Attached Link: http://www.e-frontier.com/article/articleview/2012/1/832?sbss=832

"Can generate Photorealistic images like these..."

This image is CLEARLY Post-Produced and filtered..

...so WHY lead these newbies on into thinking that Poser Figure Artist apparently ALSO has a "MAKE ART" button...

This graphic also IMPLIES that Poser Figure Artist HAS a PAINTING FEATURE...but this image used CLEARLY was done using a Photoshop filter, NOT the Sketch Render feature...

Attached Link: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/ad-faqs.htm

Frequently Asked Advertising Questions:A Guide for Small Business

GENERAL ADVERTISING POLICIES

What truth-in-advertising rules apply to advertisers?
Under the Federal Trade Commission Act:

• advertising must be truthful and non-deceptive;
• advertisers must have evidence to back up their claims; and
• advertisements cannot be unfair.

Additional laws apply to ads for specialized products like consumer leases, credit, 900 telephone numbers, and products sold through mail order or telephone sales. And every state has consumer protection laws that govern ads running in that state.

What makes an advertisement deceptive?
According to the FTC's Deception Policy Statement, an ad is deceptive if it contains a statement - or omits information - that:

• is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances; and
• is "material" - that is, important to a consumer's decision to buy or use the product.

What makes an advertisement unfair?
According to the Federal Trade Commission Act and the FTC's Unfairness Policy Statement, an ad or business practice is unfair if:

• it causes or is likely to cause substantial consumer injury which a consumer could not reasonably avoid; and
• it is not outweighed by the benefit to consumers.

How does the FTC determine if an ad is deceptive?
A typical inquiry follows these steps:

• The FTC looks at the ad from the point of view of the "reasonable consumer" - the typical person looking at the ad. Rather than focusing on certain words, the FTC looks at the ad in context - words, phrases, and pictures -ÿto determine what it conveys to consumers.
• The FTC looks at both "express" and "implied" claims. An express claim is literally made in the ad. For example, "ABC Mouthwash prevents colds" is an express claim that the product will prevent colds. An implied claim is one made indirectly or by inference. "ABC Mouthwash kills the germs that cause colds" contains an implied claim that the product will prevent colds. Although the ad doesn't literally say that the product prevents colds, it would be reasonable for a consumer to conclude from the statement "kills the germs that cause colds" that the product will prevent colds. Under the law, advertisers must have proof to back up express and implied claims that consumers take from an ad.
• The FTC looks at what the ad does not say - that is, if the failure to include information leaves consumers with a misimpression about the product. For example, if a company advertised a collection of books, the ad would be deceptive if it did not disclose that consumers actually would receive abridged versions of the books.
• The FTC looks at whether the claim would be "material" - that is, important to a consumer's decision to buy or use the product. Examples of material claims are representations about a product's performance, features, safety, price, or effectiveness.
• The FTC looks at whether the advertiser has sufficient evidence to support the claims in the ad. The law requires that advertisers have proof before the ad runs.

why not actually talk to EF instead of putting this everywhere else? they have a forum you know.

Yes! You too can be banned from their forums for questioning EF's policies concerning Truth In Advertisng. Watch out for low flying Canadians.

:b_rolleyes:

?

well, pictures like that take talent, and knowledge, no matter what the program. I've had Poser 4 for about 4 years, and I still can't do anything like that..;) Now that I have 5, I suck at a higher level..;)

Anyone who's bought a video game knows that what you see on the cover may not be what you'll see on the screen..I'm sure that it's possible to do pictures like that, but how likely it is, is another thing..;)

Those pictures were produced in Poser, I've seen them before in the gallery here or one of the other sites dedicated to 3d art.

