I didn't read the thread, but they do have these galleries, one is the poser gallery and one is the mixed medium gallery, I aleays thought that the mixed medium was for postworked or images that took more then 1 software from start to final image.

Unless you are in the business of selling software... why in hell do you care about educating people as to what can be done within a program alone? If I see a figure in a Terragen or Bryce render... do I care if that figure came from Poser? Nope. I care if it is a decently composed and lit image. "Is it art" is a different question from "did he make this with charcoal that he collected himself from candle soot". You might note that the only Poser image I have here doesn't have a signature (but does have a frame)... do I scream "no postwork!" even though it would have been MUCH faster to paint the fingers where I wanted them? Or paint the swirly web stuff in the background rather than scanning, cleaning, tiling, filtering and then slapping the texture on a one-sided square? I don't even bother not to mention it. Whether there is postwork or not is absolutely totally completely unimportant. I can certainly paint (have been a professional artist for decades), but I really don't care if anybody else does a pure render or not. That is THEIR business. My art is MY business. And I'm not interested in selling any software package, so offering up a pure example just for purity's sake is about as appealing as visiting the dentist. This whole issue is sheep and goats... and how to exclude others who might possibly contaminate your vision by being in the same room. :ptui: Carolly

Carolly, if you haven't bothered to take the time to read what is being actually discussed in this thread then please don't post your opinions. I knew it would be only a matter of time (see my very first post) before someone started ranting and raving about "My art is My Business".
NO ONE IS DISPUTING THAT OK?????
In summary (just for you Carolly) I don't want to banish postwork, (I do it myself when the image calls for it). I just want an easy way of being able to distinguish between art that is postworked and art that isn't. IS that SO hard a concept to understand?
Sheesh!

Just a few points: It is not up to people posting images to act as advertisers for the software. It is not their duty to show people what can be achieved by one package alone. They paid for the software, they can do whatever they like with it. There is no such thing as cheating in 3d. You should use all the tools at your disposal, all the time. All that matters is the final image. There is an image in my Terragen gallery that I created with 4 applications. No-one over there cared about how it was created. I simply don't understand this purist mentality.

I have a suggestion....:( It may not be a very populour one, but here goes... If you are really really dead set on having a pure render gallery, and I assume from the sheer magnitude of posts here that some people are of the opinion it would be a good thing. Why not start your own up, web pages are very easy to make, not as exspensive to run as the average 3D program. Chances are only then would you truly get such a seperated gallery. After all as someone has already mentioned postworking, and the plug-ins used for it make up a large part of renderositys revenue. And I can tell you now this site will not be cheap to run. On a side note, I am glad now to some extent that the poser gallery was not seperated as suggested here, as I for one wouldn't have bought the program in the first place. I was lured into getting Poser after seeing rogue-elements, toxic-angels, and ravnhearts lush images. I'm not a big fan of pure poser works as they don't conform to my idea of fantsy art. This is getting just a little too heated in places, and really at the end of the day unless you are so motivated for a pure poser or software gallery that you'd make your own, I can't understand why it matters so much that any artwork be seperated.

I just read about 15 posts and jumped straight to the end. 95% of my stuff is pure render. I've always stated getting nothing but pure renders out and seeing what can be done. Even have pictures in my gallery specifically for that. So I support this idea, for what it's worth. Not that I really care anyways, I'm only here for the monthly submission and the occassional cool thing (April Fools!).

It would be great if there was a "No-Postwork" gallery. I'm fed up with all those lame, dull, expressionless images that are poorly lit and horribly executed. If a person has no imagination further than what can be done in the Poser renderer, then I think it would be great for their images to go into their own exclusive gallery. This way, I won't have to see these pictures ever again since I won't ever go into that gallery. Please, Please, Please bring this on!!!!! Also can we have a "NVIATWAS" gallery also.

stealth1701, Unfortunately, I HAVE read all the messages in this thread. and I've seen these arguments come and go and come and go repeatedly. Sheep and goats, and YOU want to distinguish them with red brands on their butts because you can't tell straight horns from curly horns without a label? Why? Why does it matter??? If you need the label, anybody can sell you anything. Why is there such a crying, screeching, high-pitched whining need to be exclusive (oh, wowie)... based upon whether or not one works with the rendered image to make it closer to the artist's own vision? Ansel Adams baked many of his prints in the microwave to bring out details... does THAT make him less of an artist? (ack! postwork!!) A cheater??? That is what you are implying... and why we are peeved at this argument continuing over and over and over. It doesn't matter if it is photographers are cheaters or Poser users are cheaters or postworkers are cheaters... you are still claiming by your constant clamor for PURITY that all else falls short and is less true, less ideal, less worthy. You can take your red cloth and wind it around your own horns. Some of us refuse to be driven into the desert so that you can be pure. Oh, and the idea mentioned above of starting your own gallery at your own site is a great one. That way you can police every entry for postwork abuse and seal the blessed ones with your own mark of purity. Carolly

