Avengia, you wrote: "Why not push yourself to attempt something that maybe you don't think you can do?" Maybe people have tried to paint hair and can't do it, just like YOU tried painting the human body and can't do it. You admit that you can't paint the human body, but you berate people because they don't paint hair? It's nice to know you're so well versed in hypocrisy. Coldrake

Sam: Hard to let a door hit you in the ass on the way out, when so many people have already slammed it in your face. Everyone who felt like degrading me and being rude: Before I go, let me say one more thing. I NEVER made a personal attack on anyone's art. Never once did I say "so and so is not an artist, and what they do is not art". If you took it personal, then that is your own fault. That means that you are insecure with your own art, and feel that you need to defend it. If you like your art, then you should have just shrugged it off, and said to yourself "I am a wonderful artist, so I don't fall into her opinion." Unless, you just like to argue, then you're going to post no matter what. Everyone is an artist in their own way. I asked a hypothetical question with NO ONE particalar person in mind, and this is what I get. Do you all really have nothing better to do but sit here and spew meaness at someone you do not know??? Let me remind you...I attacked POSER and it's plastic looking materials. NOT the people who use them. I am merely voicing my opinion that those people who take the time to really work with the program are not recognized enough for their skills, nor are those who take the postwork and give it that one final touch. I didn't say theirs was better, or even worse. I merely pointed out a few people who you can TELL put a lot of time and effort into their work to give you examples of the stuff I like to view. More to give you an example of my choice of art. Did I tell you that you have to be like these people in order to be an artist? NO. Did I tell you that you even have to like these people's pieces? NO. Stop twisting my words to make me seem like big, huge, mean ugly person that likes to slander people. That is not me (unless I go on the extreme defensive, which is where I am now). Art is a form of expression...and I know this. You all post your pictures, and no one slanders you for it. I use my words, and I get trashed. Guess we all learned a lesson....it's no one's right to ask "what is art". So, using my artistic ability of words to express myself, I say this... Good Riddance!!

It's all been said before, and can never be resolved, 'cos different people have their own ideas and agenda. Horses for courses and all that. There's NO WAY to discriminate about taste/aesthetics, because it all depends on your own, personal upbringing and experience. It's what you like.... So there's no point in arguing about it. "Who are the better musicians? Mozart? Pink Floyd? Bob Dylan? The Beatles? Schubert" ... etc. It's all a matter of personal choice. There are no absolutes! Cheers, Diolma (who rates Beethoven...)

No offense to anyone, but I went to Avengia's gallery, and though s/he does demonstrate some skill in hair postworking, the few examples I looked at still come short (quality wise) of Kozaburo's free hair models, danae's Paradise hair, and Bliss Vision Hair (all of which I use extensively). So why spend time painting hair if one can pose superior quality hair for free? Unless one needs a style (or position) of hair not already available in a high quality model: e.g. "upside-down" hair or "lying flat on bed" hair.

"To me, it is no longer fun to look at a bunch of pictures of what looks like plastic people with plastic hair thrown in a plastic looking scene."

Gee, that's not insulting. By the way, don't you use those same "plastic" people and props that other people use?

"I am just wondering where all of the hard working, time spending painters have disappeared to."

They're probably painting, not complaining that other people aren't painting.

"Come on, put down the plastic hair and clothes, and grab that mouse/pen...see what magic you can create!"

You can create magic without painting.

"The other thing that bothers me is that there are some people (yes, me included) that do put hours and hours into their pictures, and get only a few comments."

Is that the purpose of your artwork, to get comments?

"Yes, a few of the scenes are quite nice, but none of it looks real to me."

Do you really believe that your images look "real"?

"They are yours, created by your hand, and have YOUR style."

You can have your own style without painting.

"All I wanted to say was that I miss the good old days of poser before all the high tech, fancy-smancy premade shit came out."

Kind of like the Poser figures and props that you use?

"All I'm pointing out is that those that do take the days and days to create 90% of their picture aren't getting the credit they deserve versus those that go into poser and throw some things into a picture in a half hour."

"I have gotten it down to where I can put together a picture in no time at all."

So which is it, do you take days and days to create an image, or do you really put together a picture in no time at all? So your criteria for getting the credit an image deserves is the amount of time spent working on it. OK.......

