WEll. I have a few problems with lighting, and as someone pointed out, a single "Undo" is frustrating, but on balance I think Poser 6 has turned out to be a fine product. It still holds a few mysterys, especially in the cloth room and face rooms, but nothing is perfect. All "3D art is really 2D", as pointed out. But shadowing, shading, and lighting can do wonders. If I wanted true 3D I would have bought some clay, and sculpted my work.

This one has had no postwork other than adding my blurb, so give it your best critique and I shall stand by and see what reactions it gets.

Dear billy423uk,
In whatever capacity that I can be helpful, you are most welcome.  If you would like to have my Evelyn figure, or any of the Eve 4 (Posette based) figures that I morphed here in the Forums (Olga, Aishwarna Rei, Stephanie Swift, etc), just drop me an email: dph@013.net.il.
That goes for anyone else reading this thread.
Yours truly,
David P. Hoadley

the urn and the figure are out of proportion to the background.
And who said that is an urn?, it's a font and fonts use to be not small!, unless you use it for birds...

ricardo, qubromista. :lol: siempre con los pechos grandes! p.s. hoad, I'd be afraid to try to stand on a ladder like that, as I'm certain I'd fall off. but poser girls are more durable - no harm done if they fall off a ladder or a building. :lol:

Dear Miss Nancy,
Thank you ffor yor comment.  However, she's not actually standing on the lader, but rather, she's leaning on it.  Her unseen foot is on the ground.  But thankyou for noticing it, and taking the time and trouble to comment. 
Truthfull, when I rendered her, I was so thrilled by the knowledge that I, and I alone, had succeeded in refurbishing an all but moribund figure that I wasn't paying the closest attention to details. (Or maybe I was just to busy patting myself on the back). 
Yours truly,
David P. Hoadley
PS: If you'd ever like a copy of any of my figures, just let me know.

Just wondering what folks thought.

Nice, very nice.  I'm too much of a plodding craftsman to offer any constructive criticism, so I won't even try.  The base figure looks a little like Posette, with Sand-Tyger's photorealistic Posette Blonde texture, but I could be wrong.  Whatever your base, good constructive criticism is a must to achieve decent results.  The Poser sculpter is just to close and and involved emotionally, to rationally judge his work.  I know, I speak from experience.
Yours truly,
David P. Hoadley

@ bevans84**

**So, you know how to take a photograph, so what?
(just kidding)

That is positively beautiful ...

... and ... evidentially ... so is your daughter.

Just my humble opinion ... I could be wrong. ;=]
(but I don't think so)

cheers,
dr geep
;=]

Thank you Dr. Geep. That means a lot to me, and yes, my wife and I think she is beautiful. Of course we're highly biased in our opinion. :-)

David, it's actually V3 with Miss April texture and eyes. I have 5 different V3 meshes that I use, each with subtle differences. The facial features were done mainly in Truespace and Hex, and the collarbone area was done with Clothes Converter.
The only post work was a touch of blur over the whole picture, and just a little bit of noise added.

I have to second what Phantast said... Poser looking like Poser isn't necessarily a bad thing.  I can look at a watercolor and say, "yep, that's a watercolor".  It doesn't mean it's good or bad, just that I can identify the tool that created it.

I've now read (most) of this thread, in detail.

I'll probably not re-visit it, since it seems to be going in the direction that the majority of these type of threads go: ie, nowhere relevant with a bit of (probably friendly and hopefully jocularly meant) sparring going on...

But (just to join in one last time - unless I re-read the thread later and change my mind), an explanation/self-justification from right near the start of the thread...

Someone stated (and no, I'm not going back through the previous pages to work out who):
"Hrm, Diolma, I think you can agree to both points. They are not actually contradictory."

Errm... What both points? I was just stating a single opinion, regarding the original post (and the thread's title). It was my opinion then, at that point and in that context.

Like I said, Poser is just a tool. You can't criticise it for that. Just as you can't criticise a screwdriver for being a not very good tool for hammering in nails. That's all I meant...

Cheers,
Diolma
 

"Subject: What criticisms of Poser are valid?"

If you ask this question of Poser it should then be asked of 3D Studio Max, Maya, Cinema4D, Carrara, Lightwave etc...

