I care little for your history.  I'll thank you to treat me with as much respect as I offer to you.  I'll inform you that your post above is quite snide, snarky, and several other adjectives besides, none of which are "respectful".   I doubt you would care to be talked to the same way you're talking to me, much as you seem to mislike being politely corrected as I've just done.  Your first big rant was belittling, insulting, and rude.  Play it off however you care to.

I've said plainly why I do not like cropped thumbs - because they do not represent the image they're associated with.  Unless the image is a collection of elbows, or armpits, or eyes, or shoelaces, then a cropped piece of the image has little connection for me to its parent image.  I find it irritating and unhelpful.  Your operating system doesn't do that with images.  Your applications for viewing and managing large collections of images don't do it either.

If you have a different preference, that's you.  If thousands of other people have a different preference, that's thousands of other people.  If every other person in the world had a different preference - which they clearly do not but even so - that would be every other person in the world.   Your preferences, the preferences of thousands of other people, the preferences of every other person in the world, these things are immaterial to my preference, so when you follow up your question with that kind of data, it turns into a statement that since you think I'm in the minority, my preference has something wrong with it.  Which it might, but again, it's immaterial to me.  Is that clear enough?

Some people crop, some don't. All it is is personal taste. 

Tiari--can I borrow your kelvar vest? I'm going to be getting alot of hate mail soon.

It's not worth getting so upset over. It really isn't. And it isn't worth saying something in anger that costs you a freind.

If that sounded soap-boxy, I apologize. My son is dying from liver cancer and we spent another wasted day at a doctor who has no answers. I am very upset and seeing you at each others throats is heartbreaking.

Best wishes to your and your son.  I'll follow your advice.

Aww Cal, so sorry to hear that :sad: Sending you prayers and good vibes

socal - very sorry to hear that. I hope you can find some peace and solace. maybe they'll stop this fighting in light of the situation.

SoCal - hugs for you and prayers for your son coming from Phoenix!

Everyone else, take a chill pill.  This shouldn't turn into another round of Thumb wars.  That plain fact is that each of us has their own preference for thumbs.  If some don't like that I make cropped thumbs that's their priviledge.  If they choose not to look at my posts in the galleries, again their choice.

None of us have the option to change the Renderosity TOS.  I just try to abide by them and do the best I can.

Well said Victoria_Lee!!!  Wish we could all just get along and stop trolling!!! 

And to JenX...  IMHO you've handled yourself fantastically throughout this puerile tirade that the original posters thread degenerated into!!!  He's entitled to ask his question, pity it turned out like this!!!

My two cents are spent!!!

G

Thanks, G.  I just calls 'em like I sees 'em.  Been around long enough to have been through this before and I said the same things back then.

to each their own...frankly, if'n ya don't like the practice, you don't have to click on the thumbnail..but that's me..;) it's a free site, do as ya like.

**I can't believe the way this thread turned out, I was going to post earlier but my incentive just washed away.
Anyway, my 2 cents, it's the artists choice how they do their thumbnails. I personally do cropped, but this doesn't mean it's any better than a standard resize of the full image. I just prefer the 'teaser'. I understand both points of view, so it's just down to the individual.

**pjz99 & JenX - What are you two like? I think you should both have a few beers together & laugh it off!

SoCalRoberta - So sorry to hear this. I thought I was having a bad day but now I realise I'm not. I wish the best for your son.

Sometimes I crop a thumbnail because I want to show the central theme or item which is the focus of the piece to greater effect.  I don't think of it as a "tease" so much as there is something in the piece that I hope the viewer will notice.  If they click on the thumbnail that shows that item, then, to me at least, it's more likely that they will pay attention to that part of the piece.

I could be wrong, of course, but that is why I sometimes crop.  Not often lately, but that's more because I've become lazy since the system started creating automatic thumbs.

I also don't click on images where the thumb is nothing but a content advisory.  However, there are a whole lot of thumbs I don't click on .... for me, there is maybe one image on a browsing page that will get my attention.  I don't have the time for, or the interest in, violence or t&a.  My particular interests are animals and architecture ... so full on thumbnails of violence or nudes would be unlikely to draw me in anyway.

Getting back to why I used to crop my thumbnails (before I got lazy), it was mostly just artistic preference.  Sometimes a detail that is important to the artist gets lost in the scale of the thumb.  I would hazard a guess that, other than compliance with any nudity or other content concerns, that's probably why most artists do it - if they do it at all.

