ok I made a promise to someone about giving another gallery of mine a chance. so I did...even went so far as to post to the WIP forum. which in all actuality was a good thing it opened my eyes to flaw in the work I hadnt noticed before. all well and great right? no. To my surprise and pleasure, I got not one..but TWO pieces in, in one day.one being there mainly though it was up at rendervisions for a short period. to my surprise it started to raise in rants{ok to be honest I was rediculously giddy about that} so I started to check if comments were posted...happily their were. tonight I got it...yup the infamouse..duunnnndunnnnnnnnDUNNNNNN "obviouse poser" comment! and not very nice either. one of those "I can tell it is poser you should of painted her face more so she wouldnt look so plastic other then that pretty good" now..normally this wouldnt of tweeked me. but you see the original was so utterly different then what is final that it is not funny. I tried to not reply to it...I honestly did. and failed miserably as my belief in poser as a valid artistic tool just would not be quelched. I never see a comment like" I can tell this is obviously photoshop" or " I can SO tell this is painter" you just never see that do you? why not? I mean most of us can spot the use of a particular filter from miles..yet that seems ok to use. we see art work that has been lense flared...paintstroked....ink sketched. and that is ok. yet the use of a valid and wonderful program is snobbishly looked down on. For the love of god. no it is not the greatest 3d proggy around. BUT just like painter,,,ps,,,psp,,,,and all the others it is a valid artist TOOL. one that should be taken as such and not have a nose lifted at it and the snort of" ohh I can tell it is poser" I am not the best at the proggy,,,but that doesnt mean the snob slam has to come out. ohhh that was a bigger rant then I expected...>.< BTW...the gallery that I must say is giving more of a fair shake to poser art lately....is Epilogue.

Why do you care what those people think? Are you making money off poser? Are they off their products? I think of it that the person who shows up at the bank with the most $$$ is the winner irregardless of who used waht tool. Just forget them and do what you want to do. Aspire but don't compete. Examine but don't invalidate. Grow but don't inflate and swell. I also don't think 3d art is art, certainly not at the calibre of a hand drawn artist. Those people I admire greatly. I gaurentee most of those 3d max and Maya guys couldn't draw a stick figure with a stencil. I know, I work with plenty of them.

I know what you mean about the the one to the bank..but.. it is just frustrating. I also do traditional art. that is why to me poser is just a tool. to me it is like saying you didnt actually do a painting because you used a synthetic brush as aposed to a sable haired one. to me a tool is just a tool. alot of poser art requires alot of "traditional" skills of painting and such as well. ~sighs~

One good thing about being the outcasts of the digital art community is that at least it gives you tough skin. I think some people like to pretend to be Simon Cowell of American Idol and boost their own ego by giving harsh and humiliating critique. That kind of crushing criticism is rarely helpful in graphic arts. One can give honest, critical review of a piece of work without publicly embarrassing the artist. Having said that, I think the harsh, truthful, "constructive" criticism helps an artist excel more than the 'atta boys'. But I can relate, darkElegance. I posted Poser pics in NeverWinter Nights ( mostly 2d artist community) and received all sorts of hateful criticism that offered no help. Perhaps we're the Lepers of the digital art world.

Sorry to say but Brycers get the same thing. Comments like....."why don't you use a real 3D program?" , etc.

see I just dont see why. it is not like the program does it all on its own be it poser bryce or what ever. no program will do it all on its own. that is the thing! it is a person working it a person doing the composition. I have indeed recieved constructive critism and worked with that they said...when I submited the piece in question to the WIP forum I was prepared for the slaughter but didnt get it. I will give them that they did give me GOOD critism. but to slam a piece or proggy ....GUH. not good not right wake up and smell the electronics! I know I know this has been posted and debated till the horse is dust. I just needed to get it off my chest. I wish I could just get some out there to realize that it is just a tool. one in an arsenal of tools used to make digital work. like a palet knife along side a camel hair...or a feather next to a salt shaker with watercolors. each tool havings its use and purpose is value!

Personally? I think it comes down to the simple fact that good art can be made with Poser. And Vue. And Bryce. And PSP. You can not model with any of them, really. But you can get the above programs for $200, $200, $90, and $90. Less than the street cost of the latest version of Truespace, I believe. Considerably less than Cinema R8. We won't even bring up the costs of Max, Maya, Lightwave, Shade Pro, etc. With a little talent and willingness to learn and experiment, you can produce excellent work. Without spending half a car's tag price on -One- piece of software. When you actually get into it, Poser has a pretty powerful animation system. Vue can do excellent scenery. Bryce can, as well, if differently. PSP can handle many of the functions and plugins that Photoshop can. That has to kick the old ego... But yeah, you learn real quick that a tool is just that, and only as good as you are willing to learn how to make it (and =don't= get me started on the truly horrific 'pictures' that some of the elite post).

