What do you answer someone asking "Wow!! you make it?"
iSeeThis
Posts: 552
This morning someone (close to me) said so! I often got stunning renders. While I was struggling hard to learn and use DAZ to render simple pix, yep!, I immediately replied "I've made it!" for such question. Nowadays, I've bought a lot and it seems I effortlessly get amazing renders. I tend to say something like "Well! I have it done by myself". In fact, I compose a picture. Somebody else CREATED almost everything for me. I should feel like I MAKE it later when I do my own modeling, master lighting, etc. like I do it all from scratch on Photoshop.
I'm sure you have to reply something for such question, right? :-D
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
© 2025 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
When a photographer creates a brilliant image. did he make it?
As you point out, depending on how much stuff in the render is "all you". I don't make figures, and I don't make cloths, so I know the hesitation of the simple answer. I tend to say "Yes I did the Render", thus implying that I arranged the image and composed the lights. Just as I compose music as an enthusiast. I am not playing the Violin, Cello, or any of the brass instruments. Nor did I make the instruments, that are producing the sounds. Still, it is Composing, or Arranging music to most.
Lets think of it a different way. With real sketchbooks and canvas, Did you make the pencil or paint? did you make the crayon? How about the markers, and colored chalks?
How much of the final art must you have made yourself, before you can truly call it, "Your work"? I don't know a non-gray answer to that.
Because different people have different interpretation of what counts as you making it, if there's a misunderstanding and they see that 3D object in someone else's art, your integrity will be in doubt by that person.
For everyone who asks, I tell them I made the picture using 3D computer models that I purchased. Simple and true.
This does not have to be a Yes or No question.
Well it depends if you consider Pop Art to be Art?
This movement explored a lot of these idea 20 years before the home computer made its appearance.
The only way to create art without influence or standing on the shoulders of giants is to be born in a void and create nothing.
And then you may argue that the result is not art, or possibly still art.
;)
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_art
The person saying, "Wow! You make it?" may not care about the composition, lighting, background, etc. They might just be extremely impressed by the details in the Daz High Definition Minotaur and want to know if you drew and colored it.
I always tell anyone who asks that I assembled the scene myself and did work in Photoshop, but I used or bought content that other people made. Most people don't seem to care that I didn't make the content if the scene is interesting or if it looks original.
I answer "yes" followed by a brief explanation of the process and DAZ Studio. :)
Myself I tend to think along fixmpcmike's comment, I view 3D art such we create as being in a similar position as photography was a hundred or so years ago, the majority of the public do not understand how we create these works and the 'established art world' often refuse to accept that it is 'art'.
Photography is now considered art by the majority and I'm sure that give it a century or two and so will our creations.
If you really want to look at it from the photography point of view (and as a keen amateur photographer myself I do), we actually have more control over a lot of our compositions and put in a lot more work. We have to shape, colour, dress (or not) pose, light and position the camera before we hit the render button. Yes we use pre-made content but photographers rarely make their models and scenes from scratch, they find, hire or buy sets, models, clothes props or whatever else they may use before pressing the shutter release. The post work for the two images is the same, same software same techniques.
So yes I made the final image in the same way a photographer made the final photograph.
Got to go, Christmas shopping to do.
Allot of good replies to the question, agreed. And as Hellboy eludes to, it is a great opener to a chat about CG.
Most people are looking for a simple answer to the question, not a long drawn out reply in casual chats. I find that IF they want to know more about what a 'Render' is after a truncated reply, they'll ask. Other times it's something like, 'Cool', or some other short acknowledgement, and they move on to another topic.
When people identify themselves as photographers, we know they take pictures of something. We generally don't expect them to make from scratch what they're photographing.
Most people are still unaware of this 3D world of Daz. When people look at a 2D render, their expectations are different than that of photography (even if it was a photo manipulation).
Perhaps when we answer the question, it should not be what we think, but what the person asking the question may be thinking.
a very dead horse
a picture is all about liking
not about making
I will explain it to my nerdy friends, but to others I just say "with a computer" since thats the extent of what they can comprehend anyway.