I have read alot of negative things from others saying Poser is a toy, I disagree it's a paint brush with alot of pre-mixed paint.

I wounder why so many applications connect to or want to connect to this toy? I think if it wasnt for Poser many people would not be as interested in 3D.

Poser does come with alot of 3D content and more can be purchased or downloaded for free.
Some would say that because you didnt create the model what you render with it is not art,
My question is if I didnt grow the tree but just carved into the wood; would it be less of a sculpture?

Quote - "whilst this is a forum it isn't a classroom"

It may not be a classroom, but I've learned a lot about 3D asking questions here instead of making erroneous statements. :O) sorry fls, i should have said english class, if you have such a need to be right thats okay with me. hows this......i personally don't think most if not all render can improve with some postwork......there ya go. looks like you were right after all and the majority of renders don't need  any postwork. i concede to your more knowledgable judgement and forgo my own personal opinion.  and yes i made an erroneous statement, please forgive me. i promise not to make any more, not to you at least.......by the way i looked at the pics you did in your profile and they're simply divinely perfect...no need for any postwork on those puppies hey.  i  can see you put everything you learned to good use. let me pat you one the back and say well done. i can tell your ego doesn't need stroking though by the great way you showed me how wrong i was. all i ask is that in your infinite wisdom you refuse to reply to me as i will to any of your future posts. i would hate to have a personal opinion of mine shown to be wrong again.  have a good like and happy no post rendering

billy

 

thanks dp

i may take you up on the offer

bevans 4

i learned a long time ago not to crit work of a personal nature lol. that said i think it an excellent piece/ love the hairline and the rest of the pic. if i had to find something i thought could do with a little more work i would ask this question..whilst the blur works well. does it work as well on the body as the face. how would it look if the shoulders had less blur or a little less noise.  also it looks like the light is coming from the front right hand side. she has highlights on the side of the face and the tendons in the neck but none at all on the side of her neck  or sholder jmo

really nice portrait and dp is right about the beauty. saying that if you want real  constructive crit you should have post the image the render represents. to the question...what do i think.....i think it's an excellent job that needs very little in way of post edit . well done

billy

Yes Poser art looks like Poser. ... And your point is??

The point is that it's a pejorative comment. What I'm trying to find out is what are the common problems with Poser renders? What can be done to avoid the pitfalls that scream that something is an obvious Poser render? I've seen incredible Poser artwork that doesn't look like Poser.

Charcoal is a very different physical media from watercolor. The differences between Poser, Max, and Maya aren't as distinguishable as that between two different physical art media. A skillfully done Poser render would be hard to distinguish between the other 3D packages. Anybody can tell the difference between charcoal and watercolor no matter what the skill levels were involved in creating artwork with those media. If a person can tell the difference between 3D renders, they're mostly seeing what is wrong with the programs and how they were wielded. An artist chooses oils or pastel because of the texture and look of those media. A 3D artist chooses Poser over other packages because it has a relatively lower learning curve, is considerably less expensive, and has a lot of free and inexpensive content available for it. They're not picking Poser because it has a specific look other than seeing that, in the hands of masters, it can do some very impressive things. I doubt that there is a single Poser user who chose Poser, over other 3D packages, because of something specific in how Poser renders better than other 3D engines.

Some of the better comments that can be received on Poser is that the viewer couldn't believe it was Poser or Vickie. The image bevans84 posted, of his daughter, certainly falls into that category. That could be posted in any 3D forum and not be criticized for being an obvious Poser render. I'd love to see a step by step process of how that image was created. Take a look at Mec4D's gallery for some other examples of images that don't look like Poser even though they are
http//www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/browse.php?user_id=195109

I cannot think of an instance where a person can say that an image looks like it was done in Poser and feel that it's a compliment.

Catharina (Mec4D) does amazing work, no question about it. However, I don't think any of the renders in her gallery are "Cornell Box" renders, and it's those type of renders that Poser has difficulty with. It lights scenes quite nicely that have an image or set background, but the light goes haywire when bouncing around inside a 6-sided architectural interior. That is its' shortcoming compared with other rendering engines I've worked with.