Like someone said in another thread{wish I could find it again so I can give credit to the sourse} cow poop is used as a medium. well if cow poop can be used as a medium and be praised and seen as valid..then do NOT even come and put poser down. lol.

If we're leper of the digital world, there sure are alot of us. You would think that's gotta worry the ones putting us down.

Many kind of people are working on Poser.
From very good artists to someone just playing with naked Vicky.

There are many kind of people who use camera too.
Great photographer Ansel Adams, and someone who use camera just to point and shoot.
Probably someone who look down photographer do not know the detail works of Ansel Adams. They may look down photographer simply because we can take some pictures by just pointing and shooting.

Unfortunately, those people just dont understand.
As someone suggested, ****** them, and ignore them.

I could give a rats @$$ what people like that think of Poser, it's buying me a condo and to me that's all that matters.

If poser users are looked on as lepers then I'm proud to be a leper :)

You can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time. I have seen a lot of repetition in other media, just look at the slew of new little female models out there. Line them up together and they all look pretty much the same, like a lot of folks took the same modeling class and kick out the same style. I don't care. If I like what I see it's art to me, and if I don't it's art to someone else. Just consider the source Dark and move on because that type of person will never be able to admit that there are many roads to the same temple. I think Poser is a great program, and I have seen some renders from Vue and Bryce that knocked my socks off. I have also seen some stuff from the "high-end" programs that were pitiful. It's not the program so much as the person's ability to use it. Marque

The word that comes to mind is "snobbery". These people of whom you complain are just snobs. Just because they've forked out $3,000 or whatever for Maya they think everyone else should have to do the same.

ohh Ill give Epilogue this...they have recently been giving poser art a fair shake for the most part..I have seen more of it admited to the galleries. it is just that some still want to do the "ohh you used POSER" as if it is like OHHHH you just clicked clicked and it was there it doesnt count. bullocks! poser artists use alot of what can be called traditional abilities..such as painting..composition etc. if you rely on poser to do it all you wont get what you want. often times you have to go in an correct joints smooth textures ...add that "glow" to give that radiance to skin...hair ..ohh lets not go there. yes there is some great hair...clothes....etc. but tweeking is needed most times. and for some reason these people seem to think paint proggies and poser just do it themselves!

Ok. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and play devil's advocate for a moment. I'll probably get bashed for it, but maybe I can help bring some light to the subject. The reason everyone outside the Poser community hates Poser art is because so MUCH of it tends to look and feel the same. The program is so easy to use, and so inexpensive, that it's been embraced by people who otherwise would have no inclination to learn 3D, and all they use it for is to render stale images of default Poser figures over and over again. Some are postworked in photoshop, but using the same meshes as everyone else produces undeniable likenesses that are hard to avoid unless you do massive amounts of paintovers. Even using tons of morphs to change up the mesh is not going to produce a unique character. Because it's still the same mesh, and it's going to have similar characteristics to someone else's figure. Since everyone and anyone can buy the same product morphs, there's a good possibility that the art you produce can bear a striking resemblance to someone else's work... this makes it very unappealing to those who do professional art and want to make something undeniably their own. There's nothing wrong with using stock characters in a pinch, but imagine if LOTR's Gollum was done with a poser figure. Suddenly, there would be tons of movies using some form of him in their scenes too, and then that cheapens the original because the likelyhood that it would be represented uniquely each time is slim. Also, Poser can not be used by professionals in a productive way. Its good for making still images, but sucks at animation. Plus, you can't network render animations produced in Poser, so therefore it would never be used by FX studios. Most of the people on sites like CGTalk are in the business of FX and character development for film and professional use. Poser doesn't fit that criteria. I hope what I have said here doesn't get taken the wrong way, because I use Poser myself too. But I certainly understand why people do not find it "valid" when you have artists out there who make some truly unique things from scratch, from modeling to texturing. You can't really compare that to just buying a premade Daz figure and some texture from the marketplace. For example, how many "April Wet" texture renders are in the galleries? When that texture came out, there were at least 2 or 3 renders a day posted that used it. You can see how someone who makes their own textures from scratch for their own models would look at that and cringe I think.

