There are a great deal of good points as well as some vailid points and a few missed points. But it all breaks down into "the percived USE of Photoshop within this community". Grim has pointed out the PS is NOT just a postwork tool for Poser and other 3D programs. The downside is "a majority of this site IS 3D based".

The galleries currently available were fine in the beginning, (see post#25) but we've grown to over 100,000 members, with many more Photoshop users that don't really do much (if any) 3D work. To lump everything NOT 3D into a 2D gallery (with "sub" offshoots like "mixed media") does not do justice to the caliber of artist and their work.

The point Grim is making is "If we can't have a Photoshop Gallery, then Why?" The only thing i can see as a valid argument is developing the criteria needed to post to the gallery. If we can't have one than can we know what needs to be done to change that?

I'm all for creating a "backroom" gallery (though it means a hecka' lot more work for me...) in the intrim, but there can be no denying, the program and it's users ARE a major force in the art community.

:)
retrocity