Hi everyone. Ive been working with photorealism lately and have created a series of test images which can be seen in my gallery. Basically Ive encountered a little bit of hostility in regards to the fact ive used photo references in my work. When I create my work I use whatever I need to get the desired image. I just wondered what everyone thought about this? I just think its an interesting topic of discussion and have no problems with people giving constructive criticism. Im just a little surprised that ive had IM's criticising my work so I thought Id start this discussion. To view my work and see what im talking about please view my gallery. Thanks guys and happy rendering!

What counts is the end result, IMO You have achieved an end result that looks damn good... Number 3 is great. There are quite a few artists that use photo hair..it makes the character look real. I would think blending in real eyes, facial features, etc over a poser model would be the perfect way to achieve the realistic effect. I've been on the same task...photorealism..but have fallen far short of desired result so far..but just using Poser, textures, hair....and lighting, not photo references...but by using them, you have given the image the final push.

I dont understand what the problem is which is being debated. Is it for sampling reference photos for textures, or what? I usually reference many photos for my textures...even the fantasy ones. The face of my current minotaur project is built from not only a cow, but an elephant, a bear, a human and a pig. (yeah...thats just the face LOL) I like to try for realism even in fantasy characters. And if anyone says using photos as reference is no longer art...just have them try piecing together so many elements and make them look like one being :)

Some people seem to think that by incorporating photographic elements into a poser render it discraces the image because it is no longer 100% poser. When your going for realism like i am, using poser on its own isnt an option. It can create realistic images to certain level but there are always tell tale signs. I use whatever recources I can get to create my desired image.

ahhh...I see, so this is outside of texture work. Though still I see no debate LOL One should use whatever tools available to them to create the vision they desire....if others have a different vision, then they can create ther own art :) (I am a simple man) LOL

I think there is a debate, whether or not using photos to enhance realism detracts from the 'straight out of poser' render. It seems alot of people in the poser community have issues with people using photographs etc to enhance standard poser renders. I think that if you have a vision you should use whatever recources you want to create it. The reason i posted this topic is because I started getting Instant messages from people saying that my images were just photo montages. This is untrue because its only small elements that are enhanced with photos. I make my textures as realistic as possible so that the render that comes out of poser is as real as a poser render can be. I then take my images into photoshop and add to the elements that are lacking in realism. This is usually the hair as real hair in poser is extremely hard to create. I post my images in the poser gallery because the base image is made in poser. People should seriously look at an image for what it is and not be concerned with how much of it was made in poser.

I personally have been very impressed by the realism work created by N1PPON. Just because he has been inventive and used real world eye, hair and skin textures captured from photos does not warrant criticizing his skill. He has used these as tools to achieve a real word effect that far outstrips alot of the other realism content i have seen produced. The basis of his work has been using poser models and advanced GI lighting, he has freely admitted using real world hair textures etc... to aid his final renders and postwork. If say he had stated "This is a 100% genuine image created using poser models with 30 seconds of post work in Photoshop" then i could see reason for criticism, as it is though i do not. I for one have learnt a few new tricks from this guy and will be sure to try using them in the future for any "realism" work i attempt to create. Thanks for reading ^_^

Thanks for the comment 'shjnji808', very much appreciated. I can see your point about people using photos on top of poser renders and claiming it as their own poser work. People who truthfully explain how an image is created get alot of respect from me.

well, i have to say, the work is very good, in fact better then good, they are outstanding. i for one dont have any probs with using real stuff in post work on poser images, if its what the artist wishes to do, then there is really no point in putting them down on it!! well done, and deff keep it up!

"Some people seem to think that by incorporating photographic elements into a poser render it discraces the image because it is no longer 100% poser." I wouldn't pay too much attention to people who say things like this. It's just as bad as the "3D purists" who say that using Poser at ALL is "cheating" or the traditional artists who say that using a computer is "cheating" or whatever other narrow-minded stupidity people come up with to put down other people's work and make themselves feel superior. The end result IS what counts. Use whatever tools you have available to you and ignore the morons who can't see past their own prejudice. bonni

re: " ... a little bit of hostility ... " Do not let NaySayGuy (or SayNayGal) "get to you." Your work is very good. Almost all of the comments about your gallery renders are very positive. I only saw one negative comment. You know what you like and you have done an excellent job of producing some stunning images. Keep up the good work and do not listen to the critics who probably can't produce a good looking square using Poser's "square" prop. cheers, dr geep ;=]

Yeah thanks everyone for responding to this post. My problem wasnt about any of the comments on my images. I was getting instant messages sent to me saying that I should have stuck to straight poser renders and not incorporated photographic elements. I like getting constructive critcism as it helps me develop my skills, its just a little bit annoying when I get Instant messages saying that I shouldnt do certain things. Anyway theres plenty more realism work to come from me yet!