Indeed, the image in question was produced in Poser - its V3 (my own custom morphs) and The Mansion, Great Room (available at Daz3d.com)
The image was a sort of promo for the Mansion's Great Room, a product I created with Darkworld way back in  2002.
The image is in the galleries at Renderosity. : www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php
 And yes, the image is heavily postworked in Photoshop and Painter, especially the clothing and hair, which are all post work. The basics - setting, furniture,figure, pose - are all created in Poser 4.
At the time Poser 5 came out, the company asked me for the use of some of my work - which was used in the Poser 5 manual. 
I signed a form which allowed them to use my work, however, I am none too thrilled about having done this noiw, especially considering my work is being used without attribution.
Note that I never was remunerated in any way for allowing them to use my artwork (unnatributed, too!). I never even got a copy of the software.
However, in all fairness, it isn't false to say the image was created with Poser. The "painterliness" was fully intentional on my part, and no amount of post-render can obviate the fact that real Poser products where used and Poser 4 was the program used to render them.
Moyra

.........in the video it SAYS (as it shows this picture)...

"Can generate Photorealistic images like these..."

Since this program is AIMED AT Newbie Users- Particularly FINE ARTISTS who are NOT computer types (The video even starts off on the right foot showing a "Fine Artist" at work...but apparently DOESN'T LIKE using her computer for much MORE than a Virtual Posing system)
then WHY would it SAY:

"Can generate Photorealistic images like these..."???

The image is NOT Photorealistic at all- and was done in a DIFFERENT version of Poser and was Post-Worked in other software...

SURE- Sophisticated Poser users on THIS FORUM KNOW all this type of stuff- if you have hung around here for a while... but a NEWBIE ARTIST does NOT... They may very likely see the video and BELIEVE what it says (After all- it IS the "truth" isn't it?..Or why would they use a REAL ARTIST to "lead in" with a real art setup...???)

This is sort of like adding candy or sugar flavoring to cigarettes--so that kids will buy them...

This is why I posted the FTC info- so that you can see that there is REASONABLE QUESTION that the INTENDED AUDIENCE (Not experienced Poser users, Photoshop users, etc.) MAY VERY LIKELY view this video in a "different way" and BELIEVE IT...

I think this is very DIFFERENT from seeing well produced Poser 6 art in the galleries where people can usually SEE FOR THEMSELVES that "I used Poser 6, Art Materials, Dress by X, Photoshop Filter X and Y, etc..."  ...that's a very DIFFERENT setof information to go on to understand the complexity of arriving at a fine piece of DIGITAL fine art...

How does the FTC determine if an ad is deceptive?
A typical inquiry follows these steps:

• The FTC looks at the ad from the point of view of the "reasonable consumer" - the typical person looking at the ad. Rather than focusing on certain words, the FTC looks at the ad in context - words, phrases, and pictures -to determine what it conveys to consumers.
• The FTC looks at both "express" and "implied" claims. An express claim is literally made in the ad. For example, "ABC Mouthwash prevents colds" is an express claim that the product will prevent colds. An implied claim is one made indirectly or by inference. "ABC Mouthwash kills the germs that cause colds" contains an implied claim that the product will prevent colds. Although the ad doesn't literally say that the product prevents colds, it would be reasonable for a consumer to conclude from the statement "kills the germs that cause colds" that the product will prevent colds. Under the law, advertisers must have proof to back up express and implied claims that consumers take from an ad.
• The FTC looks at what the ad does not say - that is, if the failure to include information leaves consumers with a misimpression about the product. For example, if a company advertised a collection of books, the ad would be deceptive if it did not disclose that consumers actually would receive abridged versions of the books.
• The FTC looks at whether the claim would be "material" - that is, important to a consumer's decision to buy or use the product. Examples of material claims are representations about a product's performance, features, safety, price, or effectiveness.

maybe somebody who actually owns "poser figure artist" can try to generate an image similar to those above, and let us see the result. is PFA the same thing as "poser artist"? I'm guessing the one with the lady in the dress, sitting in the chair, was retouched in photoshop. the second image is the sort of low-quality render I'd expect from a typical user who failed to read the manual and took too many shortcuts.

...yes, the images were extensively POST-WORKED in other software, and Poser Figure Artist was NOT USED to make these images. PFA does NOT contain a number of Poser 6 features- it's being marketed to NEWBIE Fine Artists...