And billy, good luck with your continued posting of 3DS Max GUI screen dumps. :O)

Good one.

8 )

Tom

Quote - Yes Poser art looks like Poser. ... And your point is??

Some of the better comments that can be received on Poser is that the viewer couldn't believe it was Poser or Vickie. The image bevans84 posted, of his daughter, certainly falls into that category. That could be posted in any 3D forum and not be criticized for being an obvious Poser render. I'd love to see a step by step process of how that image was created. Take a look at Mec4D's gallery for some other examples of images that don't look like Poser even though they are
http//www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/browse.php?user_id=195109

I cannot think of an instance where a person can say that an image looks like it was done in Poser and feel that it's a compliment.

The problem that some people have with Poser is that it's easy to create mediocre or crap art.  Highly complex, many polygon, humanoid figure crap art.   Often which look like another artist's crap art.

In my case I don't care if everyone recognizes the hair clothing or whatever because I do story, and as any comic reader will tell you, add some text and really crappy art becomes acceptable.
Just like crappy text is more acceptable when shown next to art, even crappy art.

So it really depends on context.

rrotflmao.

i think you mean grammar hawkfyr hehe. ..

billy

Dear L-rd,
Now it's rrotflmao?   Now where do all these acronyms come from, and  what the heck do they mean?  Judging from series of letters, it looks like it might refer to a tool to unclog a stopped up septic tank -am I close?

Gentlemen, on a seperate issue, please quit bickering so much.  We're ALL suposed to be friends here, no need to getting our egos in an uproar. 

As for the main theme of this thread, i wish to say this.  I personally hold that there is nothing wrong with Poser as a medium.  Nor do I think it's reprehensible that Poser figures should be recongnisable, anymore than that Will Smith in 'I, Robot' bears an uncanny resemblance to Will Smith in 'Independance Day.'  Rather it's nice to meet old friend again, although my personal favorite is Posette rather than Vickies 1, 2, & 3 (I understand that that makes me something of a dufess in the eyes of some, but who cares).

I don't think it's necessary that Vicky, Micky, Aiko, Posette, Mike or Dork undergo a complete body makeover every time we wish to make a render, any more than that Will Smith, Bruce Willis, Charlton Heston, or even John Wayne should have undergone Plastic Surgery every time they made a movie.  There is something comforting in the known and familiar. 

The charge made by 3d modellers that we don't create our figures, but rely on the  creation of others , and therefore our work isn't art, is irrelevent.  If Hollywood had to work by the same premis, then every time they wish to make a movie, they'd have to go out  and breed the actors, and then wait 20 to 30 years until they reach maturity.  It's a ridiculous premis, and time that it was laid to rest.

Poser as a tool has its limitations.  The artist who uses it must follow the first dictum of military strategy: Tailor your goals to fit your means.  Nor should one be too disappointed if the render doesn't quite fulfill one's vision -maybe the vision needs to be adjusted to adhere more to reality.
I've said my piece, so therefore,
I remain, yours truly,
David P. Hoadley

Dear billy423uk,

My point to you was missed, but that is alright I will state it this way.  Everybody perceives their artwork and others differently.  You can't change that, it is in the beholder's eye.

If you or anyone else tells me, I should have done something else to a piece of art, I will listen, but if the critisism takes away from what my point or my perception is, what makes the person doing the criticism right?  I perceive it to be just right, but others did not....who is right? 

Have you ever been to an art gallery in your city? You will see so many artist that state something like this..."I was trying to capture the image of.....whatever".  While you stand their and look, you can't see their point no matter how hard you try....so what makes my perception correct and the artist's incorrect.  As far as they are concerned the artwork is complete. 

Do you understand what I mean?

Sharen

One thing I have long noticed is that many renderers do seem to impart a sort of feel to the final image. In this case it's not down to what the user does with the medium, it really is the medium itself, so I think that the comparison with traditional media is appropriate. Not, perhaps, with the difference between charcoal and watercolour, but say, between acrylic and oils.

Poser renders have always stood out particularly because Poser doesn't raytrace the same way as most 3D packages do. But some other renderers also stand out more than others, for instance, C4D renders tend to have a distinctive character.