I can't understand people objecting to these pics as lacking "poserness", especially considering the dominance of heavily postworked airbrush pieces in the poser gallery. I prefer photorealism to airbrush fantasy anyway, :)

i'm going to go out on a limb here and be a little more critical than the above posts. my personal feeling about your pictures is this:

i don't think most people care about integrating photos with most poser work. tons of people use it for backgrounds and even hair. but when you talk about replacing features, and you're only doing portraits, it's not clear what you are personally adding to the original photographs. especially since you wash out the portraits to a point that really only the hair and eyes are visible. you might post the original photos and the original renders as well, just to let people see your work. also, if the original photos are yours, you should say so. if not, attribute. i understand what you're saying about photo realism, and i'm not saying don't use photos. you might, however, assuage people's hostility if you had one or two posts making the process a little less transparent (say a triptych of photo, render, finished product?). basically, i suspect people are hostile because they mistakenly believe that you're basically passing of someone else's blurred photograph as your own poser work.

for examples of poser photorealism without replacing features such as eyes, etc. you might check out Mec4d's, dalinise's and ByteMeOk's product promos and galleries.

"Basically Ive encountered a little bit of hostility in regards to the fact ive used photo references in my work." Your work is beautiful, though if I'm being honest I wouldn't call it photorealistic. It's too stylised for that. My impression - and I may be completely wrong - is that the hostility isn't so much because you've used photos for reference. It's because you appear to be incorporating photographs into the images and 'passing it off' as a Poser render. It's a perception of dishonesty on your part. Just so I'm clear, I am not suggesting you have been dishonest. I'm saying that's the way this is being perceived by others, because you haven't described your creative process when you post. There's no reason you should, of course. Frankly, it doesn't matter much either way. If you're being harrassed by IM, report it. If it's just unwarranted criticism of your work, take on board anything that seems right to you and ignore the rest.

this seems kind of one sided. if nippon can be criticized for integrating photos in a poser render, then where is the outrage at the "poser" pics that are 10% poser and 90% airbrushed postwork? this seems like selective outrage by the majority dominating the poser galleries towards artists who don't fit the narrow conception of a poser artist as a wanna-be vallejo. not trying to be argumentative here, but I've received similiar negative responses because I don't paint on my clothes and hair. the fact that I do the majority of my work inside poser seems to be a sticking point for many.

Whether it be sex, fashion, religion, art... anything, there are always more than enough people willing to tell us how to think, feel and be. My advice is to get used to it and simply ignore them. If you can't do that then perhaps you may take solace in that for every opinion expressed there is another who holds the completely opposite view. As far as I can see you explictly state that your imagery is composed via poser and "realism" (whatever that is...) Perhaps this is necessary for purposes of classification but I think we're already far too eager to lock things into tidy little boxes. Other than that, if your process achieves your desired result then there is little for anyone to complain about. "All the world's a stage..." so strut yourself. Ain't nobody else gonna do it for ya. - Jack