...is this NOT Mis-Leading?...Since the PFA  video is directed at NEWBIE FINE ARTISTS who are NOT TECHIE Computer users?...You have to REMEMBER who this is DIRECTED AT...it's un-tech-sophisticated FINE ARTISTS...that's where they are PRIMARILY marketing this- Jerry's Art-o-Rama, etc... (That's what e-frontier SAYS...and why they use the "Woody" character)...

I have been involved in working with Fine Artists for over 20 years...and FRANKLY- they are like CHILDREN when it comes to using computers! They are
often SCREWED by Computer Stores to buy things they don't need or can never use properly... 
I can see this video being used as a SALE CLOSER to gullable Fine Artists who BELIEVE they getting in the software package that which is being BEING SHOWN on the Video!

Frankly I was even FOOLED in the beginning when I saw this presentation on e-frontier's website! I really DID THINK that they had ADDED all these "SHOWN FEATURES" into PFA! (...like Paint Filters, and INCLUDED Art Shaders by Olivier as part of the package...)

...I mean, COME ON, I STILL SEE a lot of people CONFUSED by Olivier's P6 Art Shaders- and HOW to use them- and these people have POSER 6! (Which has a Material Room...PFA DOESN'T)... None of this is "PUSH THE "MAKE ART" BUTTON" this video implies...

LOL, this is kind of like when you see a picture of a big juicy hamburger from a fast food chain, when in actuality the real burgers look nothing like the picture, but good for sales non the less.

Elusion said clearly in her post that her picture was done in Poser 4. And Poser 4 IS Poser Artist, so I fail to see how the "different version" thing complies here. Posr 4 is simply remarketed as Poser Artist.

Whether or not it's false advertizing is another matter. IMO there's nothing photorealistic about either images, they're both made to look like paintings, and well made in that respect. But they're not photorealistic and were never intended to be either, I bet.

You CAN produce photorealistic renders with Poser 4 /Poser Artist. It helps if you have access to some postworking program, but it's possible anyway.

And who believes in everything they see in an ad? I always think that if something looks too good to be true, it usually is, too.

Attached Link: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/ad-faqs.htm

...why doesn't e-frontier "JUST BE TRUTHFUL"? 

They use WOODY as the basic Marketing Concept...Great Idea...most FINE artists can relate to that, especially IF they have taken some fine art classes...

Then the Artist in the Video shows and talks about using PFA as a "Virtual Model" tool...GREAT! Sound great to me... and THEN "CUT", Play music and credits, END!

But e-frontier TACKS ON totally UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS...onto what is supposed to be intro-level, newbie software- for basically people who don't really like USING COMPUTERS (This is what the Artist in the video says!)... so WHY?

..I believe because it is a SALE CLOSER!...Especially great for use in computer stores- where artists can be lead-on to believe they are getting "ALL THIS and MORE" in Poser Figure Artist...

From the US Government Federal Trade Commission website- FOR THE CONSUMER

"advertising must be truthful and non-deceptive"

What makes an advertisement deceptive?

According to the FTC's Deception Policy Statement, an ad is deceptive if it contains a statement - or omits information - that:

"is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances; and
is "material" - that is, important to a consumer's decision to buy or use the product. "

AND VERY IMPORTANT:

"The FTC looks at the ad from the point of view of the "reasonable consumer" - the typical person looking at the ad. Rather than focusing on certain words, the FTC looks at the ad in context - words, phrases, and pictures -to determine what it conveys to consumers."

"...why doesn't e-frontier "JUST BE TRUTHFUL"?"

..does any advertiser ? Do car makers advertising the latest 4x4 show what really happens when you buy one. Do they show a women stuck in a traffic jam of other 4x4's delivering 1 kid each to school - nope they show empty mountain roads and macho action. 

Think about was Poser started as - a reference tool for traditional media artists. This app takes poser back to it's roots and theres nothing wrong in that. How many artists could actually produce stunning images without poser because they can't actually draw or paint. 