Quote - Dear billy423uk,

My point to you was missed, but that is alright I will state it this way.  Everybody perceives their artwork and others differently.  You can't change that, it is in the beholder's eye.

If you or anyone else tells me, I should have done something else to a piece of art, I will listen, but if the critisism takes away from what my point or my perception is, what makes the person doing the criticism right?  I perceive it to be just right, but others did not....who is right? 

 

Do you understand what I mean?

yes sharen. when crit or comment is honestly given it's never written in stone. the creator of the work either uses it, uses bits of it or discards it.  the creator is always right. good feedback should when possible be in the form of advice that can be taken or left.

billy

Sharen

Quote - Poser renders have always stood out particularly because Poser doesn't raytrace the same way as most 3D packages do.

In what respect is Poser's raytracing different?

IMHO,

I believe Poser uses an Interpreted language as opposed to one where everything is compiled. As a result, while it is easy to access the descriptions of figures, props, etc and even make changes in a simple text editor, this results in extremely slow software processing because every line of text code must be parsed every time something is changed. As more complexity is added to a scene, it slows down interaction so much that it soon becomes unworkable.

Herein lies the biggest stumbling block for most users. While there is an immense amount of capability in the program, I am convinced that most of it remains untapped because the more you do, the slower it becomes. Dynamic hair, dynamic clothing, hi poly count figures, multiple light sources and all of the other techniques that would greatly improve the artistic look simply become too unwieldy to use.

And this is only in the preview phase. Once rendering begins, there are additional orders of magnitude to contend with to achieve any semblance of  " realism." How many folks are willing to dedicate their computer to 20 or 30 hrs worth of rendering time per frame to see if they are happy with the results or want to make changes.

My guess is that most "Poser Art" looks that way because, in the trade off between art and time, the majority, of necessity, are opting for the latter. 

 

<"))###<<

where fbx is now cornering the market as a format to transfer figure mesh - texture mapping and rigging between 3d apps

poser could have gone there first but didnt

it either feared to tread or didnt know how

"rrotflmao."

I think you mean:

"rotflmao."

Unless of course you are rolling and rolling.
8 )

Tom

sidestepping the hair-pulling and handbag-swinging bonanza

Poser is flawed, there's no denying it. Technically it could do with a big re-think... however, comparing it to some of the arm-and-a-leg-please applications is hardly fair. Pricewise it's a very reasonable and user-friendly application. It has it's shortfalls, but you pay your money...

I have to disagree with the "It looks like a Poser render" being a application-biased comment, even though that may well be how it was intended. A peek into the Poser gallery will often show the same pictures time and time again, and that is more the fault of the artist than the application. * puts on flame-retardant undies*  I don't claim to be an artist, I merely work with the program, so my interest lies primarily in the steps before render than the finished product itself. Sometimes the limitations of the program mean that postwork for a realistic and believable image is unavoidable, which makes un-postworked images of exceptional quality such a rare gem.

For those that strive for realism the comment "It looks like a photo...." is often the greatest compliment, no matter if they work on a pc, with a pencil, or a lump of clay. Poser is just a tool, expecting miracles from it is unrealistic, the real talent ( as always ) lies within the artist themselves.

Michelle

There are a lot of great tools available that people just don't use. The face room is great, at least for the P5's, the cloth room gets the job done, and the setup room is super. All this talk of getting a particular type of clothing for a particular figure would vanish if people just took some time to monkey with what's available within Poser.

poser's raytracing is probably the same algorithm as all the other 3D renderers, but it seems to me (from forum messages here) that they usually use 1 bounce, whereas isn't it normal to use 4 or 5 bounces in all the other renderers? there is a highly technical reason why more bounces will produce a more pleasing result, but using 1 bounce is just another problem due to the user's failure to read the manual. AFAIK it doesn't take much more time to render 5 bounces than it takes to do 1 bounce. however, that's the problem. poser renders are often so easily spotted because the poser user has such a poor understanding of the software, and the figure and image are degraded as a result. I was worried about this when they were planning the huge technical jump from P4 (which was just for posing a model), and P5, which was forced to be an all-in-one app. in the process it left less sophisticated users in a state of temporary (or permanent) confusion, as they had no prior experience with real optics, real physics, shader trees, etc. ad infinitum.