I mean most of us can spot the use of a particular filter from miles..yet that seems ok to use. Actually, no. In a lot of Photoshop communities, the use of many (sometimes use of any) filters is frowned upon. There's this elitist attitude that "real" Photoshop artists can achieve these effects without having to resort to the use of filters. It's just like the lame "Eeww, you used Poser, you SUCK!" comments, pretty much. Of course, we all know that anyone who uses Poser is a lesser human being, just like anyone who uses filters. ;-) bonni

As a post script, I'd also like to point out that because Poser rigging is kinda crappy, most of the characters look rigid when posed, or look like plastic dolls. Everyone using VIcki, for example, will have all the same "bends" and the same mesh creases in their renders. This isn't the case when you create a model from scratch and rig it yourself in 3dsMax for example. You can create different bend areas, and much more natural poses. So again, it comes down to the uniqueness of what is produced. *this is just my perspective from observations I've seen regarding the matter. NOT my personal opinion about the software's users. ;-)

Nope maxx you have it right. People frown upon Poser because most of the models aren't made from scratch by the artist. Just like many people think Bryce is nothing but a landscape program with no modeling ability and the models are imported. Each program has it's strength's and weaknesses. Poser makes posing and animating figures easy if not perfect. Bryce (a $60-90 program) can do some things a lot easier and just as good as the $3000 programs, etc. A lot of the professional movie makers and such use lots of tools and most create thier own to do the job they need to.

Hey maxxmodels... I'm a professional... and I use Poser.... so I guess that means that it CAN be used in a professional way. As far as the same mesh being looking the same... I don't agree. Sure, we are all homo sapiens... but we don't all look the same. Not all dogs look the same. And not all incarnations of Vicki, etc. look the same. BUT... it does take work... and talent... to make her look unique. If you don't think she can look unique... take a good hard look at some of the favorites in the gallery.

I think that a professional can do anything a program is capable of, no matter what it is..I've seen professional-quality work in Poser and Bryce (for those who can't believe that Bryce can model, check out Bambam131's stuff..;) And it's like anything else, tools will tend to steer you the way they're designed. The end result should be something that states the artists' intentions, and if it uses filters, well the real question is are they appropriate for the picture? it's almost like Civil War re-enactors eschewing plastic buttons because it interfere's with the 'period rush'..;)

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=594689&Start=1&Artist=Elfquest&ByArtist=Yes

OH DEAR LORD..sorry I am reposting because when I posted the first time it went on forever to the right and we had that nasty scroll bar at the bottom>.There's nothing wrong with using stock characters in a pinch, but imagine if LOTR's Gollum was done with a poser figure. Suddenly, there would be tons of movies using some form of him in their scenes too, and then that cheapens the original because the likelyhood that it would be represented uniquely each time is slim.< There is a FANTASTIC frodo in the poser gallery ...done..with...VICKI!! I mean dead on!! That shows that yes poser figures can be made to look very unique. I also use poser professionally and oddly enough a client has never done the "did you use poser?" thing. any tool can be used baddly. that is with out question. but poser like any other proggy at ANY price is merely a tool for the person behind it. I fully agree with the lights in poser..good lighting is hard to do and great lighting is even harder to do. BUT..again...there is where you can tweek it out in either paint proggies or in another proggy. I mean could you do an oil painting without other things involved? linseed oil to thin a paint...gesso to prime the canvas? a variety of painting tools? no..you couldnt. it is the same thing with this. Bonni, I know some filters have been used to death and are a cliche of ps world usually the lensflare gets that "look" but often filters are used and not a word is uttered. I guess it is just if some could ever accept that there is more available to them then just what is in their sphere. I know there are proggies that are high end and all that wonderful stuff. but it is rediculouse to slam a tool merely because it is not $$$$.

Hey, I use filters. I use Poser. I use clip art. I use font glyphs. I use whatever tools I have on hand. I come from a graphic design background, and we're shameless. We use whatever we need to use to get the job done, and the client pays us for knowing what to use and how to arrange it effectively. ;-) bonni

EXACTLY!! use what is needed to be used!! ohh fonts....{pssstt I have an obscene amount of fonts and dings>.<}

People will put down digital tools...especially if they don't use themselves. I have two mod's choices over at Elfwood both done with Poser. If you look at them, you will notice that a good deal of the comments are of the "pretty good despite the fact you use Poser" variety. As has been said before photography went through the whole "it's pretty, but is it art?" thing, so is anything digital. As for Epilogue, I'm glad to hear they are getting better about that...I stopped trying to put things on there awhile ago because of the "obvious use of digital tools" crap. ~Kirsten Maloney

"There is a FANTASTIC frodo in the poser gallery ...done..with...VICKI!! I mean dead on!!" Well, it's a very good image! But he stated that he painted some parts of the face he didn't like. So it wouldn't look that good in animation. Key point... the mesh is limited by it's vertices. There's only so far you can push and pull them before they "break". That's why using the same mesh as everyone else reduces the the chances of producing a totally unique character. I don't think people fully understand that perspective. Also, I know Poser can and is being used by professionals. However, what I said was it would NEVER be used by professional FX studios because of it's many instabilities and limitations in animation. It would take 10x longer to animate a film in Poser than in Character Studio for 3ds as an example, and the rigging system is less than desirable. I'm not poking for an argument here, but I think people who love the program often overlook some key points as to why it's not accepted everywhere.