Or, consider that if you are born from the Void and create EVERYTHING then you can call it whatever you want! 8-O
Most likely the person was impressed by the image itself... For the most part, unless someone is capable of doing everything, then they are basically like a studio photographer... And there is nothing wrong with that... Look at any imagery shot in a studio and you can see it is not easy to arrange a great image... Especially one that tells a story or conveys emotion...
Portrait photographers sometimes work alone, but people who shoot big scenes for ads or whatnot, have many assistants and crew personnel moving props around, tending to effects and so forth.
They provide the vision and other people set up the scene as per their direction...
In 3D, there is no crew...
You provide the vision, the software is your muscle.
It's not completely the same, but not that different.
"Out of the box" not even the best models look that impressive, take the best model you own and just do a default render and probably no one will be that impressed by the results.
It's what you do with it that makes it shine.
Granted, I've seen sets that take certain models to a new level... Complete sets intended to give professional results with less effort.
But even professional photographers hire lighting and scenery director.
There are those that will say this topic is a dead horse, there is nothing to be gained or learned from it.
If you have heard the arguments and are familiar with the subject.
If not, it's a subject thats new to the person who approaches the topic for the first time.
I don't know where Pop Art came into this, I'm personally not a fan, it more often than not seems be more about the artist than the art and who decides what gets bestowed the title of art by a very select group of people who's opinion on this topic somehow carries weight.
Back a few years ago there was some loony artist who went around Brooklyn and Lower Manhattan spray painting dried out dog poops gold and leaving them back on the sidewalk where they were originally deposited.
At the time I read about it (and in the paper I read about it) nobody yet knew his/her name, but the writer went on at length, speculating on the meaning and vision behind the golden poos.
I never came across further mention of it, but I wonder... Should the dogs share in the credit for these works? Without their individual efforts, choice of placement, height of deposition, and their choice of what substrate upon which to deposit their contributions, this artist would not have the medium by which to express his thoughts.
I really, really hope it was all done as a gag like it seemed and not like the guy who wrote the article seemed to believe.
I have no idea what my point was by bringing that up, but I like to mention it often.
But back to the original question...
Sadly few people ever ask me that question and those that do... I'm never really sure what they are asking about, because I'm pretty sure they are not really sure what they are looking at.
I usually make most of the stuff in any of my renders so I mostly don't bother to explain that, but for some reason it's the concept that looking at a 2D image of a 3D scene that seems to gum up the brain gears in many individuals...
Never mind explaining why I made it in the first place.
Mostly at this point, I never really show anyone anything that is not 100% my stuff, so this way the easy answer is "yes, I made that".
Anyone who understands 3D is indifferent, unless the render is funny.
I've had one or two discussions about 3D, but they were fairly short because I felt like I was at Petland Discounts, trying to get the hamsters interested in a career in CGI.
I'm no stranger to this since I've never had any career which was easy to explain... If you are an accountant or mechanic, be happy that at least you have the ability to say "I'm an accountant" and people will just write you off as being boring right away.
It's amazing how many people who you would think should understand 3D, either because of their profession or just because they are not obviously stupid, just don't get it.
At all... Even with a detailed explanation involving hand puppets.
I guess the simplest way of looking at it is...
If you get a complement by someone who has no idea what was involved, just be happy you impressed them.
If you get a compliment by someone who fully understands 3D, be really, really happy.
Cheers!
I get..........."why did you make that?"
on my renders
Regarding gold dog poo art. Ooh, shiny!
Regarding questions about my creations (I hesitate to call it art). I at least have a style. One that I can't show here because of the forum rules and fragile sensibilities, but I have a style. I've been at it several years and I look at my old stuff and cringe at most of it. Posing, expressions, eye-lines, backgrounds, lighting, implied story, all factor into my work and it's gotten much better in the last few years. I see a lot of other 3D work by many in the same genre. Most of it is like my early works, simply playing with dolls and producing sterile portraits. A few, a very few, though have real style and skill. I like to think that I'm beginning to be in that class but know that I still can improve. Yet when some enamored viewer writes and compliments my "art" using that word I don't correct them. I just say "thank you" and "glad you enjoyed" it, if I reply at all. If, however, they ask "how" then I'll take the time to at least explain the concept of basic 3D CGI staging.