"I find myself skipping over a lot of pictures lately as I browse the gallery because to me, they all seem the same."

"Every stroke that is painted is done by hand, one by one. And yes, a lot of them look similiar."

I....... nah, I think think those two quotes are pretty well self explanatory.

Newsflash: Painting is not the be all-end all of digital artwork

'Nuff said.

Coldrake

Avengia, you were highly insulting, not only to those who use Poser but also to those who create content for it. And you did this in the Poser forum no less. Of course people were going to rip you a new one. What did you expect? And now you want to pretend that you're the injured party? Please... You should have just made an apology instead of digging yourself in deeper and 'leaving' in a childish snit.

What did you expect? Perhaps for everyone to suddenly say, "Wow, you're SO RIGHT! I see the error of my ways! I'll starting painting hair IMMEDIATELY!" bonni

rofl I deal with childish tantrums on a daily basis but they are usually from toddlers and teenagers ;o)

I see absolutely nothing wrong with using Poser hair vs. painted hair. Its a matter of preference. I know that you didn't mean to imply that poser hair is not hair but it does sound like it. Kiwi: I use Paint Shop Pro too. I know its a pain in the rear. Many of the tuts can be done using Paint Shop Pro doing some tweaking. My fave tut is my Kirisute at Daz. Or you can go with psd layers. Ilona does some excellent ones called "Instant Hair". And psd layers can be opened into Paint Shop Pro.

Good thing i decided to look at this thread right when it's almost gone.. I admire you all cold blooded people, i know i wouldn't be like that to her/him.

I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but it's a real waste of time to hand paint each and every frame of animation. 3D is meant to be animated, and posable hair is a good solution that's faster than both dynamic hair and hand painting. I'm glad hair modelers are getting very skilled at posable hair. This is a good thing. It's up to the skill of the end user to be original. bB

Oopps! Just reread, "I know that you didn't mean to imply that poser hair is not hair but it does sound like it." I meant "I know that you didn't mean to imply that poser hair is not art but it does sound like it." This is what I get when I drink 5 Mike's Hard Lemonade within an half an hour before posting this. LOL

I don't see anything cold blooded about defending yourself about the 1st post. Makes me wonder if the postie read what he/she wrote. It did come off very harsh and berating(sp?) to those that don't do it thier way. Animation has been mentioned. "Now, I for one would not have enough time to animate painted hair. 15 to 24 fps. Wooh, not in my lifetime." But I agree, Hair maodelers have come a long way to help with that. Yet, we still need to spend hours posing that hair in an animation.

Wow, do you people really have nothing better to do than run someone off just because she posts her opinion? Just remember, your opinion isn't necessarily the right one either. Instead of ripping apart every word she said and making her feel bad, you could have just ignored the post. Way to go!! I, for one, love looking at her work. I'm not a poser expert, in fact I don't even use the program, but her work is very beautiful. It's not perfect, has its flaws, but what work doesn't? Even DiVinci's Mona Lisa wasn't the greatest piece of work, but people still rave over it and google in awe at. Avengia, I'm sorry this happened to you. And I will really miss your work. I hope that even though you don't post here anymore, you still continue to make the beautiful pictures you have been making. Don't let all these fools keep you down. (The funny part is, I've seen some of these people comment on your work and tell you how great it is, yet they come here and belittle you. Honest comments?? Or a desperate attempt to get one more person to look at their work...you be the judge!)

beryld: What i meant was that i wouldn't be so nice on her with the arrogant attitude she had towards many of us. DarsivRB: Funny you say that, she's allowed to make many feel bad and answer back, but she can't take the answers? As for your last sentence, it's so inflamatory it's not even worth a comment.

@ Guild. I stand corrected, sometimes you can't tell my first language is English, or maybe I should start wearing my first ever pair of glasses. A draw back of age. LOL.

I do animation. Painted hair is too time-consuming for animation. -jjsemp

beryld: Or maybe it was my fault, as English is not my first language. :-)

the german word for art, Kunst, has the same origin as the word Koennen, basically: ability, skill. from this POV a plumber would be as well an artist as somone who is painting hair. art-talks......yawn!

It did come off very harsh and berating(sp?) Not to mention condescending. bonni

I just went and checked for this person's gallery, and she no longer exists. I wish I could have seen her work, to see what all the to-do is about. I'm new here, and was browsing the forums when I came across this post. She's gone, yet you all are still going on? What's the point? Oh well...off to post my first picture. Hope you all like it! Ciao!