Attached Link: The Children Are the Future

As to whether Poser characters need to be altered for each artistic concept, that's a more personal decision that is made. I don't know if that's good or bad. It essentially depends on whether or not the figures enhance the artistic vision. Is the figure usage jarring to a casual viewer? It's fairly ridiculous to use default Caucasian characters in an ethnic environment. A standard Vickie in feudal Japan is going to stick out like a sore thumb. An artist, that uses the same figure character over and over in every image, is probably going to draw criticism. Unless there is a real artistic reason to continually reuse a single character, it is going to appear to be a flaw in the artist's vision. I'm not going to blame John Wayne for looking like John Wayne throughout his career, but I am going to blame whoever thought he was the right choice to play Genghis Khan for making a stupid artistic decision. Hiring the right actor for the right role is an artistic decision and most directors don't use the same actors over and over in their works. As with any body of work, it all depends on how well everything is put together. If you look at an artist's gallery and there's an evident sameness to all the images, and the repeated use of a specific model is becoming noticeably distracting, then there's a problem. If the artistic execution is so spectacular, that it eclipses what might otherwise seem a repetitive drawback, it won't matter. There's no hard and fast rule for this.

Don't worry much about a prejudiced modeler perspective that everything needs to be created from scratch. It's a narrow viewpoint and represents a standard that doesn't artistically make sense to someone only interested in creating an artistic work. If I'm creating something that needs a pencil in the image, and it takes me less time to use a 3D pencil I've downloaded than to model it from scratch, using the existing model makes more sense because it saves time and suits the purpose of what I'm creating. Multiply that time saving by every other prop and figure I'm using in an image and I've saved an enormous amount of time without sacrificing anything for the work that I'm creating. On the other hand, there is something cool to be able to have something in an image that hasn't been seen before and is something that a modeler created for his own satisfaction. That modeler can create a figure that's in the exact pose wanted and tailored just right so that there aren't unrealistic shoulder bulges and elbow bends and other things that lend to a flawed appearance in a lot of Poser work.

An example of mine that is both, in one sense, a lazy image, and an ambitious one, is "The Children Are the Future" piece I did. It's ambitious because there are a lot of figures in the image that forced me to do two renders because Poser choked and I had to delete half the figures to render part of the image and then restore and delete the other half to render the other part--and combined both parts in Photoshop. The image only uses default or other textures that came with the figures (with the untextured table using an RDNA texture). For what I was trying to achieve, those textures were what I wanted. As it is, the image consumed a whole weekend's time to compose and complete. Changing a dull green texture to a dull brown texture would be extra work that wouldn't make that much of a difference in the final product. It's still not as original as it could have been. People in the Poser community are more attuned to what is and isn't a Poser product. The average person, looking at a Poser render, hasn't seen the same prop, clothing item, or texture, a hundred times before. To a non-Poser audience, those items don't come across as repetitive.

Having seen what Poser is capable of accomplishing, I'll agree that most of the criticisms about Poser have to do with the users than with the limitations of the program. Having a program with realistic human figures and a halfway decent rendering engine doesn't guarantee that great art will be created. A person, whose art career ended when they grew out of crayons and coloring books, hasn't got the same artistic eye as somebody who continued drawing or got into photography or some other creative field. It takes time and practice to train the mind's eye--to go from a vision of the imagination to creating that vision in a media to show another person.

I wouldn't blame anybody, who doesn't make use of all of Poser's capabilities, for not reading the manual. Nobody, who has read the Poser 5 manual, is ever going to master the Material Room without a lot of outside help. The manual barely explains what each node does and does nothing to explain how to properly use those nodes.

"I wouldn't blame anybody, who doesn't make use of all of Poser's capabilities, for not reading the manual. Nobody, who has read the Poser 5 manual, is ever going to master the Material Room without a lot of outside help. The manual barely explains what each node does and does nothing to explain how to properly use those nodes."

That is very true, the manual is weak, but I've never failed to get an answer to a question posted here within a couple hours, often from an expert in the particular area of Poser I needed the help with, Stewer being one of them. :O)

the real talent ( as always ) lies within the artist themselves.