Whoops, lastly, I should point out that I have rigged the Vicki base mesh in 3ds using Character Studio, and I found it much much easier to pose her because I didn't have to struggle with system crashes, bad joints, and ugly folds in the mesh. Her bends were much more natural and the IK was smoother and more intuitive. If only 3dsMax Demo had a working version of Character Studio, I'd encourage people to download it and try it for themselves, but sadly it does not. What I'm looking for in future versions of Poser would be more powerful animation capabilities, and a much more intuitive interface. However, then you're looking at the price of the software going up higher than some would be willing to pay, because of the extra programming involved. It's a very "bloated" program right now (in that it's easy to bring to it's knees), and has a very strange and inconvenient workflow. I don't think anyone who's experienced more advanced software can argue that point. Unless you've tried the high end software (and I mean really tried it), there's no way to understand why it costs so much compared to Poser. But there's many reasons, and once you get involved in animation, they become clear. Anyway, I like Poser very much, it's well worth what it costs to be frank. You can absolutely produce impressive work with it, but the price to pay might be the hair on your head if you decide to use it for long, complex animating.. ;-)

bloody heck what happened to my post about the bryce artist it didnt post the rest of it...ok here it what it was suppose to say oh oh oh Also for the bryce comment about bryce haters.... alvinylaya anyone that can look at that and make a snide comment need their head checked! I think it was the lil arrow thinggies that made it go blank after them...>.< sorry --------------------------------- Lunaseas, Do you remember the big hooplah alil while ago about epilogue and poser art? well since then a Few of the Mods have really spoken up about it. I know that One I will be eternally grateful too is Socar she is just .. wonderful. since then they changed alot of the rejection phrases and have been trying more to get poser art in. they have also started a horror genre. I was so SO hesitant to post a pic in the WIP forum thinking slaaaaaaaaaaaughter time. but it wasnt at all. they DO give you a new look at your work. mind you the changed they thought should be done to the piece took her crispness away. I personally liked her better with the crisp edge to only SOME things in the pic. but it gave me a new look and I found things I overlooked entirely. I changed more then they suggested. It -can- be harsh. But I have to say I didnt hide my feelings when I replied to the comment about poser.;). Even when a person in the WIP forum made the "well aside from the obviouse use of poser" I did speak up LOL. maxxxmodelz, yes there is post work. Like I said if you rely ONLY on poser to give you what you want in a piece you will be let down. But it proves my point that it is a tool and that poser artists have to have alot of more traditional talent then what people think. you have to know painting , lighting, composition, anatomy{to fix joint folds and such} It is not click click work at all. THAT is why we poser artist get miffed. Those folks are seeing ONLY the word POSER not the rest of what goes into it.

just don't give a damn f..k at it ! seriously, the problem is theirs, leave them with it. once upon a time, they'll fell upon someone even more snob than them, in a position to be of crucial interest of power regarding their work or job, and they'll be crushed the same way ! btw: i quote: But I can relate, darkElegance. I posted Poser pics in NeverWinter Nights ( mostly 2d artist community) and received all sorts of hateful criticism that offered no help. gee are they mad ? the original nevferwinter portraits and characters sure used some kind of digital art technic (if not 3d) at first, and even if they do notr, i think that is is really smarter to make oneself poser pictures for your own chacaters, they match each other and are homogenous, instead of plundering always same anime or royo/valejo books or ad&d artists over and over.. wowow it i sooo cool, you take a anime wizard from slayer oav, a qwarrior from urushiara's langrisser design, and you take this and that, and at the end your game/screen look like a disgusting patchwork. it s better to keep oneself within the same line of visual art i guess. i did use poser for games like that for personnal use and i was glad. can you show me what pics they put to their trashbin ? i would be interested !!!