So why all the fuss - why not actually apllaud EF for bringing a new product out instead. Something that attracts new blood and artists to our hobby should be commended not critised. It's good for the poser community and good for vendors alike. 

Mrsparky-

Like your Cat... 

You have apprently MISSED what I have been saying and the points I am making... I have NOTHING against Poser Figure Artist!... What I am railing against is HOW
e-frontier is DECEPTIVELY marketing it... ...if you go up and read DOWN...I think you will see better what I'm talking about...

You will also find that the "everyone is DOING IT" argument does NOT FLY... There is a group called the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Trade Commission Act... you can see the link in the top of this thread--and READ what they are about.. People who are CAUGHT
pay FINES... BIG FINES...for using mis-leading and deceptive advertising!

You will SURELY FIND also that places like the U.K. and the European Union have enacted similiar laws and statutes to protect CONSUMERS against mis-leading and deceptive advertising!

that single-side plane sure is versatile.*

like what you did with the smile..;)

*"No I don't  want that hamburger (pointing to one on tray), I want that hamburger (pointing at picture on display )" - Falling Down (a movie)..

*Don't know what to tell you. It's possible to do postwork (there's something called the Gimp, which is a free competitor to Photoshop), and not have to pay (there's also a program called Dogwaffle...heck, there's a zillion Open Source programs out there that can do both..;).

I understand your point that by postworking it doesn't actually show the "real" output of the software. But I wouldn't say it's misleading or deceptive. Yes it's like all advertisng - and yes everyone does it. It ain't gonna change.   

momodot - don't be naughty thats not a poser render - she has no sword :)

*Elusion said clearly in her post that her picture was done in Poser 4. And Poser 4 IS Poser Artist, so I fail to see how the "different version" thing complies here. Posr 4 is simply remarketed as Poser Artist.

STOP RIGHT THERE.

Before anybody gets any more confused, Pay attention: Veritas is not talking about Poser 4 AKA Poser Artist. He's talking about Poser Figure Artist.

From the FAQ:

Q: Is Poser Figure Artist the same as Poser Artist?
A: No. Poser Figure Artist was specifically created to enable figure artists to learn about and depict the human form in mixed media, such as oils and watercolors. Poser Figure Artist is a new application from the ground up, yet it is based on Poser 6 technology. As such, it incorporates advanced capabilities of Poser, such as the latest figures, rendering engines, etc which were not available in Poser Artist

Please pay attention to the claim "depict the human form in mixed media, such as oils and watercolors". I think this is the key difference, right? This is what Veritas wants to question. 

Again, Poser Figure Artist is a new program, not a relabel of an old Poser.

The front page claim is "Poser Figure Artist provides everything you need to replace your traditional models, gives you the tools to create amazing art finished in the style you choose"

Please pay attention to the phrase "everything you need" - that clearly implies you won't need to go find GIMP or Photoshop.

As I asked elsewhere, does this program have built-in style filters or not? If it does, Veritas can sit down. If it does not, Veritas can take a bow.

Another quote from the EF web pages

Sketch Art
The Sketch Renderer lets you finish images in many custom styles, including charcoal, etching, or pastel. Customize the characteristics of your render to imitate great masters like Monet, Pollock, Seurat and others

Veritas, clearly this is not Poser. Clearly this is an explicit capability that does not exist in Poser 4, 5, or 6. They are being really out-in-front about the "art" styling stuff. You really think this is a lie? I mean this isn't the least bit equivocal. "Customize the characteristics of your render to imitate great masters" is very explicit. Would they be that stupid to claim that and not have the feature in the program?

GDa M***Fuing computers make me so mad. I'm trying to download the free trial so I can settle this. I get the email from EF with the verification link. When I click the link, it says:

Access denied !

You are not allowed to access that resource! 

So I can't get the download. Who has the download? Can you just simply see if there is a way to save artistic renders instead of photoreal renders?

Veritas did you download it or not? I've asked you 3 times already.