Alessiya, all that matters is that YOU like it! It's impossible to create something that everyone will like, so don't even bother trying to please everyone. Set out to please yourself and in the process you will also please those who have the same taste and appreciation for the kind of art that you do.

I do like it! If I didn't, I would have trashed it, and never dared show it here Giggle

She's gone, yet you all are still going on?

Oh, beating the dead horse is a long-term Renderosity tradition.

And besides, very often when people "leave" they don't really go. They hang around and see what people are saying, and sometimes they come back with a different name to see what's going on. So if there was anything that someone wanted that person to see, well, if they're still hanging around, they'd see it.

And if they're not, well, there's nothing more Renderosity than a good old bitchfest. ;-)

bonni Message edited on: 03/26/2006 02:53

I strictly seperate 3D-art from 2D-art for myself.If I have to postwork my renderings then either I ,or my 3D-tool or we both have failed.I would get mad postworking a whole 500 frames animation.Don't get me wrong I like this artwork but the Poser5 Promo pic could have also been a Painter Promo .

What's the purpose of using a 3d render program when you paint all over it? Wouldn't it be then much cheaper to take a photo of a nekkid Barbie doll and use that as a base for your painting skills?

scnr

Message edited on: 03/26/2006 05:26

Has the dust settled yet?

I'm still pondering the original question "Would I like plastic or paper?", and I must say I don't get it. Is this some sort of zen?

What I'd really like is a fab renderer that can do full density collision based dynamic strand-based hair with full physics (thinking here of at least "final fantasy : the spirits within" - sort of quality) in mere minutes and without needing a render farm or software that costs an arm and a leg. In the meantime I will use the best alternatives that are available - which I think are prop based Poser hair by Kozaburo, 3Dream and Quarker (amongst others) which I can actually use.

I rather think, the now departed, Avengia managed to ruffle loads of feathers in the Poser nest and then acted all surprised that she got a negative reaction - all over what is really a bit of a daft issue.

I'd like to take this opportunity to feed back some comments to Avengia - because she indicated that she really works for the comments. I did have a chance to have a reasonable browse through her (more recent) work and I must say:

• She has real talent for painting hair,
• Some of her scenes and characters are really lovely,
• Some of the painted clothes do look a little painted-on,
• Few of the scenes had more than a single character,
• Most of the characters I saw were almost expressionless or quite sad looking and were often gazing straight ahead (which - for me - makes them look dead-eyed and rather unreal),
• I did feel that there was a lot of similarity in subject matter - i.e. a sad faced, beautiful woman against a new dramatic backdrop.

Anyway, Avengia, I truly wish you good luck - where ever you end up. I have no hard feelings about you belittling my (our) lack of digital painting talents or the fact that you think most of what we do isn't art and looks the same - and plastic!

Two years in and still really enjoying Poser (when I get the time) and I'm not leaving (even if I get no comments or bad comments).

TTFN, Jovial.

[edited for spellings!]

Message edited on: 03/26/2006 05:49

There's not much point in arguing with someone who says, "The tools I use are better than the tools you use, Philistine!" That kind of narcissistic myopia has been with us most likely since the beginnings of art ("You think Trog's cave horse art! Hmph! Him not use fingers, use sharp stick!"). The list of "new" art forms that were sniffed at by purists is unwieldy. Having Photoshop mavens sniff at Poser mavens suggests a mayfly's concept of "old." I'm not a trained artist, I'm a self-taught pretty much everything in my life but writer. What I spend my time on in Poser is narrative, and I don't expect anyone to be thinking, "Is it real or is it Photoshop" when the picture is done. Goya's paintings do not look real, thank you, and I'm fine with that. Even Fragonard's ruff degenerates into lumps of oil eventually, as you close in on it. I'm not interested in impressing people with how real my hair looks or the anatomically accurate pores on my Jessi texture's nose. If somebody wants to spend three days in Photoshop getting exactly the right color gradients to create photorealistic Hubbard squash, more power to him. But I'd appreciate the same respect for where I choose to spend my creative energy. Results matter, not tools. M

((("You think Trog's cave horse art! Hmph! Him not use fingers, use sharp stick!"))) It's a good thing I wasn't taking a drink when I read that... it would have come out my nose! ROFL!!! :D