Attached Link: The image that pissed off a Poser bigot

I know how you feel. My second ever bit of Poser art got trounced by somebody who took offense to my not having created any of the models. My reaction was initially, What the F? I credited where I got the models. I entered the drawing under Poser. It's not as if I was taking credit for what I didn't create. At that point, I hadn't encountered the prejudice against Poser. The Poser community is nice and helpful, so I wasn't prepared to get slammed for using the program. I think it was Anton who dismissed the guy as being jealous. Initially, I didn't think that was the case, but the more I thought about, the more I realized that was probably behind the reaction I got. The guy gave me a zero rating--which is more an angry response than anything else. Why should somebody get upset over a piece of artwork just because it was done in Poser and it's probably because he didn't like comparing the work he was modeling against an artwork created by somebody using better models. As everybody is saying, Poser is a tool. So is a pencil. A pencil is a very unsophisticated, completely low-tech tool. Yet, works of art can and have been created with a pencil. Not everybody can do that, but it's not the fault of the pencil. The same with Poser, Maya, or whatever. Neither software or art materials make an artist. They are just the means to an artistic end. Is Boris Vallejo less of an artist because he uses photos as reference? How about Grant Wood and his famous painting "American Gothic". The couple in the painting are based on photos taken of his sister and dentist. Leonardo DaVinci's paintings used live models as reference. Are these painters less painters because their work doesn't spring totally from their heads? Is Poser art? I don't know. Is Maya art?--No more so than Poser. The traditional art world isn't any more enamored with one program or another. Is a circle in a square really symbolizing man's place in the universe? Not to me, it's just a circle and a square and a huckster pretending to be an artist because he's thought for weeks about a concept and spent a couple minutes creating what is no more sophisticated than what a child could do. Is that art? According some critics, it is. Me, and most of the people in the world, don't think so. Remember last year's news story about a midwestern woman, Teri Horton, who found a newly discovered Jackson Pollock painting potentially worth millions of dollars? She bought it at an antique shop for a few bucks as a joke for her sister. She thought it was something scribbled by a child. To the art world, it might be a lost masterpiece. If you want to know how fickle "Art" is, the painting is either worth millions or nothing. Isn't that just as ridiculous about arguing whether Poser is art? The painting doesn't change if the art world validates it as a Pollock painting. Just perceptions change. The painting either has merits on its own or it doesn't. Otherwise, aren't we just talking about the Emperor's New Clothes? It's an indication of how meaningless it is to judge what art is. Anybody who thinks one program or tool makes them better than somebody using another is a fool. It's an irrational conceit. The tool doesn't make the artist.

I have two mod's choices over at Elfwood both done with Poser. If you look at them, you will notice that a good deal of the comments are of the "pretty good despite the fact you use Poser" variety. Me, too. I just had one as Pick of the Day yesterday, in fact. Astoundingly, amazingly, I didn't get any "Oh, you suck, you used Poser" with this one, mostly because it's an alien character and doesn't look like a standard Vicki, I think. When I get those, "Poser sucks and so do you" comments there, I just delete them entirely or, if they're only mildly rude, I post a reply to the effect that I actually find Poser's limitations to be a good thing, as it makes me have to reach and grow as an artist. ;-) bonni

Here's a quick compare for ya :-) One of these two is poser and one is an acrylic painting, now which is which? disregard who did the works and the subject just pick which is the poser made pic :-)

The one on the right! Also I must say that it is not a particularly brilliant poser pic. Nothing personal, it is just that there are no shadows, the woman's arm looks like plastic and she has no expression. My main argument is - If poser is so easy to user as the critics reckon, why are there so many bad poser pictures out there? Afterall, surely any idiot can do it !!! Nope, it takes artistic skill to create a good picture with poser, just like with any artists' tools. And by good I mean one which someone other than the creator finds successful. Art is a many tentacled beast - I am quite happy with my little tentable thank you.

"you have to know painting , lighting, composition, anatomy{to fix joint folds and such} It is not click click work at all." I agree completely, but that's my main "problem" with Poser is that you really do need to postwork 90% of what is rendered. I work mainly in animation, so doing that is out of the question usually. Again, this is why I'm hoping for animation and performance improvements in future upgrades. "One of these two is poser and one is an acrylic painting, now which is which? disregard who did the works and the subject just pick which is the poser made pic :-) " To be honest, BOTH could be made with Poser, but the one on the left just got much more attention in postwork. There's people who could do paintovers of a render and make them look as good or better than that. Yet there's people I know who work only in 3ds who can make ANIMATIONS that look as good as the one on the left too... with no postwork at all. It depends on what your outcome is to be used for, and how much time you have to do it. ;-)

And I could show you some TERRIBLE acrylic paintings and some wonderful Poser pictures, and say, there, you see - Poser is better. That's no sort of an argument. Incidentally, the same sort of argument used to rage as to whether a painter used photos to work from. This was supposed to degrade the quality of the painting. Well, either you can see it the painting or you can't, and one shouldn't start to dismiss, say, Emily Carr just because historians finally discovered she DID use photos. It's all snobbery. As to Poser being unsuited to animation, that may be true, I have no interest in animation.

Attached Link: Fatale's We Will Rust

It's better to make a comparison to something like the above link. Personally, I can tell it's 3D, but I doubt anybody could say it's Poser versus Max or Maya. 3D is more limiting than 2D art because the control is in the program versus the artist to some degree. That's not a bad thing. The renderer in a 3D program controls the final result of the render whereas an artist has to paint all the lighting and can make it do things for artistic effect that a computer program isn't designed to do. Add postwork and the differences begin to shrink.