I'd say relax...I'm having trouble even getting the front page to load, so they may be having server-side problems.

I have managed to download the demo and here are some very preliminary impressions:

• PFA might be a 'whole new program' but it is very closely related to Poser. In fact, if I have P6 running, I can't load PFA - trying to do so just brings up the P6 window. Also, when I first loaded it and switched from the document window to the render window, it displayed the last render I'd done with P6!!

• there's no material room. None that I can see anyway, and I have searched the reference manual for all instances of 'material'. This alone would appear to make it impossible to use shaders such as Olivier's Art Materials, for example, which means that at least one of the images in the demo reel would never be achievable, because I am sure that was done with Olivier's shaders. There are no materials supplied as we understand them, although there are of course some texture maps, so MAT files might well work as expected.

• given that, anyone buying or downloading P5 or P6 materials is going to be sorely disappointed.

• the readme is clearly lifted straight from the P6 readme. Nothing wrong with that, except that it refers to pages in the manual - the P6 manual, not the reference manual supplied with PFA!

• the sketch designer is completely identical to that in P6. I can't see that anything has been added.

TBH, I can't see any differences at all other than the fact that PFA is clearly a much reduced subset of P6. All in all, I think my initial look comes close to justifying Veritas' objections. As a pose modeller for conventional artists, it's fine. But I must emphasise, this is a very quick preliminary test, and others might want to take a look in case I'm in error.

Since this continues to be spread on every single forum it seems by Veritas, I have a question for him.

Simple one actually, if you are so concerned about this issue, have you contacted e frontier with your concerns? 

So far I've seen a lot of huffing and puffing and name calling, but nothing that says you actually have taken this concern to its source.

As a side note for all that seem confused, PFA has always from day one been said to be a cut down Poser 6.  They never claimed it was anything else.  They have also stated, that anyone using Poser 6/7 would probably never see a need for PFA.  PFA is aimed at a totally different audience.

 - Noel

My bad..;) so what's Poser Figure Artist? It seems like a redundant expression, but what do I know?

I like making pictures, and I'm not too particular about what or how many programs I use to get there..;) 

still, programs are programs, so caveat emptor.

Oh my, could we please stop making stuff up that is clearly contradicted on the EF website.

*Spritual: PFA has always from day one been said to be a cut down Poser 6.  They never claimed it was anything else. 

Please stop saying that. Allowing for the phrase "cut down" to be translated as "limited", EF abolutely said the opposite, word for word.  Here is a cut-and-paste from the EF PFA FAQ:

Q: Is Poser Figure Artist a limited version Poser?
A: No. While it is based as Poser 6 technology, Poser Figure Artist offers very different capabilities to address artists interested in figure art.

Also from the FAQ, EF said this:

**I own Poser Artist, can I upgrade to Figure Artist?
**A: No. Since Poser Figure Artist is an entirely new application with different attributes, there’s no direct upgrade from either Poser or Poser Artist to Poser Figure Artist. 

Notice tha phrase I highlighted in RED? Please pay attention  - the words are not complicated or vague.

I'm not trying to be an ass about this. But if we're discussing marketing claims versus reality, I think it's important to actually reference the exact words and images used in the marketing materials.

Attached Link: http://www.e-frontier.com/article/articleview/2012/1/832?sbss=832

• "Poser Figure Artist can be used by traditional painters or sculptors who want easy access to realistic models, and by artists who are interested in creating art on their computer. Novices and experienced users alike can use Figure Artist to draw the human figure."

So.........basically, it's a higher tech version of what Poser was originally created for.  So fine artists could have a model right there, without having to hire a physical human model.
So..........you get the basic abilities, no Material room, no setup room, no cloth room.  You get figures, you get the ability to render them, light them.........which is why the full version is only $99 (if you already own Poser, it's $79).............