Neylour: My pleasure. And by the way, I DON'T think this sort of discussion is "beating a dead horse." The horse ain't dead, and it kicks and bites anyone who gets near. The point is not that we "know" someone is wrong, but that we discuss how and why we know it, to make sure it is knowledge and not just the accepted, self-serving prejudices of the community. If we don't discuss these things, we run the danger of burning witches who happen to be right. M

Goya's paintings do not look real Very few great painters did paintings that looked "real". They did paintings that were beautiful, that called certain things to mind, that set certain moods and made certain statements, but a careful study of art history (which I happen to have done) shows that pretty much EVERYTHING is idealized in one way or another, unreal in some ways, altered to fit the artist's vision or the fashion of the day, etc. bonni

pretty much EVERYTHING is idealized The strange thing about art is that there seems to always be this tension between "looking real" and conveying whatever is being "expressed." I look at Caravaggio and the hopelessly cardboard faces painted by his contemporaries, and I have to admit that what appeals to me is his "realism," the sense that this is what I would have seen if I had been there. But I think realism is a craft. And it's a selective craft. We get exercised about the realism of Michelangelo's skin textures (vs., say, the concrete Impresssionism of a Rodin) and we fail to observe, or take into account, that his women are essentially men with apples on their chests. Touched by the emotional weight of the work, we look for crafts to praise, because what really draws us is outside the realm of language. Even with Caravaggio, realism is in service of art, not the other way around. It is the stark truth of the light in the death of the virgin that gives the picture its emotional weight. If what we see is simply, "Wow, good IBL!" then we are missing the point, however well we may be learning our craft. Still, if bad "IBL" distracts from the emotional effect, the picture is ruined. Art without craft is no more whole than craft without art. M

Euh... ELVIS has Left the building Guy's thats why the music stopt..... :} Chris

I look at Caravaggio and the hopelessly cardboard faces painted by his contemporaries, and I have to admit that what appeals to me is his "realism," the sense that this is what I would have seen if I had been there. I saw a Caravaggio exhibit a couple years ago. My favorite piece was a painting of fruit. It was the sexiest damned fruit I've ever seen in my life. I'll never think of plums the same way again... The thing is, that's not realistic. I don't normally find fruit sexy (not even plums, although I do look at them a bit differently now ;-). But the painting was so sensual and so beautifully (and I'm sure deliberately) suggestive, I couldn't help but think of, well, a lot of things. We get exercised about the realism of Michelangelo's skin textures (vs., say, the concrete Impresssionism of a Rodin) and we fail to observe, or take into account, that his women are essentially men with apples on their chests. I don't. And people who really study art don't. And besides, Michelangelo always used male models, so his women really are men with breasts plopped on their chest (sometimes at strange angles) and their naughty bits tucked away. :-) Touched by the emotional weight of the work, we look for crafts to praise, because what really draws us is outside the realm of language. Yes, exactly. bonni

Bonni-- I'm not sure what you mean by "realistic." And I certainly don't think that "all there is" in Caravaggio is "realism." Hence my last comment. What I mean by "realistic" is the sense that this is what I would have seen if I had been there. Not that my eye would have "found" in the fruit (which were, according to M, intended to be as close to obscene as 'real' fruit could get) what Caravaggio found, but that what he found in some sense was there, rather than something he added. (And not that I sniff politely at the notion that artists "add" things. I like finders and adders equally. It's fakers I find add nothing.) All art is "not real," ultimately, in that it represents something else. (I'm not convinced that even the most modern, abstract art ever just 'is.') When we use the word "realism" about art, we mean it is like real things, so the word is already relative: How much is it like them? Caravaggio approaches photorealism and his contemporaries usually do not. He is not the best of them because he is more "realistic," except that, well, part of what makes him "best" is that sense that here, finally, are real people in real houses suffering real pain and joy. The ultimate adder appears to just find. As for the "apples," my point was that when we talk about "realistic," we are always selecting elements to discuss. I find Rodin's gouged surfaces just as "realistic" as the luminous males Michelangelo sculpted, but lots of folks would say, "You WHAT?". And some would agree with me. When photography rolled in, folks considered it not "art" because it was too real. But the "reality" was just another way of representing, and not a very good one at first. What is "real" about holding still for three minutes so someone can expose a glass plate adequetely? And now the regularity of digital blotches is considered less "real" than the irregularity of halide blotches in photos, even though both are just representations of the "real." It comes down to the idea that art is regular, reality irregular, but that is just one more theology. Thorny concept, much snagging of clothes. M

