I want a cubistic pluggin for Poser. ; )

Ariah - "It's not a walk in the park like many people may think. You take your digital camera, go to a forest, take a snapshot and voila! No such thing." but this was a walk in the park....kinda :) except that i was squating down straddling the creek on to unstable rocks with my feet going numb (cuz we dont usully need proper "cold weather clothing" in Texas) trying to get a shot over the bridge and keep the waterfall in the picture without ending up sitting in the creek. also trying to keep my gloves and jacket out of the picture. not to mention hoping my digial camera would focus while i ballanced precariously. :) ok, so maybe it wasn't really a "walk in the park" :)

So, Tyger_purr;) As easy as point and click, right;)? I don't have digital, I have to wait till I take 38 shots and then see if the light was OK and whether something didn't through me out of focus. Nightmare, but trully rewarding even if I have like 5 shots I really love on hundrets taken...

I took over 80 shots that day ( no reloading :D ), I had a good number of good to great shots (my 360deg panorama is nice), but I had quite a few duds too. Even with the little display on the back, you still don't know if you got the shot till you get it on a computer screen. I've had picts that look great in the little display, but when you get them to a computer they are out of focus. Just because something looks simple or easy, doesn't mean it is.

grrrr.... Oh man that just burns me up. I agree with Elisa Crellin completely. That was such a backhanded compliment. I don't see why she doesn't get that it implies we are less than she.

(Old Man voice) Back in my day, we didn't have no fancy brushes, acrylic paint and canvas - no siree, we burnt and ground our own charcoal with rocks, mixed it with fat we rendered from a wooly mammoth and tied our own horse hair to a stick that we pulled off the tail of a wild stallion! and by golly, we liked it! (Old Man voice off) My answer to elitists on any subject - Bite Me! Snowsultan, I LOVE your Peter Pan picture - awesome and chock full of detail!

Ok, if these guys are so against digital media, why do they have a WEBSITE? Isn't that digital in itself? If you've transcribed your oil paintings or whatnot into 0's and 1's through a scanner or camera, it is a now a digital representation, no? Or is it that hard to find that many pompous asses in once place in the real world?

I just can't get out of my mind the idea that something isn't art if all you do is arrange existing objects... Sure, there's plenty of that in the art galleroes of the world, such as the notorious pile of bricks in the Tate. But how is Poser different from a photographer in a studio, arranging the model and some props? It may be that a soft-porn pin-up isn't art, but that has nothing to do with how it was created.

Yes, people have all their own definitions of ART, but the real definition is in the dictionary:

art1 Audio pronunciation of art ( P ) Pronunciation Key (t)
n.

1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
3. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
4. The study of these activities.
5. The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.
6. High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.
7. A field or category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature.
8. A nonscientific branch of learning; one of the liberal arts.
10. A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of building.
11. A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and methods: the art of the lexicographer.
13. Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of the baker; the blacksmith's art.
14. Skill arising from the exercise of intuitive faculties: Self-criticism is an art not many are qualified to practice (Joyce Carol Oates).
16. arts Artful devices, stratagems, and tricks.
17. Artful contrivance; cunning.
18. Printing. Illustrative material.

END OF ARGUMENT.
:-)

I totally agree with a point made by kitty5 about the "ahhs" and "owwws" theres way too many. Ive turned into one ov these ppl unfortunately. i would love to comment on a artistic only basis, but this would serve only to have my work totally ignored. I think part ov the Above problem when ppl/fellow artists come here is they see " pat my back and ill pat your back comments " and very little in the way ov pure Art Talk, giving outsiders the impression we know nothing about art. When in fact there is an abundance of great artists here but also quite afew not so great, who in my opinion will never benefit from open and honest criticism. Nobody told Hitler he was shit at strategy and warfare, did he improve?...naa he walked round with his head up his ass thinking he was Boss Hog. he never learnt a thing from constant pats on the back. so when ppl see OOOOOH and Aaaaaah and woweeeee Kazzooooweee. on work that is basically crap and in need ov artistic constructive guidance I can understand how ppl can come to think of Poser as nothing more than Art in a Box. if we at least spoke like artists i think this " OHH POSER artists.....did you know we are not artists? " problem would be non-existent. On a personal note i dint give a shit who thinks whats art and whats not, i believe in freedom ov expression and freedom ov speech after all I'm an artist through and through. plus as an adult I find it hard to cry over silly name calling. i just get on with with my art instead ~ peace ~ E Kaos

You know, I think I've had enough of this. With the state that our country and the world are in, I feel lucky to be afforded the right to complain about things. There are many people that have no computers, food, water, or graphic software to create art with. Even if they had the materials to create art, they are too busy surviving. I know this is a bit beside the point, and weve all had our chance to bitch about this topic, but Im feeling all bitched out reading this thread.