This is good artwork no matter how you look at it. It is creative, evocative and very well executed. I don't think too many people would argue with that. The choice of tools used to produce artworks are purely at the discretion of the artist. The final result - whether realistic or not - is also purely the vision of the artist. So, the real debate is not about photorealism or whether this is art or not, but whether this type of work belongs in a Poser Category. As some have pointed out already, considering the amount of heavily postworked images that are currently in the Poser category, I believe that this work is just as appropriate as those are (and even a welcome releif as Zarabanda suggests). On the other hand, a few people (myself included) who enjoy the challenge of creating realistic images in Poser without the use of postwork have found that there is really no unique place here at Renderosity for our work. A place where we can go and view the unblemished Poser work of others, learn from them - be inspired by them and have our own work compared to work of a similar nature. One would think that such works belong in the Poser category (because that's precisely what it is) - but the Poser gallery here has been so diluted with mixed-media styles, Bryce, Vue and C4D renders and heavily postworked (2D processed) images that, in some cases, the Poser aspect is no longer even recognizable. Even that is fine - it is an understandable evolution of a community which was founded by and continues to be dominated by 2D computer artists. BUT, I for one, do not want my style of 3D art compared with those styles. Nor do I want my art viewed or criticised by people who do not have basic knowledge, understanding or concern for what I am trying to accomplish. I just would like a category which attracts like-minded artists. I do not wish to displace anybody here or suggest that their work is any less significant than mine. I just want to share my work with people who can appreciate it for what it is rather than tell me how many wonderful ways there are to postwork hair. As I see it, the REAL problem is that the dominant forces here - for whatever their reasons may be - seem reluctant to provide an exclusive category for pure Poser works. In fact, the mere suggestion of this seems to invoke anger and hostility. From the reaction, one might think that some people were actually AFRAID of the concept, while others are either blind or apathetic to the need for such a category. Yet they vehemently oppose those of us who request it... why? Even if one disagrees with the concept, they certainly don't have to visit this gallery or participate in it - in fact, that's the whole point. But until then, many of us have no place here to showcase our work in an appropriate atmosphere, so is it any wonder why occasionally one of us strikes out at yet another degree of degradation of the use of the term "POSER" in describing a work which no longer resembles its origin? The work here is still fine work, that is not the issue. It definitely deserves a place here. But why does it HAVE to be the very place where true and valid Poser work should be?

I think it's ridiculous to criticize someone for being creative. I think we all forget sometimes that art is subjective. The only thing that matters is how it makes you FEEL, not necessarily how it was achieved.

reads through the debate while sipping coffee

before everybody gets their indignation worked up too far, we might consider this to be a content issue and not a style one. it matters a lot to this community if your work is your own or someone elses, and if part of it is, how much. almost every picture posted to the poser gallery cites figure, texture, clothes, lights, backgrounds and poses as necessary. when people do add their own postwork, they often cite it. even some posts to the photo gallery include notes about the model. so if you use photos and don't cite them or the morphs and textures and characters you use (even if they're your own), someone's probably going to say something.

to echo eiran, i'm not accusing N1PPON of anything, i'm simply guessing at what his detractors are thinking and a way to appease them (if he wishes to do so).

one could argue that we all should be trusted more, but frankly, that's a different conversation than the one that's presently taking place.

Ronstuff,

I believe I understand what you are saying. But where does one draw the line? Should we separate Poser 3 work from Poser 4 because the latter makes some things easier to accomplish? Should we reserve a unique section for those who only use what comes with Poser because "real men" don't use add-ons? How about a separate cartoon style section for those who "don't need no sissy textures"?

Places like Renderosity cater to the crowd in general and thus satisfy most of us somewhat but few of us completely. Any attempt to achieve the latter will likely result in such over specialization as to create an overwhelming complexity of chaos. I suspect this is the reason for not having a "Poser only" category rather than any hidden agenda of the "powers that be". If you really want such a category why don't you post a survey thread? If you get enough people to agree with you perhaps this will persuade the "powers". Of course, "enough people" will probably have to number in at least the hundreds, if not thousands.

Frankly, I am not even sure what "true and valid Poser work" might be. The original Poser was intended purely as a digital mannequin for artists who used traditional media. It is only within the later incarnations that Poser became a tool that could be used for actual image creation. As such, it could be argued that those who additionally use non-poser techniques or tools remain conceptionally truer to the original Poser intent than those who restrict themselves to Poser as the sole tool. Of course, Poser has not remained static but continued to evolve. So have its users.

Would it not be sufficient to simply label your imagery as "Poser only" and trust that your audience can read? I cannot criticize your wish to limit your audience or who might comment upon your work. If that is what you want so be it. But that really requires a "private showing" and is not a thing that is readily achieved in public access resources like Renderosity. In such circumstances once you post your imagery you relinquish all audience control. I'm not sure that this is a bad thing. Even those who neither know nor care about your chosen tools may still have valuable criticism to offer. In the end, just as others have the choice of what to view or not view, you have the choice of what criticism to accept or not accept.