I have long thought that organizing the galleries by programs used is a rather stupid way to set things up. At one time, it probably made sense, but it doesn't any more. However, getting changes at Renderosity is a long, painful, tedious process, and one which has little hope of success. bonni

There are more programs every year... as well as the stuff we hang onto. DeluxePaint anyone else? I was just reading about Modo tonight. Just a modeler for now, but with intentions to spread into rendering and animation. A complete makeover of the galleries here would be impossible unless they started with a clean slate and allowed everybody to re-upload all at once, no quota, and beware the server meltdown! Categorizing based upon the program last used, or the one in which it is rendered, is simple compared to choosing genre. Example: suppose I pun on Brownian Motion with a hyperactive little brownie... does he go under humor?, fairies?, fantasy? Koi appearing in the puddles of a sidewalk under high-heeled shoes... surreality? glamour? Or maybe I'll finish the undead mermaid picture... fantasy? horror? seascape? Suddenly, naming a program is easy! Yet, if I was a newcomer browsing these galleries for seascapes or cats or trains... would I want to have to search separately under each possible type of software? Of course, if all the cat images were together, we wouldn't have to look at dogs... and if the NVIATWAS were together, searching the rest of the galleries would be faster. ;) The advantage to this is that it would be non-judgemental... if you had an image of a cat, it wouldn't matter if you drew it, photographed it, or built-rigged-and-rendered it in Maya as long as a cat was in the image, and the purists would have to find something else to use as a measuring stick... like maybe how GOOD the iamge was. Carolly

Carolly
It is evident that you HAVEN'T read the thread properly. I have stated above that I use postwork myself when the deficiencies of the packages (and there are many) don't allow me to produce the image I want. So, I'm not the 'Purist' you keep branding me as.
Believe it or not I LIKE looking at good Postworked images BUT I also appreciate the technical challenges in getting a package to render the image exactly the way I want it.
I know there are darn good artists out there but I am (personally) more interested in seeing how far a package can be pushed to produce the same image as an artist since thats the area that facinates me. I am sure there are others that share this facination too and all I want is a quick way of finding images that show what is possible using CGI on its own.
Think of the two requests as separate - I want to look at pretty images regardlesss of HOW they were produced AND I want to look at images that show me whats possible using pure scene construction and lighting using the package alone.
I can only assume that the reason you are getting so anal about this is that you are technically challenged as far as using the packages go and want to prove your worth as an artist. Well heres some news for you - I DON'T CARE how you produce your images if they are good (no matter how they are produced) then I'll appreciate them.
Personally (because thats where my interest lies) if you managed to produce a photo-realistic scene by pushing those packages to the limit then it inspires me to learn more about my package - thats all!

Oh just in case you still haven't got it, let me re-iterate. I DON'T CARE how you produce your images and if they are good I'll appreciate them and I don't want to see postworked images banished from the gallery!!!

Oh one last thing before I put this to bed -
Have I EVER said that using Postwork makes one less of an artist as you state in your post above? NO! So, I'd appreciate it very much if you would stop putting words in my mouth. READ THE POST AND STOP TWISTING WHAT I AM TRYING TO SAY!!!!

Message edited on: 04/01/2005 03:07

@ Reply #62: Well said. ^_^

Let's face it folks, the systems in place on this site are beginning to really show their age now. Everything from the TOS to the categorization to the actual system itself.

Renderosity needs an overhaul (especially the forum section!) and that's what needs to be worked on.
@ Reply #61: Wow, pulling out the old software with that DeluxePaint reference aren't ya? ^_^

Message edited on: 04/01/2005 08:54

but I am (personally) more interested in seeing how far a package can be pushed to produce the same image as an artist since thats the area that facinates me. I am sure there are others that share this facination too and all I want is a quick way of finding images that show what is possible using CGI on its own.

