because of attitudes like this. It is supposed to be a place for ALL CG work. Good, Bad and Ugly. But hobbyists and amateurs (of which I’m both) are nervous of posting and trying to get critique because of the attitude.

There are ways of saying things without coming across as a stuck up, holier than thou, adolescent, prig. A lot of people here need to learn how to be constructive without being rude.

That said, I don’t want everyone to gush over my pictures and give top ratings. I, and most amateurs, welcome constructive suggestions.

In a bookstore, would more people buy a book entitled “10 Reasons Why Your Render Sucks” or one entitled “10 Tips to Help Improve your Renders”?

There are just better ways of saying things.

#381

I would actually go for the “your renders suck” book, it kind of reminds me of my favorite critiscism “Fyfan vad fult är du helt jävla dum i huvudet, eller?!” :smiley:

Trans. Damn thats ugly, are you completely ****ing retarded or what?

#382

Grow up! It’s reality check.
Here’s an example of critics I received from the lead recently:
“Why did you do everything black!!!
Specular was done with dif desat, this is bad!” (it wasn’t, but no-one cares)
“Little details too much blur! We don’t use blur!” (Everything is 1-pixel sharp though, but the shader blurs, who cares)" I just fix it all without arguing the lead didn’t see it. Lead is always right.
I mean, it’s not very harsh, but it’s a usual way you receive critics. No-one will write about positive things, and only about negative, because no-one has tme to sugar-pill you. They need the job to be done and don’t care about what you feel, just fix the mistakes.

#383

actually its called being catchy, so that the thread gains more attention therefore helping more people with its content. Its perfectly fine because the majority of us arent living in reaction.

#384

I used to get nervous while posting personal work. Now I really don’t care what others think as far as I am happy with it :smiley:

On client work I am happy when client is happy because THEY pay me - not CGtalk’s know-it-all members.

#385

Sure I’m also not very happy with critics of my work, especially on Russian forums, but living in a bubble of self-importance is leading nowhere. But in the end it’s your right, to be wrong.

#386

Sure. There’s a different between constructive criticism and insulting as you may be aware…

I don’t how how things work in russian forums, but we are respectful to each others labour on Turkish forums :wink:

#387

I rarely see insulting here. Did someone insult you as an artist here? Can you give an example?

#388

Don’t “The Dummy’s Guide to X” book sell pretty well? :wink:

#389

I’m guessing they do… as long as they are written by “the right person”.

#390

I understand your point, but this thread makes me feel none of that. It’s just someone’s opinion on why he thinks renders suck. In this one case I don’t think your point is valid, because you are the one coming into the thread, noone has wrongly criticized anyone.

I’m perfectly fine with harsh comments, as long as I learn something.
I would definitely buy “10 Reasons Why Your Render Sucks” over the friendlier version, because it seems a hell of a lot more honest.

#391

If you don’t care what others think about your work then why are you showing it?:slight_smile:

And what do you do when the client is not happy?

In my observation the types of creative people can be described being at two extremes and anywhere in between. 

At one extreme are those who completely ignore all who don't like their  art and search for an audience that naturally fit to it without any  efforts from both sides to change in order to "connect". If the creator  is not lucky enough to find such audience they still can create  motivated by the belief that humans are similar and there must be  someone, somewhere, or at some future time, that will experience the joy  the artist gets from his/her work. Usually these are the type of  artists who consider some critique as insult.

At the other extreme are those who find motivation in, and actively  seek to find out how, others see their art. They will make any change  necessary in order to connect. The change efforts may be directed not  only at the art itself but the audience too. For this type of creators,  their art is a message that can live only if it arrives at its  destination. They consider the changes necessary sacrifices that will  ensure to communicate at least something which is better than nothing.  This requires knowing very well the intended audience and the only  opinions and critiques that can be ignored are those that do not  represent the audience. These type of artists will find any opinion and  critique as invaluable information for achieving their goals and will  never feel insulted from what others say about their art.

Both types of artists can be great and genius at their art or suck  completely. Being one type or the other doesn't ensure anything about  the quality of your art, it is more to do with the personality.

Just my 2 cents;).
#392

and there are many more reasons… but i consider the ones cited to be common sense

#393

I like the suggestions everybody put forward…I have the same bad rendering problems:(

#394

so write em here :wink:

b

#395

Well, I don’t see this as an elitist thread. In fact, being self-taught and all, this is where I learned about linear workflow. As a result my renders suck a little less now. :stuck_out_tongue:

Okzorg, I think the other extreme as an artist who will change anything about their art just to connect is an artist who needs to learn how to stick to their vision. Its one thing when you’re doing a piece for a paying customer who knows exactly what they want, then you are essentially not an artist - you are a tool with which they bring their vision into being. But when working on one’s own art, there shouldn’t be as much compromise.
Even if other people think your vision sucks - if it sucks for technical reasons, then things can and should be improved. But if they think the idea sucks, then its a case of “de gustibus non est disputandum”.

#396

“Rules” for art.

There’s no right or wrong way. Just do it. The viewer either likes the result or doesnt, depending on their personal experience and mood.

I always encourage teaching oneself in any creative endeavors. Every good CG artist I ever worked with in my professional career of the last fifteen years was self taught. I have read or heard every successful director advise young filmmakers to not listen to anyone telling them how, just get a camera, start shooting, learn from your mistakes and find your own way. Directors who never went to film school- David Fincher, Stanley Kubrick Peter, Jackson (high school dropout), Ridley Scott, James Cameron, Steven Spielberg (rejected by USC 3 times), Woody Allen (failed film class and was expelled), Quentin Tarantino (high school dropout), Sam Raimi, Federico Fellini.

C. Walken- “If you want to learn how to build a house, build a house. Don’t ask anybody, just build a house.” … and more cowbell!

  1. “Art” does not require a conscious or apparent objective for the viewer’s appeasement.

  2. Not this tired debate again over pre-mades. Photography uses only “premade” subjects. Most of these Photoshop figure paintings start with photos. The use of primitives, presets, stock, mocap, rotoscoping, reference, and endless ‘auto’ functions are thoroughly common practice in CG. ‘You’re not a real animator if you have to keyframe and let the computer calculate between frames!’ Tron was snubbed by the Academy for VFX because it was considered cheating to use a computer. Ballast books like Expose often feature renders using premade figure models. Credit should just be given where it is due. If an artist posts an image where they did lighting and texturing, and they credit some other collaborator for the modeling, would you complain? So whats the difference if the model was stock? I mean, someone else still made the model. If it evokes, then it doesnt really matter who made what.

  3. There are no original ideas. They all come from somewhere else- http://www.box.net/shared/static/545zucdes9.jpg Remakes are even sometimes more interesting than the originals.

  4. Surrealists would disagree. I certainly do. The process is usually experimental. I consistently do my best work when I dont think or plan too much. Previz and sketches are often abandoned as ideas evolve.

  5. Frazetta weeps.

  6. Tests go in WIP.

…
Its all subjective. If you dont like it, change the channel.

#397

You dug up this thread for that? No necro posting.