Ronstuff, you have perfectly articulated what I suspect many of us already feel. I understand that poser originated as a tool for 2D painting, but there has definitely been an evolution away from that towards photorealistic content that was previously possible only with higher end apps (max, maya, lw). If you look at the Poser Hot 20, it is extremely narrow and lacking in diversity. Although there is great art there, it is by no means 3D. My interest is in 3D modelling, mapping and rendering. Im here for learning and support, not value judgements and uninformed criticism based on style. If you turn it around, it would be like me starting a thread about how the poser hot 20 is boring because all the images are flat looking and have no appeal to 3D artists. Which is technically true, but ignorant. :)

...My interest is in 3D modelling, mapping and rendering. Excuse my ignorance- I user P4/PPP, not P5. Aside from relatively minor model alterations via magnets or assigning textures by group zones does P5 actually allow one to model or create UVmaps? - Jack

jack no, you can't do much inside poser. but when used with other programs like uvmapper or milkshape, you can create original figures, textures, etc.

juval - thanks for your comments.
You have perfectly illustrated my point that opponents of this very simple concept seem compelled to push it to the point of absurdity in an attempt to trivialize it. So, NO you definitely do NOT understand what I am talking about.

When you say: Should we reserve a unique section for those who only use what comes with Poser because "real men" don't use add-ons? you are provoking an argument based upon an absurd assumption. Anybody who knows the nature of 3D art also knows that textures, mapping, and object meshes are rarely created, modeled, morphed and combined into scenes with lighting and atmosphere wholely within one single application - it is absurd to suggest that Poser is any different.

When you say: Places like Renderosity cater to the crowd in general and thus satisfy most of us are you suggesting that the majority of the people here ASKED for "Refrigerator Art" and "Wierd" genres? Yet they are here to satisfy the needs of the FEW who wish them.

When you say: Frankly, I am not even sure what "true and valid Poser work" might be - that is apparent, so why enter the dialog at all? If you would like to know, it is simply Art which is composed and produced as a FINAL RENDER within Poser. Period. It doesn't matter what version. It doesn't matter where the objects are modeled or the textures were made (just as these things don't matter in the Bryce gallery or VUE gallery ad nausium). It doesn't matter what the subject is... all that matters is that they were composed and rendered within Poser.

In saying these things, I do not mean any disrespect to you or anyone who admires 2D art, but I fear that many people either do not understand the difference between 2D art and 3D art or can not appreciate the talent and skill required to achieve good 3D art, and in particular Poser 3D art. Perhaps this is because the few good examples of Poser 3D art to be found here are buried in a HUGE amount of 2D art (no matter how good or excellent it may be) which is trying to pass itself off as 3D and Poser art.

If the point is still not clear as to why there is a need for such a gallery, here is what the typical newbie who just purchased Poser usually encounters here:

Looking in the Poser gallery as a source of knowledge and inspiration for their new tool, the newbie observes, "Wow, that is great hair - how do I do that in Poser." The reply is often "You can't do THAT in poser" followed by a long dialog describing the benefits of Photoshop. So the newbie looks further and notices the beautiful flowing fabric so he asks, "How do I do THAT in Poser? And the reply again is "you can't do THAT in Poser" with another plug for Photoshop. Undaunted, the newbie continues to examine the "Poser" art when he spies a landscape with a beautiful sky, so he inquires "How can I do THAT is Poser". But this time he is rewarded with a different answer which still begins with "you can't do THAT in Poser" .. but concludes with a plug for Bryce or Vue. And this process goes ON and ON until the newbie finally asks, "Where can I go and see what CAN be done in Poser" and this time the truthful answer is NOWHERE although many people may blindly insist to the contrary --- it just ain't so. But the worst part of all of this is that those people who say, "You can't do THAT in Poser" are usually wrong. Maybe THEY can't (or don't want to) do it but that doesn't mean that it can't be done. And that is not the message which should be given to the newbie who honestly seeks advice on Poser.

P.S. For those who say "you can't model or texture on Poser", let me announce that that is about to CHANGE forever. Here is a quick render (not art) of some topiaries that I am working on. The interesting thing about them is that they are all MODELED and TEXTURED entirely within POSER without ANY external applications. This is just a simple test of some of the capabilities of a new plug-in for Poser that is about to blow the roof off of everything.

Dang, that's neat. I have lost interest in art versus nonart, photorealism versus not, Poser versus the world kind of stuff...but I love new approaches and this is very interesting indeed. Besides, I need a new roof. :)

Its still all art to me to the Joel tune Cool stuff, Ron :)

Wow, I really like that ronstuff, do tell, do tell. :D

Nippon, you created some very nice images. There are always going to be childish, self-absorbed people who wil criticize anything based on some concept they believe everyone should adhere to. There are some very beautiful works of art here and I regret that I lack a fraction of the talent and imagination it took to create them. Unfortunately, the simple pleasure of viewing an image or creating one is is so often tainted by this hierarchy of degradation. People who don't use Poser look down on those who do. Then, like a falling out among thieves, the Poser people turn on each other, arguing about how they use it. Instead of "Artists Community," the banner needs to say "Insane Asylum," or at the very least, "Check your egos at the door."