Well said, and that applies to every artform and technique. Cheap or expensive isn't the criteria. The end product s what people look at, and judge.

I think, no offense, that you are a beginner with Poser. My first renders were awful and I made lots of mistakes. Just hang around Poser forums and experiment. Excellent Poser artists to look at are FS (photo real portraits), awadisk (nudes), and many others. Invest in some really quality textures like Morris, Blackhearted, and others. You can paint in shadows in Photoshop. Go to www.runtimedna.com and download all the free light sets. They are wonderful. Keep in mind that Vincent Van Gogh died a pauper, and now his paintings are worth millions.

"Anybody can tell the difference between charcoal and watercolor no matter what the skill levels were involved in creating artwork with those media."

(OK - I said I wouldn't re-post in this thread - except if something caught my attention. It did..)

Just wondering....
If somebody created a watercolour picture that looked like charcoal - would that be art? (It would certainly be difficult to achieve, and would require a very considerable expertise.) Would anybody criticise it as "being charcoal"? Would the artist be congratulated for being able to manipulate the medium to emulate a different one? Or would the artist be castigated for using the wrong medium in the first place?

Yup, some Poser pics are obviously Poser. IT DOESN'T MATTER. What DOES matter is the way the tool is used.. With wit, imagination and a bit of thought, Poser can create some great images. Or it can be used as an adjunct to other programs. It's the result that counts, not the tool..

At least, that's my view on it (my best ever images, long ago, where done in school art class, using pastel crayons + watercolours... - alas, the school kept them and I've lost them. They weren't important to me at the time)

Cheers,
Diolma

Gagnonrich wrote: A person, whose art career ended when they grew out of crayons and coloring books, hasn't got the same artistic eye as somebody who continued drawing or got into photography or some other creative field.

In my opinion that  isn't  true: professional critics and galleryholders usually don't have an academic degree on arts, or perhaps they are artschool dropouts, but they have an excellent eye how to promote or sell art. Most of the time they are the people who get rich on art and not the artists. And if they see money in poser- or maya- or 3Dstudio- made images they'll sell it as art.

But perhaps this is a little off topic, this is my opinion:

-Poser is a tool to create digital images, with such a huge amount of support, commercial and non-commercial, that users of other 3D-packages look green of envy.

-Perhaps poser doesn't have the greatest render-engine, but with some effort you can get stunning results.

-Realism or photo-realism is not what it takes for an image to have to be art. We'll just have to wait till someone comes with the first impressionist or cubist rendering. I can imagine that a poorly rendered image without shadows or fancy occlusion ambiant lighting can have a certain artistic value.

-Buying a more expensive package doesn't make someone an better artist, I can imagine that someone who encounters the limits of poser or another cheap 3D-program wants to have a better tool to express his intentions, but if you make trash in poser you will make allways trash. So saying Poser isn't art because you have the money to buy 3D-studio or what'sever is just pure snobism.

-I think internet will change the way people deal with art. People won't go to an museum to see contemporary art but just surf the internet and they will interact with the artists themself. The big disadvantage of this is, that it will be difficult to earn some money out of it, the moment you put your product on the internet it's free for everybody, copyright or no copyright. And if you're asking money to look at it, no-one will.

Attached Link: Irina 2

I'm also not a big fan of postwork - it just adds more time getting to the final product. I'm not saying I don't do postwork, I just prefer getting it mostly done upfront in Poser.

Yup, I'm definitely a Poser freak!

Cheers everyone,
samhal

Personally, whether or not an image was obviously done in Poser usually becomes a moot point, simply because a lot of the images in the galleries have the "looks like Poser - in a bad way" syndrome (some of these have been mentioned before):

• No shadows - This is one of the worst and most common problems with Poser renders.  It is an understandable problem, since Poser's lights aren't exactly newbie-friendly. With lots of practice, you can achieve great results, but Poser really needs point lights that can cast shadowmaps. A proper GI renderer built in would help too.

• Poor posing - This is the most justified criticism of Poser images by users of other 3d programs (as well as by other Poser users) IMHO, especially since it is the most controllable. One of the best ways to avoid this is to look at actual people or photographs showing a similar pose to what one is trying to achieve. Carefully study the twisting and rotation of limbs also, since only mutants can directly bend their arms straight up without twisting their collars at all.