It's been said elsewhere.  This isn't exactly being marketed toward Poser users who utilize those extra rooms.  It is, for all intents and purposes, a stripped down version of Poser 6.  As a matter of fact, the comparison chart clearly states what is and isn't included.  So, while they may not have stripped poser 6 down in the sense of the word, they may have built Poser Figure Artist as Poser 6 without the bells and whistles.

Exactly Jen...
this app is not targeted at us poser 'power' users. it is targeted at those that just want a digtial manikin without the bells and whistles they don't need.

infact just what Poser was started as in the first place.

"Q: Is Poser Figure Artist a limited version Poser?
A: No. While it is based as Poser 6 technology, Poser Figure Artist offers very different capabilities to address artists interested in figure art.

Also from the FAQ, EF said this:

**I own Poser Artist, can I upgrade to Figure Artist?
**A: No. Since Poser Figure Artist is an entirely new application with different attributes, there’s no direct upgrade from either Poser or Poser Artist to Poser Figure Artist. 

Notice tha phrase I highlighted in RED? Please pay attention  - the words are not complicated or vague.

I'm not trying to be an ass about this. But if we're discussing marketing claims versus reality, I think it's important to actually reference the exact words and images used in the marketing materials."

If you don't want to be an ass, then stop yourself.

These quotes are from Laslo, the head of marketing for e frontier america.

"First a general answer: if you are a Poser user, I would not recommend switching to Figure Artist. Compared to Poser it is a very limited program.
In particular: yes, you can use multiple runtimes. Figure Artist reads pz3 files, but it does not save out either pz3 or pzz. The only file types you can export from PFA are image files. There's little morph support (magnets) and no support for dynamic hair or clothing.
In regard to performance, PFA is based on Poser 6 and has the same performance as P6.
I hope this helps...
Laslo
e-frontier"

• Sounds a lot like a version of Poser 6 without all the bells and whistles.

Wait, there is more:

"Correction: PFA does not export 3D files (like OBJ, DXF, etc), but it can save its own scenes (saved as PZ3). It can also open PZZ and PZ3 files."

• Can open and save PZ3 and PZZ files.

Lastly

"For example, Figure Artist is lacking many of the high-end Poser features such as animation, Face Room, Material Room, Cloth Room, Hair Room and much more."

All those above statements can be found here:

http://www.contentparadise.com/forums/contentparadise/index.php?showtopic=2344

PFA is based on Poser 6, without all the abilities.  It has some differences in the GUI to help the target audience.  To me, that is a cut down Poser 6.  You don't like my terms, that is fine with me.  But please don't try to say that I am unsure of what I am talking about.

 - Noel

Attached Link: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/ad-faqs.htm

...when you SAY THINGS like "imitate great masters like Monet, Pollock, Seurat " and SHOW heavily POSTWORKED art by people who CLEARLY are very experienced Poser users- it conveys a much more DECEPTIVE MESSAGE...to a NAIVE CONSUMER!

LIKE I HAVE BEEN SAYING ...and as has been SAID ABOVE... Poser Figure Artist is AIMED at an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT AUDIENCE...so THIS is why a DIFFERENT STANDARD of marketing is very important! These are TOTAL NEWBIE, FIRST TIME buyers...How are they supposed to KNOW what IS and ISN'T Postworked????

That's why I bring the Federal Trade Commission into this:

GENERAL ADVERTISING POLICIES

What truth-in-advertising rules apply to advertisers?
Under the Federal Trade Commission Act:

• advertising must be truthful and non-deceptive;

How does the FTC determine if an ad is deceptive?
A typical inquiry follows these steps:

• The FTC looks at the ad from the point of view of the "reasonable consumer" - the typical person looking at the ad. Rather than focusing on certain words, the FTC looks at the ad in context - words, phrases, and pictures -to determine what it conveys to consumers.

NOTE THE PHRASE "Reasonable Consumer"..the "typical Person looking at the ad"

Fine Art NEWBIES who "don't like using their computers very much" (According to the e-frontier video).. are the INTENDED AUDIENCE... NOT Poser POWER USERS who know all about SHADERS, POST-WORKING, etc...