Well, M, I was mostly agreeing with you, mate. ;-) Personally, I've always thought that "realism" is seriously overrated. There's a story, almost certainly apocryphal, but still good, about Picasso (who could, just for the record, draw very beautifully and very accurately). The story goes that someone objected to Picasso's cubist/surrealist stuff and complained that women don't really look like that, etc. Picasso said, "Really? What do they look like?" and the man pulled a photo out of his wallet and said, "There. Like that. That's my wife." To which Picasso replied, "Ah. I see. Then your wife is small, flat, two-dimensional, and fits in your wallet?" :-D bonni

"Personally, I've always thought that "realism" is seriously overrated. " Hmmm. Overrated? Traditionally, for the longest time, the purpose of art was to convey what things looked like. You could be portraying something that existed in real life or you could be portraying something fictional (the fictional part being where photography falls short). Either way, artists tried to make it as realistic a representation as possible. They tried to capture what the person, place, or thing looks like as accurately as possible. How similar the art looks like to the thing itself was a measure of how talented the artist was. Making art less realistic became viewed as new and modern, and thus sought after, which meant they had to keep making art less realistic in order to continue being new and modern. Realism is what 3D was created for to begin with. It became a way to capture or reproduce something that might be far too inefficient or difficult to do in reality. It wasn't until people realized how much more efficient animation could be done in 3D did NPR (Non Photorealistic Rendering) become the new fad. Still, Photorealism in 3D remains the hardest thing to produce. Not only on a skill level, but also on a technological level (render times, etc). It's still considered the "holy grail" in 3D, because so FEW people can do it well. All these new IBL and ambient occlusion features in Poser 6 still don't produce the ultimate photorealistic scene/animation. Still takes tons and tons of time and effort to get it looking right. NPR, however, is much less time consuming and requires less resources to accomplish. So overrated? Perhaps, but I'm still striving to achieve it.

Traditionally, for the longest time, the purpose of art This is, actually, the purpose of Western Art, for a portion of its history. A good deal of art attempts to convey what things are, which is much different from "what they look like." And the "what things look like" Grail is a bit of a merchant-class red herring, frankly, even in Western Art. Most artists try to convey "what they saw," which is vastly not "what was there." Ask Van Gogh. What we see is culturally/cognitively/subjectively conditioned. To see what I mean, try an exercise as simple as looking at pictures of white men in the art of Asia and Indian America. (Specifically, check out the Pacific Coast tribes' and Japan's interestingly convergent picture of gaijin.) Unless you subscribe to the archaic notion that non-Western Art is imperfect Western Art (those poor Chinese, if only they had discovered the vanishing point!), which is both racist and myopic, then you are left with a huge body of representational art that is not "realistic." People could identify which geisha a broadside depicted, so they saw what the painter saw in some sense. That is, it is not realistic in that it does not represent what I would have seen if I had looked at the geisha. The quest for realism is not an end, but a means. We try, in our art, to modulate distractions and focus attention. A foot that doesn't bend that way or a light that can't shine where it is shining (guess what program's lights I've been swearing at this morning!) draws attention to itself. If you don't want people to look at the foot, bending it wrong is a bad idea. If you don't want people to stare at the nostrils, you don't let the &#;&$%&* light come out of them. The end is getting people to look at what you want them to see, whether it is the color of light at Clichy, the ugliness under a glaze of beauty, the elegance of the curves in an olive, or the chaos of sudden death. Realism helps tell them where to look, but it isn't usually what we want them to see. Goya stopped using "realism" to get his effects, and painted his greatest works on the walls of his house. Realism is a craft that serves art. M