Charlie_Tuna..I can also show you HORRID arcylic work. but...it is the artist that makes the difference. ANY medium can be used baddly. what kicks me is this wasnt even about poser vs. maya or anyother 3d work it was someone that does digital paintings coming and going "I can tell you use poser"{god I keep hearing nelly olsens voice from little house on the prairie when I think of that phrase} post work is not a bad thing honestly it can really stretch your legs. it can make you grow and increase your skills. I have had a few pieces come out that didnt really need post work the joints where ok...etc. but I still did it to tweek it out trying to get it better. it would be like me creating a header with just flat text and no shadow or anything else..it would be bland. you -could- do it but it is more appealing to the eye if you tweek it out ..add some shadow, depth etc. you -can- get great poser raw work. but tweeking it out with post work you can get some wonderful work. So with that..it shows that a poser artist is more then a click clicker..it shows you have to have skills beyond dial tweeking.

Art is not judged on:

The ability to animate!
What method by which the image was created!
How long it took!
How much you got paid for it!
Whether a professional FX house finds it useful!

Art is vision plain and simple. You either have it or you don't, and those that do, will have that artistic talent show through no matter what medium or what skill level they are on in the media of their choice.

Photography is an excellent example of vision as art. I've seen hundreds of pictures of Cinderella Castle at Disney World and they range from the bad, to the standard stock tourist shots (grandma in front of the castle), but then there are some who can capture the magic and enchantment in a way that is not seen before. It is these people who are the photographic artists.

Art to me is using what is available to you in the most creative and emotional way you can. As in the end, it's not the method that you use that the public will care about, it's what is said in the image, and whether it speaks to them. BTW, Michael Whelan who is one of the premier fantasy artists uses a wide assortment of 3D applications in his work. Do you want to tell the book companies and people who hire him, he's not an artist because he no longer sees a reason to paint from scratch?

Professional FX houses and movie companies are not the only market for imagery, but it seems that is all that the snobs of 3D seem to concentrate on. There are many different venues, including ad copy, illustrative work, book covers, prints and posters, and more. I've sold some pieces for corporate christmas cards, T-Shirts, and prints. Does that mean I'm not an artist, because I used 3D?

As for the same thing seen in a lot of places, do you really think Peter Jackson of Lord of the Rings fame is not an artist? After all, Elijah Wood has been in a lot of movies, as well as many of the other actors and actresses. Isn't he recycling the same acting style as other movies? No, because he's able to put them into a world where they are believable in their parts. Did Peter Jackson build the sets? Nope, not that either. He merely directed the action and in doing so, created an amazing piece of art.

Actually I don't consider myself an artist, though I've been told I am. I tend to think of myself as more of a storyteller than anything, an entertainer of sorts that strives to evoke emotion in my work, as many do here. That Poser picture above in the example against the acrylic painting does that. It causes suspense, wonder of what is lurking in the shadows. Technique and craftsmanship come with learning, but the ability to create such emotion is a talent in itself, and to me where art lies...

ShadowWind

As a side note, Disney, who has (or had at the time) one of the best animation artists in the country, used Poser (and rather stock Poser too) to do the illustrative work for the ride safety film at EPCOT. Now they certainly know the difference between 3DS Max and Poser, but it served it's purpose.

~just claps~ BRAVO shadowwind!

DarkElegance said "BTW...the gallery that I must say is giving more of a fair shake to poser art lately....is Epilogue." I had seen a lot of posts to the contrary, and comments on ppl's pics that seemed to contradict it, so I wanted to see if they had changed. I tried submitting a few pics there and got the "Not Epilogue Quality" rejection. That in itself can be interpreted as fairly snobbish unless they have standards to back it up. Also the explaination of that rejection category is pretty general and vague so they can use it for a whole lot. "Not Epilogue Quality - This usually means that your submission needs major work in several areas. It may also mean that you've tried to submit art that is drawn on lined paper, or has been torn and taped together, or is otherwise badly presented." Some of it doesn't apply since it never was on paper and can't have scanner errors in it. Major work and badly presented can apply to almost anything and doesn't say what was wrong with the image specifically. Here are the ones that I submitted: http://argon.glittzzzy.topcities.com/web/pan/pics/BarbarianBallet1.jpg http://argon.glittzzzy.topcities.com/web/pan/pics/AngelFace1.jpg http://argon.glittzzzy.topcities.com/web/sierra/StellarRider.jpg Were they substandard or was it the bias of the judges? Without a more detailed explaination of the reasons for the rejections it's hard to tell if they've changed or not. On the other hand that might be the point by using such general terms they have something to hide behind while they continue their predjudices.

