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.