Ronstuff, ...You have perfectly illustrated my point that opponents of this very simple concept seem compelled to push it to the point of absurdity in an attempt to trivialize it. I do not argue with the concept's simplicity nor did I offer any form of opposition or trivialization. Rather I was attempting to demonstrate that individual needs or desires may indeed be simple but trying to accomodate all of them can result in needless complexity. ...you are provoking an argument based upon an absurd assumption. Of course it is absurd. I would have thought that was self evident and it was given in the manner of light-hearted and extreme illustration. Can anyone really speak of "real men" and "sissy textures" and still keep a straight face? My point was much the same as yours- that it is rarely feasible to do all within a single program. Where was the argument? ...When you say: Places like Renderosity cater to the crowd in general and thus satisfy most of us are you suggesting that the majority of the people here ASKED for "Refrigerator Art" and "Wierd" genres? I'm not cetrtain how you arrived at that. Perhaps because you conveniently omitted the important qualifier in my statement- to wit "...satisfy most of us somewhat but few of us completely." Your question also implies that the majority of the work here is "Refrigerator" and/or "Weird" but I don't believe this is the case. ...When you say: Frankly, I am not even sure what "true and valid Poser work" might be - that is apparent, so why enter the dialog at all? Because I assumed the subject was worth further open-minded exploration with the goal of a more complete understanding. Apparently I was wrong. ...If you would like to know, it [Poser Art] is simply Art which is composed and produced as a FINAL RENDER within Poser. But this is an opinion, not an incontestable definition. While I would not say you are necessarily wrong I would question what makes your opinion correct while a differing one is incorrect. The sky is green with pink polka dots. This must be true because I said it is so. ...people who say, "You can't do THAT in Poser" are usually wrong. I would say often but certainly not usually. While there is more that can be done within Poser than first apparent it is also true that there is much that can not be done in Poser. ...And that is not the message which should be given to the newbie who honestly seeks advice on Poser. For those things that truly can't be done in Poser I think this is exactly the message that should be given. Why let a newbie pursue a fruitless task when instead they could try the hundreds of tips in the forums showing them what is possible and how to achieve it? A long time ago I was heavily involved with Fractal art. I was also roundly criticized because my images frequently involved multiple fractals and extensive layering/blending techniques and thus my work was unpure. (none of which seemed to bother those who bought my calendars) The preferred fractal generator of the day was Fractint- powerful but limited. Eventually people started using more flexible programs such as UltraFractal. What the fractal crowd really liked about UF was that you could - wait for it- create an image that used multiple fractals and extensive layering/blending techniques. I never did figure that out. Despite what you appear to believe I was not arguing with you. Instead I was stating the obstacles that lie in your path. 1) The difficulty of managing an even larger number of specialized galleries. 2) the difficulty of providing a definition of "Poser Art" upon which all may agree While I do not feel the same as you I encouraged you to pursue your goal with an independant petition. I even mentioned an obvious solution to ameliorate your desire under current conditions. I'm inclined to believe that you have read what you wanted to read instead of what was written. Perhaps you are right- there is no point in my further participation. Good luck and good night. - Jack

For those who have expressed an interest in the potential of Poser, here is another preview. The plug-in for Poser is called MetaForms (currently in beta testing) and it is made by Wierd Juce Software. This is a really simple example of its very extensive capabilities which includes modeling, particle effects and UV mapping... all inside Poser. As for art, I agree that there is room for all types and each should respect the rights of the others. It just seems strange that us Poser artists have to beg for a place to call home without everyone suggesting that we don't understand the "rules" or are somehow conspiring to undermine the very foundations of this "community". It is even stranger that there are galleries here covering 35 topics and 56 genres which yield 1960 unique combinations... NONE of which adequately represents one of the most significant aspects of this community... Poser - ironic, isn't it?