Then this is the problem, you are on the wrong site, this is an art/gallery site not a programers or poser specific site. Problem with this argument as it continues and gets more heated is that people assume that the largest number of people browsing here are artists, they aren't, and they certainly aren't poser/bryce/lightwave or whatever users. They are purley and simply art lovers, whose only interest lies in the finished image.
I have read and understood this thread, and it seems clear that your interst lies not in art itself and the images produces, rather than in the technical aspects and program skill used to achieve it.
Surely there is a programers based forum or gallery at Curious Labs, if there isn't thats where you should be concentrating your efforts. As this is an art site only a very small number would really be interested in pushing the program to it's limits. As shown on this thread, for Renderosity to open another gallery just for maybe a few 100 members wouldn't be cost effective especially as they create a vast amount of revenue from postworking aids. It would also mean sadly that less people would actually see these technical inspired images either as the average non artistic viewer would pass right by having no appreciation what so ever of such technical inspired images. I am well aware that there is a lot of talent going into being a pure render image, but this talent takes time and lets face it while you're learning the images tend to be dry and dull IMHO. If you are paying for bandwidth lets face it, would you sift through such galleries to find the diamonds if thats not your particular interest.
I see no reason to segregate art at all whatever form in an ART site, I know you have stated that you don't care how someone produces and image, and thats good. But segregating galleries into such specific catagories will eventually perpetuate in people disputing what is actually art and what isn't.Thats something we can't quantify, after all the biological digestion system is a wonderful thing, and I now know from watching the turner art prize that eating specific foods, letting biology take it's course and then regurgitating them on canvas makes striking colours and pictures. Would I calssify it as art, well thats another story .
Such segregation will eventually lead to purist rants, and people claiming they can quantify and classify art shudder.
Lets just all stop getting our panties in a bunch and calm down, lets get back to the main reason for being here art.
After all if you are more intrested in the technical side of it, there is a staggering array of much cheaper to run forums where you can discuss techniques till the cows come home.

Come on guys we are artists, lets make it about the art.

Message edited on: 04/01/2005 10:00

There is another big difference between postworked and not postworked images, but the difference is not easily defined by the use or not of postwork. Most images rendered with Poser 5, I haven't opinion on Poser 6 yet, and many poorly rendered in Poser 4 can fit in the same cathegory of postworked. Why?, which is the difference? Some postworked images, some rendered in Poser 5, are beautiful, are a piece of art, so what's the problem? They are NOT NATURAL, are only a great illustration! Of court all depend what are you doing, if you are doing cartoons, illustrations, comics, etc, of course that your goal is not natural scenes, so this post don't apply to you. Rendering hair is difficult, the rendered hair in most cases don't look natural, but if you postwork the hair you are going more away from natural scenes even can be nicer. Take a look at the Poser galleries and tell me how many images you find that look as it were taken by a photographic camera, there are very few. Bryce landscapes can be beautiful, but are not natural. Vue gives much better result. My gallery is an atempt for making natural scenes, in some pictures I achieved some result in others I am very far away.

WARNING: Way too Long-winded Post
I remember reading the earlier thread about a no-postwork gallery, and dismissing it at the time as "purism". But IMHO stealth has made an a good case here. However, is it convincing?

"I knew it wouldn't take long before someone COMPLETELY mis-interpreted the thread!!!!"
"Why are so many of you having such difficulty with this concept?" oilscum
Some people may be reacting emotionally because they feel criticized or threatened, like someone is telling them that their postwork is evil, and they should not be doing it, and they should be stopped from doing it.

I know that Hauksdottir knows more than me about Poser and posts stuff always worth reading. I am a wolfe359 fan (has been on my list of fave artists for a long time). I am far closer to being an "expert" with Photoshop than with Poser. But I think some missed the point that the thread is not about whether postwork is good or evil, or whether or not it can or cannot enhance an image (no one has been arguing that it cannot).

"If some people feel strongly enough about 'no postwork' images, what's stopping them from simply putting that in their descriptions? Why would this take a separate gallery? I don't get it." linkdink

Yes, and people could put "Vue" and "Poser" and "Fractal" in their descriptions. So why do they need gallery categories at all?'' Maybe Elizabyte is right that these categories are antiquated, but that is a little OT, isn't it? Categories are here, should Non-Post have one or not is the question.

"Ansel Adams baked many of his prints in the microwave..." hauksdottir
Maybe we need a new category "Photography and Microwave".

DEFINITION of "NO Postwork":
"...need to accept that different people will draw the lines in slightly different places." eirian

"...like many others I can see it as being a headache to define what is or isn't post-work." johan99

"no postwork, period, not even sigs, nothing should be done after clicking the "render" button now you say you want a sig in your pic? 3d apps can EASILY (atleast for me and i suck ahah) have the sig there before clicking render" - anxcon

"Pray tell me what is the difference between "fixing the exposure" and altering the saturation? Changing the hue range? Upping the contrast? Correcting the gamma?"

Vague definitions are a conern in many endeavors (what' is 'mood' or even '3D', what's a fractal and what isn't?. But if you defing 'no-postwork' as 'render only' then a no post gallery has a very, very clear defintion. A no-postwork image is a render.

As anxcom said, if you want a signature, create a 3D object as your signature. I would not categorize a watermark as postwork but rather legal protection. A watermark should be invisible, so not a concern at all, just a red herring in the argument.

The only practical problem I see might be Rosity's restrictions on gallery image size. You can use PShop tricks (blurring tool, levels, etc) to cut down on the amount of info in an image to reduce the size of it to fit restrictions. Most Poser renders of quality are going to be awful fat.