• Ugly faces - If I had a dollar for every Vicky I've seen that looks like an ugly half-cat-half-Chinese mutant crackwhore, I'd make Bill Gates look like a pauper. The only thing worse than not using any morphs at all is to use too many or the wrong ones in combination.

• Idiotic expressions - This is sometimes more the fault of content creators than Poser users, although the presence of good morphs does not guarantee their proper use. One of my pet peeves is when someone uses "open lips" set too high to open a mouth instead of using "yell", with the result looking like a cross between a spastic and a candidate for emergency jaw surgery.

• Poor scene composition - Composition may be a bit esoteric and difficult to master, but simply placing random figures and/or props in the scene and rendering truly does take no skill whatsoever. This is another of the main reasons users of other 3d programs chide Poser users, and a very justified one. If you put no effort into your image, why would you expect anything but jeers from people who do put effort into their images (whether wholly self-made or not).

While it is true that a large portion of the Poser community is at a more amateur level than other 3d users, and that many of us are doing this as a hobby, there is far too much indignation around every one of these type of threads to take seriously, and there seems to be virtually no ability to see that some of the criticisms of Poser art are justified. Just because you're having fun doesn't mean anyone else is going to care for your 2 minutes worth of posing an overly boob-sized Vicky hovering somewhat near the ground while staring in a random direction and gritting her teeth.

Good Point(s) R_Hatch.

"If you put no effort into your image, why would you expect anything but jeers from people who do put effort into their images (whether wholly self-made or not)."

The unfortunate other side of this coin, is seeing images like this, followed by comments of nothing but gushing praise.

Don't get me wrong... I mean...I  subscribe to being supportive to those who are less experienced, and as mentioned,most folks here are hobbyists and do this mostly for fun. But is it really being helpful to leave "over the top" sugar coated comments on images with obvious severe problems?

Personally,I think it not only does the artist a disservice, but it also isn't helpful to those newbie's who may simply be just viewing the image followed by nothing but happy lovely comments.

Many times,the comments are nothing more than the typical "Awesome Work","This is Fantastic", "Amazing" type of comments. So not only does the onlooker think that is acceptable to have the vacant staring default Vicky,has no shadow and her skin poking through her clothes (if there are any...lol) while her feet are sinking into the floor,He/She also doesn't see any reason stated as to "Why" the image is so spectacular.

Not only is there no "Helpful" feedback,but most times, nothing is said as to "WHY" the image is awesome.

For example "Awesome render,I particularly like way you posed her hands". Sometimes it's helpful to draw attention to a "Good"part of the scene so new folks will see what might otherwise be overlooked.

I learned more about art by seeing what people said about others work,than comments made on my own.

But then again,I don't post much anymore anyway.I stopped posting art after I lost my Spelling and Grammar Checker in the big crash of 2004

8 )

Tom

**"If you put no effort into your image, why would you expect anything but jeers from people who do put effort into their images (whether wholly self-made or not)."

No reason to expect anything but, however decent artists started somewhere and remember their own early efforts. If they bother leaving any critique at all, they are helpful rather than cutting. Example: Here's what's I find wrong and here's how to improve it.

I find the insulting and often simply erroneous criticisms come from people who don't even have galleries and haven't a clue about what they are writing about. Of course you have to only look at this thread to find the proof to that point. They are trolls, pure and simple.

As far as the glowing positives, there are often pics I want to acknowledge, but time is limited. A simple "that's great" is all I feel the need to post, just like there are times when an experimental but flawed render is all I feel the need to post.

**

"I find the insulting and often simply erroneous criticisms come from people who don't even have galleries and haven't a clue about what they are writing about."

So what you are saying is Someone with no gallery is smart enough to know what they do like but not smart enough to know what they don't like?

In other words...If someone with no gallery leave's a glowing comment on your image,he is qualified and knows about art,but if he leaves a critique,he's not qualified and knows nothing about art?