The limits are not in the software but in ourselves. As Shakespeare might have said were he around. Which is why we have so many copies of copies of copies of copies, rather than very many originals at all. But we all have to learn somewhere, I guess. Can you do a topiary llama with that? I love llamas. Virtually, that is. :)

Not sure if this fits with where this thread is going, however I submit it anyway for your consideration. This image in rendered in Poser5 using Poser4 render engine..antialiasing, etc...there is no post work other than converting to jpg. This image illustrates everthing discussed so far..I think, and again leaves us in a dilemma..or does it ? The texture is from Maskedit...hair from Harvey Mann. The model is Victoria 3 from DAZ..the lights are from RDNA. Now, this image has borrowed items from everywhere and everyone. Is this any differewnt from the great wotk accomplished by N1PPON ??? His thing is using photos or stock images, whatever, to achieve a higher realm of realism....although, I think this isn't too bad, considering :) But the onlty thing that is important, IMO, is the final result, not how it is arrived at. I can make the statement, however, that this is more "Poser" as there is no postwork, and rendered in Poser...but who cares, really? Also, have "I" really done anything artistic here???? Can't anyone take the meterials I have and do the same thing with the same end result? I do think about that sometimes.... although, if you're creating an image that has some substance, and you can technically create your vison to enable others to see it as well, using other's textures and stuff is art as well...plug and play or not.... I guess this can be batted and kicked around forever.

wel photorealism do not disturb me, in fact... at least we will stop hearing about "baaah poser is one click shiny mannekin factory for lamers !" realism is just ONE path achievable through poser (you can make other things, such as cartoon, anime, video game like, whatever) and it is goo dto see someone pushing the limits ! thanx you for your great work (and i wish i could do same kind of filters/postwork too out of a dumb raw poser render !)

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=258861&Start=1&Sectionid=0&filter_genre_id=0&MostWan

check this image... there's another thread that shows the original render...can't find it right now.. you would not believe the difference, and how much post was done on the final to achieve that...but if I could do that great work, wow... As stated above...Poser originally was produced to give artists a human form..to take into a paint program or perhaps another 3d program and have pre made, posed humans..to post the hell out of to create great looking art... anyway..I repeat everything again too many times :) LOL

Dave-So: Since you asked, I'll tell... I think your image above is a good example of a Poser WIP and shows a lot of promise, but as I've seen some of your other work, I'd also say that it is far from "finished art" and hardly represents the real potential of Poser - and I'm sure you are aware of that. ;-) In fact at this point, there are at least two distinct paths that this work could take: 1) You could call the Poser part done and bring what you have into a 2D paint program to create a very nice 2D piece of art. OR 2) you could continue to work within Poser to enhance this work with morphs (magnets or otherwise) lighting, atmosphere, additional background or props to bring this to a final work of 3D Poser art. Either way you could make a nice piece of art but each would be quite different from the other due to the inherent advantages and limitations of the medium. Nobody would question whether either might deserve to be called art. That is not the issue. The question is which of the two paths is faithful to Poser and deserves to be representative of that medium? I realize that some people don't care about whatever tools are used to create a work - I happen to agree that the tool does not create the Art, but the tool definitely does AFFECT the art and therefor is a valid criteria for sorting and categorizing the larger realm which includes ALL art. The question is, why do people who SAY they don't care about such distinctions continue to INSIST on putting their work in the Poser gallery rather than the Mixed Media or some other gallery if they REALLY don't care? We don't find this type of infiltration in the Truespace, C4D, Bryce and Vue galleries, why is it so common in the Poser category -- especially by people who say they don't really care? Well, maybe that question answers itself, huh? ;-) As for the issue of who made what, I don't think it matters that much. This image is composed of readily available and fairly inexpensive Poser items. I visualized, composed and rendered in Poser - nothing more. Even so, I doubt that there are very many here who could duplicate it even if I gave them the elements. Is it ART? -- maybe. Is it distinctly MINE -- definitely! And THAT is what is really important.

I agree with Geep - a stunning example of Pin-up art in the hands of a talented person. Remeniscent of the works of Vargas, yet distinctly original. A truly nice piece which belongs in Playboy, but not in the Poser gallery.

"The sky is green with pink polka dots. This must be true because I said it is so." I think jval's comments are typical in that they show a negative underlying assumption about poser as a program and an extreme reliance on semantics, refusing to accept any form of shared understanding. The fact of the matter is, anything rendered inside poser IS poser art. as the degree of postwork increases, the influence of poser is diluted until it is nonexistent. thats why there is value in the statement "rendered in poser, no post". this is a positive statement about the power of poser as a program unto itself, not just another plugin for photoshop. Photorealism is a widely known and recognized style of painting beginning in the 1960s and continuing today. This is not a disputed fact. The fact that in the age of computers we are able to recreate the impression of "photographic reality" through artistic means, including the use of poser, is an objective reality itself and we are all striving to achieve an artistic ideal no different than someone who spends 12 hours on postwork because they idolize Boris Vallejo.