It's a very DIFFERENT IMPRESSION made on basically very NAIVE Software Users... to ME
it's like putting Candy Flavors into CIGARETTES... we ALL KNOW who this is AIMED AT!! ...
(The answer: KIDS)... or in the PFA Case... VERY NAIVE and NON-TECHNICAL Fine Artists...

Veritas, again, the product is NOT aimed at people wanting to create traditional 3D art.  It is aimed at people who either create fine art (pencils, inks, paints, chalks, etc.) or people who paint in programs like Photoshop, Painter, Gimp, etc.  It's stated clearly on the front page. 
So, no, they're not practicing deception in advertising.  The images are clearly postworked.  Poser Figure Artist is designed for painters, NOT 3D artists.

Quote - *Elusion said clearly in her post that her picture was done in Poser 4. And Poser 4 IS Poser Artist, so I fail to see how the "different version" thing complies here. Posr 4 is simply remarketed as Poser Artist.

STOP RIGHT THERE.

I'm stopping right here then :m_grin:

I admit I wasn't aware that PFA was any different from Poser Artist. My Bad.

OTOH, the sketch designer IS the same from Poser 4 and up. At leas as far as I can tell, and I HAVE used it quite a bit.

No offence Vertias but you're clutching at straws here. 

Really whats wrong with EF wanting to punt out a simpler version of Poser to artists who work in other forms of media  ? It benefits everyone. Both electronic and traditional media artists. 

Anyone who's draws and paints with traditional media knows that you're not gonna turn out the next mona lisa from software alone. Even a total newbie knows that.  That requires a natural or learned talent and technical skills. 

When I paint a cut-off or leather jacket. theres a world of difference between a brush grabbing on cloth and taking your brush stroke away, to designing that on a wacom tablet with mutiple undo. 

PFA is a complimentary supporting tool for traditional media artists and the advertsing reflects that area. Nothing more. It's not unreasonable at all. 

Attached Link: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/ad-faqs.htm

But what you KEEP MISSING is what I have been repeatedly been saying- The MARKETING
VIDEO is DECEPTIVE when aimed at a Jerry's Art-o-Rama audience...LIKE I SAID...if e-frontier were to take their video and use the FIRST PART of the Artist talking about using PFA as a "Virtual Model" tool ...then that's JUST GROOVY with me...because it's a FAIR and ACCURATE way to present the concept of PFA to that type of audience... (which PRIMARILY is where PFA is directed at- and why they use WOODY as the "theme symbol" for the package)...ARE YOU WITH ME?

...Like WOODY would NOT be a likely THEME SYMBOL for Poser 7 because Poser 7 is directed at a MORE SOPHISTICATED Computer User who knows about (or will be FORCED to learn about) things like 3D Shaders, Dynamic Cloth, Morphs, etc...  and using the MORE SOPHISTICATED Post-Produced artwork WOULD BE the appropriate marketplace to show it...

...It may SEEM TRIVIAL and UNIMPORTANT to you how products are marketed- but there are CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS in the US, UK and European Union countries which govern how MASS-MARKET PRODUCTS are advertised (I know some people here "don't think so"- but they have VERY LITTLE IDEA of what ACTUALLY GETS REGULATED in Commercial Products).

...the BIGGER the company, the more likely the Federal Trade Commission (or some other government agency) will be CLOSELY LOOKING AT how Commercial Messages are convayed
and IF they are DECEPTIVE...

...I'm POSTING THIS AGAIN...You May NEVER have heard of the FTC before, but THEY EXIST!
and they FINE COMPANIES for advertising that CONFUSES, MIS-LEADS or appears DECEPTIVE!...

FTC GENERAL ADVERTISING POLICIES

What truth-in-advertising rules apply to advertisers?
Under the Federal Trade Commission Act:

• advertising must be truthful and non-deceptive;

How does the FTC determine if an ad is deceptive?
A typical inquiry follows these steps:

• The FTC looks at the ad from the point of view of the "reasonable consumer" - the typical person looking at the ad. Rather than focusing on certain words, the FTC looks at the ad in context - words, phrases, and pictures -to determine what it conveys to consumers.