Considering that our company is almost entirely focused on Poser development and that everyone here uses it on a daily basis, added to that the fact that we've successfully used it numerous times for more commercial purposes than I care to recall... well, it's rubbish. The "high end" people don't like the idea that a "low end" solution might just work for a lot of things. Granted, I'm a Maya user. I love Maya. There are a lot of things in Maya that Poser can't touch. But at the same time, Poser has a lot more going for it than the naysayers will ever admit. For that matter, I've known a LOT of "high end" 3d folks who will slam Poser publicly, but then pull out thier copy on the closet at home and tinker away having a grand old time. Poser is a tool. Slamming people for making art with Poser is something that has irked me for years. Not all art made with Poser floats my boat, just as not all art made with Maya, Max, oil paints, pencils, celluloid, or whatever you can imagine might not work for me either. One of the big reasons "low end" apps like Poser get slammed is that if a studio blows a big budget on high dollar software, they'll never want to admit that there might have been a cheaper means to thier ends because all of a sudden it becoms plain that they've wasted thier money, which is bad for business. I have far more respect for people who have the "right tool for the right job" mentality. Sometimes Poser is the right tool, sometimes not, but slamming those who use it as "not real artists" is like reversed self aggrandizment, tearing the other folks down to make themselves feel better. Truly a sad, sad thing. Keep on Posin', folks. :) -Les

Ariah said: "Trust me - to get a stunning shot of a sunrise, you have to BE there, at that particular sunrise, have good lense filter to catch the flare..." But that's the whole point with 3D art, too. Even in Poser, it takes more than just slapping a few things into the image. It takes a lot of creativity to arrange things so that they tell a story or convey a certain emotion. The objects themselves are not what makes it art, just like snapping a sunset with a camera, it's what the image says and the work and talent that went into arranging it just so, in order to send a message or give the viewer something to think about. Flower arranging is an art, but the artist who arranges them didn't create them. Even if they grew the flowers in their garden, they didn't create them. Just my thoughts. Melanie

So I'm to believe that if I were to snort a couple of Pixie Sticks, then blow my nose on a canvas, frame it, get oohs and ahhs from an audience...

...art is art no matter how it came to be.

Originality scores points with me, but it isn't everything.
Some think the complete opposite.
That's life.
Some people use Photoshop, I prefer PSP.
Some feel a work is incomplete without postwork, I like my work "as rendered".
What's the difference?
Preference.
What's important?
The end product.
Art.
It's more than just a picture.

Mark

hmm i dont doubt this thread holds at least a small amount of pertinent and brilliant answers but, HELL, this topic is brought back on the spotlight every 2 weeks... when you ar ea minority and themajority think you are a worthless piece of junk the only think you can do is bear with it. dumb mass cannot be perusaded NOR EVEN convinced. so stop loosing time trying to explain to narrowminded peopel with monolithic selfmade ideas (that they wont change nor listen to you) and make good stuff for people here who can appreciate ! just my two cents, in so it worth a very little more :)

The funny thing is that the majority would think that the material here is valuable. It is why rosity gets so many hits.

Sheesh.

Mostly what you do is ignore the insecure twits who can't make a living or a sale and so are kvetching and whining.

BTW, read the original poster's comments over on the other site. They actually made sense: This is actually hilarious because I both have used Poser MANY times, and I have a degree in graphic design. Feel free to visit my website at www.sapphire-designs.com for proof. I've also defended MANY artists that have used Poser and Bryce and other similar programs. Here are my points: The image had no painting in it, whatsoever. The girl was a 3d model purchased at Renderosity. The dress and flowers were 3d models. The background was a picture of a flower with a filter applied. The image had nothing original in it, nothing the artist created herself. While this is ok at Rend, Epilogue is supposed to be about originality and creativity. This image showed neither. I'm not an art snob, far from it. I agree with both of you. I'm a digital artist and started out that way, and just recently decided to learn drawing and watercolors. I am, however, not stupid or blind. I can see what was done originally and what wasn't. I think Epilogue needs moderators that are familar with Poser so they can tell what is original and took alot of work, and what didn't. When you've used Poser as much as I have, you can spot hard work easily, and you can also spot a scene that was merely put together with others' hard work. Every Poser artist out there knows what I'm talking about. And if you go to the link for the image (http://www.epilogue.net/cgi/database/art/view.pl?id=68015) it seems the image has been removed. I guess the moderators agreed with me. Poser is a wonderful program, but you sholdn't use it as an excuse not to put in alot of hard work. Ah well.

well given the SO HIGH stanrads of epilogue regarding digital contributions (an old thread last year), i am very surprised such an unpolished/unworked poser render could slip inside... i mean they said once ago "we do not ban poser pictures but they have to be of very high quality and work to be accepted !", i suppose they even required MORE skills than any regular contribution, just to make amend of being made with digital tools ! (or shoudli say: made BY digital tools that work alone when we press the render button ? :) so according to what they were saying last summer 2003, i don't see logical reason that a basic figure with filteres background and unpostworked/unpainted picture could be accepted as a submission.. well, in fact I DO see a reason, but i let my paranoid self speak: they may have let a lesser quality picture (or earlier makign stage one) slip inside their gallery in hope some members would stump on it and raise high again he flags of the "anti poser "crusade.. well in fact if i was an elitist snob that have xenophobic fear of modern/untraditionnal medias and tools who fears for himelf and is unconfident of his own valuable skills and only need to pu people in the mud to make himself shine, I WOULD exactly do THIs for THIS reason :) but i am just a paranoid evil sheming freak (years of gamemastering made me wicked :)