I havent seen the galery images or the comments, but here is my take on the issue. Photorealism in 3D work is used to describe an attempt at making something entirely computer generated look real. In painting, it is to do the same with paint (obviously). You can even combine the two and paint a 3D render for better realism. However, real pictures dont fit into the equation. Using real images to enhance the work defeats the whole purpose. So a picture rendered within Poser then composited with real pictures is not photorealism, it is a composite image.

Zarabanda,

...I think jval's comments are typical in that they show a negative underlying assumption about poser...

I said only of Poser that it is incapable of doing absolutely everything. It is unlikely that even its most ardent devotees will disagree with that simple truth. Other than that I offered no judgement on the merits of Poser- not pro, not con. In fact, I believe it was you that said "...you can't do much inside poser..." Yet somehow you still manage to find me infected with negative assumption. I am truly astounded by your abilities.

...an extreme reliance on semantics...

An opinion is attributed to me via quotation but omits critical words that completely change the meaning of that quotation. But when I object it is simply a matter of semantics? It was not the interpretation of words that concerned me. It was their complete absence! A less self serving interpretation might be to call offering the quotation a lie by omission. I also resisted the presentation of opinion as fact but not with quibbling over words. I flatly rejected the validity of the proposition as a foregone truth. If you believe that is "semantics" then maybe you'll also believe that the sky really is green with pink polka dots. If we are to follow the rule of "So I have said, so it shall be" then let's let the sky follow whimsy as well.

...refusing to accept any form of shared understanding.

I explicitly said "I cannot criticize your wish...", "I do not argue with the concept's simplicity...", "...nor did I offer any form of opposition or trivialization.", "...there is more that can be done within Poser than first apparent...", "I would not say you are necessarily wrong...", "My point was much the same as yours...", "While I do not feel the same as you I encouraged you to pursue your goal..." Just how much shared understanding does one require? Perhaps I should simply prostrate myself and exclaim "Yes oh master!" Will that do the trick?

...The fact of the matter is, anything rendered inside poser IS poser art.

So where did I say it is not? In fact, I do not recall offering any opinion at all on what constitutes Poser Art and clearly stated my inability to do so. It would seem others are not so uncertain about their infallability. I did mention the original intention of Poser but that is a matter of history, not opinion or semantics.

Actually I didn't attempt to evaluate Poser or Poser Art at all. What I did say is that an Exclusively Poser gallery could be problematic and gave my concerns. (I somehow feel it necessary to bring your attention to the words "could be problematic". This does not mean that such a gallery should absolutely not exist. After all, I did suggest that petition. "Problematic" does not imply impossible or necessarily undesireable or foolish. "Problematic" only implies "problematic". Clear enough?) I also said that it might be difficult to find a definition of Poser Art that everyone could accept. Call me naive but I suspect that might have some small degree of relevance to the proposition at hand.

I may not claim the supreme enlightenment of understanding precisely what constitutes Poser Art. But I'll tell you what I do understand. I understand that merely questioning, not even denying, the definition or need for such a gallery is met with derision and attack. I understand that I will be taken to task not for what I have said but for what I did not say. Perhaps the next Poser fad will be a model of a red herring. I also understand that this time I am truly out of here. I'm just not enough of a masochist.

• Jack

ps. Thanks for clearing up my P5 question.

The point where I felt you descended into semantics was when you challenged Ronstuff's definition of poser art. I give you credit for playing devil's advocate when everyone else is on the same page. We all seem to be drawing on the same points of reference and making clear distinctions based on creative process. When you begin extraneous intellectual riffing then I feel that you're arguing semantics. Thats why I included the quote. If the discussion has seemed a bit gruff, please understand that this is a long running, contentious topic for many. You have elevated the discussion however, and made it possible to deliniate a common view regarding what is "poser art" and what is "photorealism". I don't think its that complicated.