I agree completely, but that's my main "problem" with Poser is that you really do need to postwork 90% of what is rendered I rarely postwork my images, and I dont think they fall in the Poser trap. The problem, IMHO, is that folks dont think very far outside the box when it comes to this program. I mean, look at that image on the right: the lighting is dreadful; there's no sense of utilizing the space; the expression is completely vacuous. And this happens in 90% of what is rendered: people dont plan their images beyond the first few steps, and then they expect the program and the purchased items to do it all for them. Rarely do you see anything in the way of real expression work. Rarely do you see any work within the materials window to actually bring out highlights and shadows in a more realistic way. And sometimes even the most basic things get ignored: look at that image and explain why there aren't any shadows under her? The light is directly overhead, so where are they? See, these are the sloppy things that ruin a lot of Poser images. Yeah, yeah, I know, we're hobbyists, we're not creating serious art, blah blah blah. That doesn't excuse ignoring a few basics when working on an image. Postwork isn't gonna solve all your problems.

I usually use a bunch of different programs to make the images better than 1 can alone. In the 3 I just mentioned I used Poser, Bryce, Adobe Illustrator and Paint Shop Pro. Each has stuff it does better than others and adds to the quality of the pic. But apparently that's not the kind of quality they want since I tried asking what I could to improve them and bring them up to "Epilogue Quality" and was told "I think the use of 3d programs is too obvious.... And I would get rid of the glowing stars and stuff as they look video-game ish." and "It looks to me like you have used Poser or another 3D modelling tool to render your figures and some other elements in the pictures." so that seems that recognizing Poser in an image is counted against it or even using a 3D program is a mark of shame among the majority of ppl there. You can do sloppy images in any medium, it's the amount of effort and care you put into them that provides the quality. But why single out 1 particular tool or technique? Isn't that like saying if you can tell a pallette brush was used in an oil painting that it's substandard?

There is some validity to the idea that it is "the tool" and not "the artist" - but there is also some reality involved - some tools are so limited that they tend to force the artist into certian patterns. Other tools tend to build a community that tends to certain techniques. You really can almost always pick out a Poser work, or a Bryce work for instance. When you combine that with a community that has a standard set much differently than the 3D community at large and you will come against this often. Someone from the Poser community that is routinely hailed as a render god will usually get crushed int he larger 3d community - because in general the Poser community has very, very low standards.This is a side result of it being a hobby, and not even a bad thing - but don't be shocked when a work that would get a 9 here in poser world is a 5 outside of it. There is snobbery out there, but it has more basis than some think.

in general the Poser community has very, very low standards I wouldn't say that it is lower standards as much as it is a lower experience level. So, that brings up a question. Are the people in the community doing their fellow artists a service by giving them an "excellent" rating if the artwork could use some improvement? There IS a way of providing constructive criticism, or pointing out the flaws in an image, without it sounding like bashing. I think one of the biggest problems in the Poser community as a whole is that there isn't enough "growth encouragement." In other words, so many are afraid that suggestions for improvement will come across as trolling.

Deecey, if I wrote what I did above about that image, I can guarantee you it would be seen as trolling, no matter how much I cushion it. Over the years (all two or three of them) that I've been part of this community, I've tried to encourage people to raise their standards when it's looking at things with a critical eye -- and in supportive, positive ways. But just try to ask a Poser god why s/he did a certain thing or what some particular effect was supposed to do, and you're accused of trolling, since, after all, this is questioning one of the stars, and we're not supposed to do that. We're supposed to look at it, tell them how wonderful it is, and then move on. Well, frankly, if the gods cant take the occasional critique, what hope is there for us mere mortals? I used to provide fairly detailed critiques about lighting and composition and colour; now, I just dont bother because its simply not worth the hassle in the end. If folks want to know, let them post it in a WIP gallery, where critique is expected and welcome. But I'm not about to tread through the mine field of trying to figure out who is and is not open to having their work discussed. And I daresay a lot of other folk feel the same way. To be perfectly blunt, there's a lot of crap out there, and a lot of it gets the inevitable "oooo, how gorgeous" remark, when in fact it's anything but. But because the right character and the right skin texture and the latest prop or wardrobe product is used, it's sorta expected that we ooo and ahh over the image, no matter how banal it might be. We just cant say it's banal, and there's the trick. How can we expect to ever raise the standards when we seem to want the merchants to just do it for us?

