As a relative newcomer to the community, could you please tell me why, in a gallery dedicated to one piece of software, you allow images which have been "constructed" in sevaral different programs. I personally think that all images in say, the Poser gallery, should be created solely using this software, to show off what can be done. I have no problem with multi-programmed images, most of which are stunning, but surely these then come under the banner of general cgi.

this has beeen brought up countless times. If you don't really like it, then don't lok at the gallery. The people think Poser is the primary source for a certain image, they can put it there if they wish.

Ummm... I don't speak for the entire community, but I would bravely like to venture my two cents. Generally, most artists feel that one single tool or application doesn't quite achieve everything they want to accomplish with an image. I myself am primarily a modeler, and when I do the occasional render, I sometimes tend to do a bit of postwork to tweak some effects that didn't come out exactly as I envisioned them too. For myself, that's the way I work. Regardless of whether it is because I lack mastery in my main application, or if my application doesn't support a particular "look", or I am too lazy to wait for a re-render, that is the way I work. And I will still post that image in the gallery of my main application where the bulk of the work was done. I'm not sure if the word "dedicated" for a gallery is an accurate description, but that's just me. A "general cgi" gallery would be enormous... I would hate to think of how such a gigantic gallery could be managed properly. Not that the Poser gallery is a tiny forum either... it's incredibly HUGE. Maybe we should consider further subdividing the Poser gallery into smaller chunks of art genres instead? Like a "pin-up" gallery, a "medieval/fantasy" gallery, a "goth/vampire" gallery, a "fashion" gallery, a "sci-fi" gallery... etcetera. This might allow images to stay up longer (under the 15-day moratorium on what's new), allow for better monitoring, give viewers a chance to be more specific with their viewing choices. Sorry, I got carried away... a bit distracted there and wandered off topic. Anyhoo... I think that the Poser gallery is fine the way it is. I'm not sure that a "purist" approach to art is healty for an artists' community that should be more inclusive rather than exclusive. Just my two cents. - M

Well, if it was just poser it would be pretty bloody boring.

Thanks for the replies - I hope I didn't upset anyone. It's just that I think it would be nice for someone on a limited budget to be able to see what one particular progam was capable of (poser being one example). Possibly Moebius87 has the right idea by splitting in to separate sections, but maybe that would entail too much extra work for the guys at Renderosity. Again many thans and all keep up the good work. Happy 2003.

Instead of using one classification, R'osity could change the dropdown for the application and use either a list box or individual checkboxes so the artist could select all applicable applications that were used during the creation of the artwork. Of course, this would mean tweaking the gallery to accept the additional classifications and, possibly, the search feature.

you almost have to have another program to get life from poser. I mean with out photoshop or some other paint program ...there would be no texture maps. I think that there almost has to be a combination of programs used. You simply can not get certain effects in poser. like say...that soft almost glowing feel of old movie star photos. or that certain light that plays off a crystal ball. those you have to tweek in a paint program. I try very hard to get "no post work" renders. but I always feel like they are missing something. either a softening of an edge. or that hazy light to give that soft etherial look. Poser is wonderful but in my opinion it needs just a small bit of help now and then. DarkElegance