There really is no hard and fast answer to this one was what I was getting at in my last post. If someone asks you did you "make" that dish of food, do you feel the need to clarify that you didn't grow the vegetables yourself it contains? Nor grind the beef or roll the pasta? Is it dishonest not to clarify exactly the role you took in making the dish? Or do you just say, Yes i did, are you enjoying it? I guess the answer would depend on who is asking, auditioning for a cooking show should be different response than to a 4 year old niece.
You will probably find the most correct answer will vary quite a bit on the context of where the question is being asked. "Did you make it?" Is a fairly generalised question, ask a singer did she/he make that song? An architect did he/she make that building? Each had a role in the making of it, the singer sang on the song and the architect designed the building, but claiming that they alone made it wouldn't entirely be the truth. So i guess if you wanted to you could say you constructed or designed the image using XYZ program utilising stock props and figures from specialised content creators.
As far as how Pop Art relates, I wonder what Andy Warhol would say if you asked him "Did you make that?"while pointing at a picture of a Campbells soup can?
Popart was known for borrowing extensively from popular culture and its mechanical means of producing or rendering its pieces. While its not the same as modern 3D graphic art it touches on some of the foundations on defining an artists role in creative expression.
The answer to the question should always be 'Yes'. The image they are looking at didn't exist until you put the elements together and rendered it so it is unique to you. If someone takes a picture it is still different from the one taken previously as there will be something different whether it is the light, a cloud, a bird or the time of year. The main elements will be the same; the mountain; the lake; the building, but no one will question the fact that the picture itself was made by the photographer.
Q: Did you make it? A: Yes.
Q: Are you an artist? A: God, I hope not! They're too weird.
I had to answer this for Google ADsense a few minutes ago
I did pdf's of my orders for scenes in question and Carrara 8pro and linked the DAZ 3D EULA
but will not be surprised if as usual they are not satisfied and ask for more proof I am entitled to use the "image elements" in my monetised video
it gets really hard when they question my music I have composed and performed myself, they usually want a record label and I have to say I am an unsigned artist and could somebody human actually listen to the damned piece in question FFS!!!!
I say something like "I directed it" when I use precreated products I feel more like an art director. Setting up the scene, positioning the actors and photographing it
lol I get that a lot too Wendy
This is how i handle YouTube when they ask me for usage rights on my videos I list everything on my website
http://www.ivysdomain.com/Site_policy/animation-copyright-page.html
I'd rather just not deal with it. To much hassle, and it takes the fun out of making music in the first place when you have to worry about whether or not a note matches a note in a song by some one else that you never new existed in the first place. Music is not fun any more, and it hasn't been for quite some time. I never made music to claim as my own, more because it was what I wanted to listen to and was not sold anywhere for my personal listening pleasure (things have changed).
At least with CG, I don't get harassed over not having made the code for the shader lights from scratch, and it being nothing like anyone else's lights in my render attempts. Tho I do like the response, it's not about whether you made the image or not, it's about others liking it, ruphuss.
I'd rather just not deal with it. To much hassle, and it takes the fun out of making music in the first place when you have to worry about whether or not a note matches a note in a song by some one else that you never new existed in the first place. Music is not fun any more, and it hasn't been for quite some time. I never made music to claim as my own, more because it was what I wanted to listen to and was not sold anywhere for my personal listening pleasure (things have changed).
At least with CG, I don't get harassed over not having made the code for the shader lights from scratch, and it being nothing like anyone else's lights in my render attempts. Tho I do like the response, it's not about whether you made the image or not, it's about others liking it, ruphuss.
It's interesting to note (no pun intended) that in the beginning (well, later than sticks and drums) but let's say around the time of Bach & Haydn there was a lot of note & theme stealing and downright plagiarism going on! Then the lawyers got into the act.
Personally, I have the copyright to the letter "e" so you all owe me a lot of money!!
They supply the paint, we supply the fingers. Go find a wall and enjoy!
These days, everything is a collaboration.
"why are you doing this ?"
"because I can"