Ok Sean then what are the standards? I know I get tired of comments like "cool image and nicely done!" they're nice but not very helpful and others that are negative but don't add anything like "that sucks" and such aren't worth very much either. I'll take criticism when it tells me how to improve the image but what I've been wondering is who is qualified to give advice on it? The 3 I submitted to Epilogue I got several that said "You need to have a good look through the galleries here and study the images. Get a general idea of the quality required" since most of the pics there were 2D and even those that were started with Poser seemed to be turned into 2D with extensive postwork so that it was more about comforming to a style used at Epilogue than what the artist wanted for the pic. I'm all for using as many tools, filters and techniques as possible to improve an image, but when does it go past fixing flaws and when does it become conforming to someone elses vision and not what the artist intended for it?

We just cant say it's banal, and there's the trick. How can we expect to ever raise the standards when we seem to want the merchants to just do it for us? I agree wholeheartedly ... and as I said before, it is to the detriment of an individual's artistic growth to have things be that way. When I get suggestions for improvement, I take them to heart, I make improvements, and I repost. I wouldn't take offense if someone said "The pose is a little stiff" or "You know, you can pose the eyes and hands a bit more ... they don't reflect much emotion" or "The postwork on the hair could be refined a bit more." Most often when I get comments like that, I agree with them, and I fix it! It's all part of growth.

what I've been wondering is who is qualified to give advice on it? Generally, those who have "been there" and have since advanced in their skills. You generally get meaningful and constructive criticism from those who know how an image can be improved ... those who have already struggled through the same pitfalls and have gained more experience. This is not to say that an artist has to know how to use Poser in order to suggest improvements to a Poser image - because the improvements needed may not be directly related to Poser. Hope that makes sense.

I wouldn't take offense if someone said "The pose is a little stiff" or "You know, you can pose the eyes and hands a bit more ... they don't reflect much emotion" or "The postwork on the hair could be refined a bit more." Most often when I get comments like that, I agree with them, and I fix it! It's all part of growth. Unfortunately, you're in a minority in that. Some people get extremely bent out of shape by anything that even remotely looks like it's "negative". Like Sean, I'm actually pretty good at giving detailed and specific suggestions as to things that might be something to consider, as well as the strengths of the image (because you need to know what you're doing right, too!). And like Sean, I don't waste my bandwidth unless I know for absolutely positively sure someone REALLY wants to know. ;-) bonni

I'll take criticism when it tells me how to improve the image but what I've been wondering is who is qualified to give advice on it? This is gonna sound self-aggrandizing as all hell, and it's not meant to. But think about it: some of us have been working in the visual arts for over two decades. I may not be able to change the brake pads on my truck, but I can look at an image and tell you in a second what can improve it: it comes with cultivating an eye, just as some folks know how to create a Baked Alaska from scratch and some folks can take a bolt of cloth and create an outfit without even looking at a pattern and some people can convert a pile of raw lumber into a gorgeous piece of furniture. But you have to work to get to that point, and I mean seriously work. And because most of us are hobbyists, that seems a bit of an antithesis with something you do just as a hobby -- or at least that's what folks will say. And my response to that is, nonsense. I know folks who are active participants in competitive country-western dancing, and these folks work their little tails off to give the best presentation they know how. And they're doing it for fun, not as a profession. But the fact that they're doing it for fun doesn't stop them from working on a single step combination for hours on end, so that when they're on the dance floor, and the judges are watching, that combo is gonna twinkle and shine. Now, yeah, there are a lot more who just go out there on the floor and dance to have a good time and nothing more. I'm one of them: I love to two-step and West Coast Swing and triple-step, and I know I'm far from good enough to get into the competitive level in any of these. But I've been watching the competitors, and I have some idea of what makes a good dancer -- and now it's started to filter into my own dancing: I'm a better lead, with better control, and more assurance to guide my partner through some tricky yet fun combinations. It adds to the enjoyment without making it into a big deal. So if you want to raise the bar on your own work, you look for people whose opinions you trust and whose work sets the standard you want for your own, and then you ask for their opionion on your stuff and go from there. You'll find real quick that most people are happy to work with you if you want, but unfortunately you have to take the first step in this community and cultivate those kinds of relationships. And you'll find it's a slightly different world than the usual Poser galleries: right now, I have a circle of about six I mentor, and I in turn am mentored by someone whose work I admire so much it's almost disgusting. The day she agreed to start working with me was a major step up for me as a Poser artist. But you have to look for that compatable style. Mine tends to be almost graphic in its simplicity, but it has a ton and a half of stuff underneath the hood: subtle lighting effects, subtle body positioning, subtle facial expressions. There's not a lot of background, in the main, because I put emphasis on the character, not the situation. It's a lot of work, but (hopefully) it shows without drawing too much attention to itself. And when you get that kind of result... man, you have no idea what a rush it can be. But you have to be willing to push the envelope a bit.