Tom

Hmmm, I have to agree with Hawk on this one. Looking back on this thread I see no evidence of trolls. A difference of opinion does not trolling make. It reminds me of the good old days on AOL when arguements often went as such :

"I'm afraid you have NO idea what you're talking about"

"Stop harassing me!!! I'm paging a guide !!"   :lol:

Having a gallery isn't like a day pass to the Opinion Theme Park, and the lack of one doesn't indicate you know nothing about that which you are expressing an opinion. My Hubby, for example, is a professional artist, yet you won't find his gallery posted on this site ( not that he looks through the galleries or posts critiques, as too many are posting and sitting by their pc watching their view count and "excellent!" ratios and aren't really interested in a professional analysis )

I'm so tired of these ""Cry "Troll!!!" and let slip the dogs of war" situations. I know artists are supposed to be sensitive types, but really...... sigh

Michelle

( not a troll, though I do occasionally look like one in the mornings )

Quote -  

But then again,I don't post much anymore anyway.I stopped posting art after I lost my Spelling and Grammar Checker in the big crash of 2004

 

8 )

Tom

 

me too tom. and my dictionary in the last  bigreference  war. otherwise i'd have know what erroniarse meant...thr rr is rolling round btw.  good post...good luck lmao

billy

Just because I don't play the piano,doesn't mean I'm not qualified to know what piano music I like and what piano music I don't like.

Please define an "erroneous criticism" or perhaps give an example of one.

Am I a troll now becauseI disagree?

Tom

Your reading comprehension skills rival billy's poor spelling, despite a specific example in my previous post, so I'll keep it really simple for you. I don't like ignorant trolls. Helpful critiques are just fine. Positive comments are always welcome.

spot on dark star.

i'm not a polititian but i can crit the gov. i'm not a priest but i can crit the church. i'm not not a chief but i can crit a meal served in a restaraunt etc. a critique is ones personal opinion on how something seems to he/she the individual be they common  man or egotestical artiste. one of the reasons why good crit works is that no matter how up your own arse you  are, if enough people say somethings wrong there probably is something wrong. a person doesn't need to know the ins and outs of pov ray to see that one object has a shadow and another doesn't.  or a background in medicine to say that v3's arm looks like it's been broken in seven places and antibiotics won't repair it

billy

fls 13 (I'm assuming the 13 represents your age there but I'm sure you will correct my erroneous assumption if I'm wrong)

I stopped reading your posts after the Spelling and Grammar post...I've been around here a long time and I've yet to recall a more ignorant statement.

The only reason I read your last one is because it followed mine directly.

Do you mean this example?

"Example: Here's what's I find wrong and here's how to improve it. "

If this is the example you refer to it still has nothing to do with whether the person has a gallery or not.

But alas,I'm now more stupid from reading your stuff.

I'll have to remember not to read anymore of your posts.

I'm not getting any younger and cant afford to get any dumber.

You are correct..my comprehension skills are really bad,when it comes to reading your posts. 

Brightest Blessings

Tom

Quote - Your reading comprehension skills rival billy's poor spelling, despite a specific example in my previous post, so I'll keep it really simple for you. I don't like ignorant trolls. Helpful critiques are just fine. Positive comments are always welcome.

the s in skill is redundant in fact the word skill or skills is redundant....... reading skills and spelling skills are completely different animals and as such can't be compared. you may as well say. you diving skills are as bad as your algebra..unless of course you're trying to use analogy  which in this case doesn't work. billy starts with a cap......first line too long and a period would have been better than comma after the word post......which would give the following s a cap.....just because someones writing has little or no grammar doesn't mean they don't know how to use it. same goes for spelling. my probs the keyboard and when i writ priperly i din'y nood a spool-licker

hear here on the twoll thingy. from experience i've found that if one is to troll it's best if one doesn't use the troll word. if you wish to keep this up why don't you take it off the board and mail me in private so i can block ya lmao

billy.

  Spell Checker

Eye halve a spelling chequer
It came with my pea sea
It plainly marques four my revue
Miss steaks eye kin knot sea
Eye strike a quay and type a word
And weight four it two say
Weather eye am wrong or write
It shows me strait a weigh
As soon as a mist ache is maid
It nose bee fore two long
And eye can putt the error rite
Its rare lea ever wrong
Eye have run this poem threw
I am shore your pleas two no
Its let her perfect awl the weigh
My chequer tolled me sew