Ok, this debate has got kinda heated, which in a way is a good thing as it has allowed alot of people to express their personal views. Ive watched this thread grow with interest and i appreciate every comment which has been made. Thanks guys. One thing i should have mentioned - I use poser purely as one of a series of tools to create 'IMAGES'. I dont use poser to create 'POSER ART'. !I hope that makes sense! It seems that there is a big divide, there are people who use just poser to create art, and there are people who use poser combined with other media/programs to also create art. To sum this up, It is all art and i have respect for everyones work because it expresses their feelings and nobody elses. If people want to combine other elements with a poser image thats fine, just dont criticise because he/she is not a poser purist. Everyone has the own processes when it comes to creating their desired image and all critsism should be constructive and not destructive. I love to get constructive critisism as it helps me develop further but unfortunately i have, in the short time ive been at this community, received some negative critsism. As a whole though im really happy to be displaying my work and i have alot more projects in the pipeline. Keep creating you 'Art' guys, using whatever media you choose.

geeps image above is the one I was referring to...and the equation is the real key, I think... I can do some decent work, but I lack the talent to effectively use a 2d paint program to enhance my images...I'm practicing and learning, and getting a bit better. What is cool , however, is the fact we have tools now that can enable even a less talented individual to produce images at a level that are at least respectable.... amnd in the same instance, a talented person to do grat work. As far as Ronstuff point, he is correct in the fact the Poser gallery is indeed riddled with work that is not Poser. It would be ideal to have just a categary for Poser images...not rendered in anything but..totally put together in Poser.

I have no problem with the image Geep posted being put in the Poser gallery. It is a 3d figure posed with Poser, rendered with Poser, and then postworked with Photoshop.

FYI ...
Dr Geep did not create the excellent render shown in post #39 (above).

---

It was done by schmoopy and is titled "Balance"
You can find it in R'osity's gallery under "Poser & Pin-ups." - - - - - -

cheers,
dr geep
;=]

So, Caly, as I understand it (using your logic) I should post my work in the Photoshop Gallery because even though it is composed in Poser and rendered in Poser, I did use Photoshop to create my 2D textures which were applied in Poser. Using the same logic, if I were to use a photograph as a reference to make an oil painting, the final product should be posted in a Photography Gallery. If I have missed something in your definition, please enlighten me as to what the difference is between work in the Photoshop Gallery and work in the Poser gallery. I'd like to know exactly where you would draw the line. As far as I can see gallery requirements around here are conveniently defined in strict terms of a 2D artist. They make absolutely no distinction between 2D and 3D works, and in fact they go so far as to suggest that 3D works can not be considered "art" until they have been reduced to 2D definitions. Poser is one of those rare utilities that can be used in different ways. It can be a RESOURCE for a 2D or 3D artist working in other media (Photoshop, Bryce, Vue etc) OR it can be a MEDIUM of its own. Using Poser as a resource for other media is fine, but in doing so, Poser is no longer the working MEDIUM just as the resource photograph is NOT the medium of the portrait painter. Since galleries here are supposedly defined by the MEDIUM, why is Poser the sole exception? Finally, those of us who would like a place to exhibit REAL Poser work where Poser is the primary MEDIUM (by ANY definition) are merely asking for the same equal treatment that everybody else already enjoys. We are not asking that the current "Poser" category definition be changed, but rather we are asking for a new category to be added where Poser is indeed the MEDIUM of the work and not just a resource for it. It is just difficult to understand why people are so afraid of this idea. I think part of it might be that many of these really talented 2D artists would be shown up as rather poor 3D artists, and they just couldn't tolerate THAT.

I don't see where the problem is. You seem to be rather defensive. It appears that you want a '100% Poser No Postwork Gallery'. I have no problems if Renderosity adds another gallery here. If they don't you can always make your own. If anyone wants to post images to a general Poser Gallery, that's fine by me too! As long as an image has any Poser element as an integral part, I don't see why posting it in the Poser gallery is an issue. There's no need for elitism from either angle.

I hardly think that requesting a showcase which demonstrates the potential of Poser as a medium is elitist. Certainly it is no more elitist than the accepted and understood requirements for the Vue or Bryce galleries. I believe that the community would benefit from such a gallery by showing clear examples of what CAN be done in Poser, rather than focusing on what can't. I think this would also be a valuable tool for newcomers to encourage them to delve into Poser before they rush out to purchase Photoshop. I also think that just by knowing whether one is looking at 2D or 3D work one might derive many valuable tips on lighting, posing and composition. But when the medium is mixed or obscured, it is difficult to extract any helpful tips on 3D technique. As I have said repeatedly, I wholeheartedly encourage all forms or art, regardless of the medium. I truly enjoy seeing the creativeness of people like N1PPON and schmoopy, and even agree that they do represent some of the many aspects of Poser. They just do not represent Poser as the primary medium, and categorizing them as Poser work only adds to the confusion. Having a Poser Medium gallery would go a long way to minimize this confusion.