"The reason it won't work is that there's no way we can be certain whether or not they postworked their image. Some of these artists are so good that you can't tell, one way or the other. Any enforcement measures you might put in place would only serve to alienate and cause bitter arguments and accusations." mateo_sancarlos
"$$$hire$$ computer forensic specialist to examine every upload to check for 'inconsistent bit map data indicative of post manipulation'???"
wolf359

Do they use forensic experts to determine if every image in the Fractal catetory was made using fractal software? Anyway, if it ever came to the point of having to prove it (say in a contest with real prizes) a test:

1. Save the pz3.
2. Copy it (and any unique geometries and textures) to a computer which (legally) has the required geometries and textures (V3, whatever).
3. Load the pz3.
4. Click 'Render'.
   The image produced should be identical.

"I think what you guys want is a 'render only gallery'. This gallery could be for all softwares, and be only about rendering..." caravaggio
"Nonetheless, a VERY intriguing idea. If you can't get it accepted here, there are always other avenues." oilscum
"...perhaps an added 'genre' option..." eirian
"...here is a thread devoted to Poser and no postwork. there are other apps, you know....and there are issues about postwork for all of them. it's kind of rude to strictly limit this issue to poser." Poppi
"...Why not start your own up, web pages are very easy to make..." sinisterpink

A MODEST PROPOSAL
Maybe this concept deserves more than a gallery, or even just webpages (I have created lots of webpages from scratch HTML, but a gallery would be a little more complicated). Somebody should start a whole website "nopostwork.com". As has been noted in this thread, the concept is as good for Vue and Carrara as for Poser. (Just checked and he domain name "nopostwork.com" is available, as I write this.) If you build it, I will come.

but a gallery would be a little more complicated... not if you had php and mysql capabilities on what ever hosting service you chose. That means you could upload a database gallery similar to the one here, with comments enabled and whats more many of the programs like gallery and coppermine are free to use. As I say if you feel that strongly about something it's always better to do something about it. I'm all for action :) Pink

Qualien - Thanks for your post - it is far from being "long-winded" - a concise summary of the points raised by everyone I'd say. A great idea about nopostwork.com but I'm not sure I want to go to a completely new site. I like renderosity, I like the forums and the galleries and the freestuff that I can access from the same page of links. I just wish there was a way for postworked and non-postworked images to exist together and people could look at the types of images that interests them.
For me it is images that show off the artistry of the software developers who are pushing the boundaries of what software can do in modelling the real world, for others it is the look of the final image and for still others it is images with large boobs in them (postworked or not)!
If I have stepped on anyones toes during this thread due to misunderstanding then I apologize but I am really not trying to make out that one technique is superior to another - just different. And thank goodness there are differences or the gallery would just be full of boob images!
The ideal solution would be for artists to select what tools they used in prodcing their images when they upload and for a new search screen which will allow you to narrow the images down to the type of images that interest the individual. Putting no criteria into the search would display all the images as it is in the gallery now.
I was hoping that if enough people felt the same way then maybe Renderosity might consider it. However, I know this is unlikely to happen now since there seems to be so much opposition (albeit misplaced opposition by artists getting hot under the collar and assuming I was personally attacking their methods). Oh, well it was worth a try.
Thanks to everyone for participating...
Stealth

OK my 2 cents worth. I am a no-postwork artist, mainly because I build all of the stuff I render. I fix the items rather then the image, because that is what I enjoy, can I do post work? Yes I do it for a living. I do use poser 6, I do use materials (I've created close to 400 of them and gave them all to the Rosity community), I do use FireFly and nothing but (P4 render engine for quick test renders only), why? because I enjoy the challenge of doing it that way. I think a "No-Postwork" gallery has merrit, but then to ballance it you would need a "Major Postwork" gallery. Many of the heavy postwork images drop my jaw and blow me away.

Personally, I usually post my images in the Poser Gallery because they have some element of Poser in them. But they are usually all very postworked for clothing and hair etc... The reason I do not post them in 2D Mixed Medium, frankly, is because more people look at them in the Poser Gallery. If there were a Paint Shop Pro Gallery here at Rendorosity I would gladly post them there as I am very proud of the work I put into them and it takes a long time to do each one. But most of my friends here are heavily into Poser and I think they'd miss out if I post somewhere else. Anyway, postwork or not... if the image is really good what does it matter?

If I was looking at Poser as a potential application for the first time and saw these images I would WRONGLY assume that it is capable of all the effects shown in the Gallery. Well, that'd be your own misunderstanding, wouldn't it? I mean, if you were really interested in finding out more about the program, wouldn't you also ask around, talk to some users, etc.? If I fell for every "Look what this program does!" advertising campaign, my hard drive would be overflowing with applications I couldn't use... It's not exactly the moral obligation of Poser users to "show people what can be done". Totally aside from that, I say give the anti-postwork crowd their gallery if it'll make 'em happy. What harm can it do? bonni