"Traditionally, for the longest time, the purpose of art was to convey what things looked like" an addendum to mickmca's post... There are (of course) at least two ways of looking at this. "Art" did not exist for the "longest time". "Art" (in the sense is is now used) did not really arrive until around the time of the Renaissance. Up until then, (from cave painting through Egyptian to Byzantium), what we now call "Artists" were considered "craftsmen" (on a similar level to carpenters stone-masons, weavers etc.) That's a far longer time than since the Renaissance. OTOH, nowadays, the "Artistic world" tends to group all that old stuff under the "Art" bracket... Art CANNOT be classified. It's subjective. It's a way of thought (either by tuition, upbringing or genetic tendencies, maybe more), and nobody can decry someone else's work and say "it's not art". They are perfectly entitled to say "I don't like it"..... More, criticising anyone for the METHOD by which they arrived at their product is even less productive or meaningful. I'm not going to post in this thread again. It's a waste of time... After all I'm not using pen and ink to write this post, I'm using a (gasp! shock! horror! ) computer keyboard!!! Cheers, Diolma (Which is why discussions like this are pointless....)

"Realism is a craft that serves art."

Uhm, of course it is. No argument there.

My point, however, is that in order to understand the craft of 3D in its entirety, and evolve your own artistic style, realism (specifically, Photorealism) is something all 3D "artists" should strive to achieve at some point in their learning process. There are many reasons why, not the least of which is a better overall understanding of the application, tools, lights, cameras, materials, and models.

The mastery of realistic rendering is still a lofty goal in 3D; it's usually the reason why technology progresses in the field, and one of the most sought-after capabilities in the VFX and architectural industries (where 3D is used most often). Combining 3D elements seamlessly with live action footage to produce visual effects for movies or visualizations, etc. is where the use of 3D is most relied upon commercially.

Message edited on: 03/26/2006 15:06

Diolma: I can't think of anything stranger than someone who interrupts a conversation to announce that the topic is boring. And capping it with the cliche about how art is totally subjective is wonderful. That must be why we wander around muttering, "Caravaggio... Vallejo.... No deefferance!!" Enjoy. M

I'm not saying that Avengia is wrong - if she left this community then its for the wrong reasons, we all think differently and think of art in many shapes and forms -thats why its ART. Quote by Avengia "If you are wondering of the people I am talking about that I admire for their hard work, here are a few wonderful people that I am proud to call artists. Check out their work: Bez, Prog, pjaj, Vali, Rhiannon, Magician, Antje, Crasher, Sand tyger, Cimerone just to name a few. IMO, these people truly demonstrate the meaning of art" I know for a fact that Vali who is a good friend of mine - is always on the look out to learn new techniques to add to her skills...so can that be said for the rest of us? hell yes!! Some people are great with the tablet, others (which i am in awe of) are great with painting cloth and hair with a mouse!............. Proud to call artists? - so - tell me - i think i'm an artist but thats not cause i paint or draw, art is a form in many shapes and sizes... writing is an art, for example...... So avengia, sad to see you go - .... for the wrong reasons................

Either way, artists tried to make it as realistic a representation as possible.

I can see you haven't studied much art history.

I'm not going to argue with you about it, but I suggest you go back and look at art from about the Byzantine era right through to the Renaissance and see just how much "realism" you find. It's all very flat and very two-dimensional, and much of it has extremely skewed perspectives that are in NO WAY realistic. Even sculptures were, for hundreds and hundreds of years, extremely stylized and unrealistic (just in 3D rather than 2D).

It was only in Renaissance that people started to actually portray light and dark (chiaroscuro) and even then the figures and objects were highly stylized and not very "realistic".

This continues to this day. Art is not real life, and it shouldn't have to be.

I was, in fact, talking about art in a general sense, not about computer generated 3D images, specifically. And by the way, South Park is all done in Maya, and it is, officially, 3D. Pretty "realistic" don't you think?

bonni Message edited on: 03/26/2006 19:23

"I can see you haven't studied much art history."

You got me. I only studied a little.

"I suggest you go back and look at art from about the Byzantine era right through to the Renaissance and see just how much "realism" you find."

I'll definitely do that.

"And by the way, South Park is all done in Maya, and it is, officially, 3D. Pretty "realistic" don't you think?"

Actually, it wasn't ALL done in Maya. Maya was used only after the 5th season. Before that, another 3D program was used (I believe 3dsmax, but could be mistaken there). However, the first episode was done with construction paper, so... to answer your question... YES, I think it looks very realistic. Just like the real construction paper cutouts used in the first episode! It looks SO much like construction paper cutouts, that people still believe it's done that way.

"Art is not real life, and it shouldn't have to be."