NOTE THE PHRASE "Reasonable Consumer"..the "typical Person looking at the ad"

Attached Link: http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/consumer.htm

There's a difference between advertising a tool, and advertising that upon purchase you will posess the know-how to use said tool.

I'd like to see those FTC guidelines applied to a lot of other advertising with the same scruntiny and how well do you think they'd fare? Not very well I'd bet. Why isn't something done about those?

With all the name changes going on lately maybe it would be better to change to Caveat Emptor instead?

Quote - I'd like to see those FTC guidelines applied to a lot of other advertising with the same scruntiny and how well do you think they'd fare? Not very well I'd bet. Why isn't something done about those?

With all the name changes going on lately maybe it would be better to change to Caveat Emptor instead?

This is sorely begging the point.  Just because 20 people get away with murder, doesn't mean that murder shouldn't be against the law.  Nor soes it mean that the 21st that's caught 'redhanded' shouldn't be prosecuted to the letter of the law.
The bandwagon approach, ie that everybody's doing it, doesn't make a certain practice any more right than it otherwise should be.  'Everybody' used to sacrifice their firstborn child to Molloch, but that didn't make child sacrifice any less abhorrent, even in those days.
David P. Hoadley

The point hasn't been proved either as far as I can tell know one seems to be able to tell if PFA can do what it claims. 

So why the big outcry on this particular point when they are so many other that should be put under that scrutiny? Those that have been proved not to live up to their advertising deserve to be fined by the FTC so why haven't they?

I suppose the question is can PFA produce an image like the one they are using to advertise it. If it ca't then surely its false advertising?
Plus - if the image was not produced in PFA and they are saying it was then again - surely that's false advertising?

Veritas, I do see your point but people around here will not listen or understand. They've been fed lies for years, they've become used to them and actually they've started to like them. It's a common practice around here to deceive customers, but none on cares anymore.

Don't get me wrong, I do agree with you, but I'm not going to fight it anymore.... all I do is just throw every unwanted email I get from EF or DAZ away.

Poeple around here love hypes, they thrive on them, I don't think they can live without them. So companies like EF & DAZ rely on hypes to get customers buying their stuff. Hypes come and go around here...... at the end of the hype people finally start seeing they've been hyped once again, but don't seem to care, since they fall just as quickly for the next hype coming.

Quote - all I do is just throw every unwanted email I get from EF or DAZ away.

Poeple around here love hypes, they thrive on them, I don't think they can live without them. but don't seem to care, since they fall just as quickly for the next hype coming.

Don't most people around here do the same thing about deleting email? They seem to ignore hype and advertising rather than loving it or falling for it. There are several ads on each page here but when was the last time you paid any attention to them?

It's mostly become irrelevant what kind of advertising claims are made since no one ever believes them anyway. No one does care because they've heard it all so much that it has become static. The advertisers have cried wolf so much that people turn a deaf ear on them.

Veritas - I do understand that alleged depective advertising is your issue here and not the software itself.  You don't have to 'shout' either, it makes it harder to read things. 

In the UK something similar to the FTC is called the ASA.

However in this case it's just advertising thats all. Nothing else.  Isn't it the job of any advertiser to lie to you, to hype the product, to convince you to buy something? It's no different than burger ads.  
 
You have to develop "Ad Blindess" as Argon18 describes - which I admit can be damm hard particulary as we are targeted by advertisers from an early age. Nearly every kid knows who Tony the tiger is and what breakfast cereal he sells. 

If you feel that strongly get involved with someone like adbusters and fight against everyone instead of just EF ? 

Quote -   You don't have to 'shout' either, it makes it harder to read things. 

 

this has been pointed out to him repeatedly. he won't listen and will keep on doing it.

Yes they are misleading. I got a set or Lights that claim to create realistic lighting, and my characters look plain. I've gotten free lights that look so much better. what a waste of money