I'm not arguing this point. In fact, I agree. The only point I was making, again, has to do with the fact that striving for realism in 3D is what drives the industry, and is definitely the most difficult style to achieve, due not only to the user's capability, but also the limitations of their hardware/software. It's also the most VALUABLE skill to possess in this medium. How can one develop a unique artistic style if they never fully grasp the extent of their tools? I don't think there's any doubt Photorealistic rendering in 3D requires the most extensive knowledge of one's tools; from materials/texturing, to modeling, to actual rendering. Mastery of these techniques certainly opens the door to other types of styles, and makes functioning in a 3D environment much easier. To this, I say it cannot be overrated, because it truly is the essence of the genre. "I was, in fact, talking about art in a general sense, not about computer generated 3D images, specifically." I see. Well, then I guess I was misguided by your original post then.

Message edited on: 03/26/2006 20:37

I guess I can see Avengia's point to some extent. I too prefer a more natural/realistic approach to poserwork. To me, simple things quietly stated can be more moving than attempts to make striking images. Here are two samples of my work - poor lighting, almost everything free stuff etc. etc., but I'm only new to this. I prefer to use good hair (Kozaburo) to start with and have no experience painting hair. Keep up the spirited debate.
Thanks to Kozaburo, Yagami and many others for their freestuff.

I would say that most art from the renaissance is realistic it is not photorealistic but some of it comes close.

To answer the original question, not everyone can draw hair well and if you want to draw in hair, why not just draw in the figure also?

Message edited on: 03/27/2006 03:46

Part of my problem with this thread, besides the obvious insults, is that she is complaining that most of the gallery images appear fake with "plastic hair". However she doesn't see that she's pushing to have everyone turn the gallery into images that all have been heavily post worked. Exchanging one clone for another so to speak. For me personally, I like the diversity of the gallery. Sure there are images there that I don't personally care for, but that's the nature of art. We like some things and not others. When I got Poser I had used Paint Shop Pro for about 5 years and was totally bored with it. I didn't work in another program, just that one. I had come to a point where I almost entirely stopped using plugins and filters to achieve effects and spent hours and hours working with dozens of layers and blend modes etc in order to recreate effects or come up with ones of my own. On average it took me a week to make a single image. I even got a graphic tablet which I didn't like much mainly because of the small size and that it felt awkward. I was so bored with just using Paint Shop Pro that I had actually stopped creating anything because I was bored out of my skull. I remembered a program called Poser that someone mentioned to me so I decided to give it a try. I tried it and I liked it! I'm also of the opinion that Poser can put together a whole scene. You are still being creative with concept, placement, composition, lighting, textures, colours etc. So why not spend time learning how to compose a nice looking scene that doesn't require heavy post work to look good? If I wanted to digital paint 90% of my image I wouldn't have invested in Poser. Like others have already said, I want to use Poser to the max that it can be used and rely very litte on post working my images. If some people don't like my images because I use premade hair, tough noogies!!! I like them, and that's all that really matters in the end. I create because it makes me feel good to have made something that I think is "pretty". I'm not changing my technique or style for anyone, especially someone who has such a narrow outlook on what "art" is.

Not to sound to prissy, but who is the greater "artist": The person who paints realistic hair in postwork? Or the person who uses a premade hair figure/prop and makes it look realistic inside Poser (or whatever program they use to render)? IMHO, both people are great artists, just as a painter and photographer are considered artists. I don't have a problem with people who do a lot of postwork, or none at all. I have a problem with people who think their way is the only correct way and that I'm not as good if I'm not even trying to do things their way. I'm sorry Avengia decided to leave because people didn't agree with her (well, that might be saying it a little mildly), but it does sound similar to other people declaring their abandonment of 'Rosity. Sure, I like comments and views of things I post, but unless I'm doing something for someone else, all my images are for me, and I post them here incase someone else might like them. I happen to like large breasts (though I will do women with smaller endowments if I think it's more appropriate for the image) and none of the griping that occurs on this forum about a proliferation of "huge breasts" is going to make me stop (or go away :P). It saddens me when a person lets their opinions rule what they think others should do, and don't consider reasons or differences with an open mind. -modus0

"I have a problem with people who think their way is the only correct way and that I'm not as good if I'm not even trying to do things their way." round of applause

I'm happy being a plastic artist.........