Also, I post my work in order to share it with the people who care about what I do.  I will probably never be one of those artists who gets a zillion hits on every image, but I honestly don't care.  I would rather have 5 friends look at something I've done and see something special in it - or appreciate the work I put into it -- than have one NVIATWAS with a ton of views and comments like "ohhhh, she's hot!!"

That said ... there are people who put a lot of work into their NVIATWAS images, and I hope they get every hit they desire, cropped thumbnail and content advisories notwithstanding.  Just not from me, and I appreciate the fact that I no longer have to look over a ton of those images in miniature just to get to the images I would like to see.

NVIATWAS ?

Oh, sorry ... Naked Vicky in a Temple with a Sword" .... it's sort of like "SOW" ("Sphere Over Water") in Bryce .... the cliched picture that every newbie in creation seems to do with a program when they first get into it.

Still not got an answer to my question.

If I have not set the "No nudity" filter why should I be upset by nude thumbnails. If I set the "No Nudity flag, they are all gone, so no problem.

I would rather see an enormous boobs thumbnail and pass it by than click on an eye or a toe and then be presented with a full sized image of something I didn't really want to look at.

Why can this not be achieved?

Cropped and altered thumbnails are basically a deception.

Cropped and altered thumbnails are and edited alternative to the main image.  They are no more a "deception" than an edited version of a story is a deception.

If I had a main image with nudity and violence and my thumbnail image was of a cute bunny that was not even in the main image .... that would be a deception.  Arguably, even if the cute bunny was in the image ... you might say it was a deception because the bunny was not the focus of the image.

But, editing something, whether for brevity, to highlight, or for clarity, is in no way, shape or form a deception.

I am not particularly "upset" with nude thumbnails myself.  I find most of them to be a boring parade of the same old stuff.  Same with the violent stuff .... it's mind numbing in its lack of imagination for the most part.  That doesn't upset me .... I just don't care to be bothered with it.

Even an eye or a toe that is a thumbnail for a nude or violent image is supposed to be tagged for content.  So, I don't see someone clicking on an eye and getting the shock of their lives when the eye turns into giant boobies.

And, I don't have the "no nudity" filter set on my machines simply because Renderosity has a different definition than I do.  It is ever so much stricter.  They would consider a stone statue with no actual nipples or genitalia to be a "nude."  I wouldn't.  So, I don't bother with the filter because it screens out things I personally don't think need to be screened out.  It's a personal decision to leave the filter off.

It's also a personal decision (as an artist) whether or not to have a full image in a thumbnail or to highlight some portion of that image.  To make a blanket statement that it is always a deception is to imply that you know the intent behind someone else's artistic decision ... I doubt you meant to make that kind of statement, but you managed to do it.

The simple fact is you won't see a nude thumbnail here, whether or not you have the Nudity filter set.  This happened because enough people didn't bother to set the filter and then complained about the thumbnails showing things that weren't appropriate for either a: work or b: kids.

I realise your opinion that "Cropped and altered thumbnails are basically a deception" is valid for you but face the fact that you don't control the site and most of us just try to get by.

A lot of us have posted our reasons for cropping thumbnails.  They don't apply to you, of course, but they do apply to us.  For you to issue a blanket statement like the one I quoted is far from tolerant.  My impression, and this is MY impression of your statement, is that you want to convince every artist here that what we've been doing for years is wrong simply because you say so.

This will be my last post on this subject and I will no longer receive the e-bots about it because, patently, no-one is going to answer your question to your satisfaction.  I suggest you read the TOS for Renderosity as concerns the thumbnails.  This is why many of us crop them and why many rely on the system generated ones.

You mean peeps look at the galleries when they should be working!! Surely not??? 

I'm going to post my original thumbnail for one of my images, then the image, and then what the thumbnail would have looked like had I just left it on automatic.

Many of you will disagree with me, of that I am certain, but I do not see the original thumbnail image as being anything more or less than a highlighting of my central character.  And, further, I happen to think that the original thumbnail gives a better impression of what I hoped would be the nobility of the character.

I, for one, think that gets lost in the thumbnail sized as it would have been had I left it uncropped.

Oh, and yes .... when I do a cropped thumb, I generally write "detail" on it ....

That is pretty much exactly why all of my thumbs are cropped. I don't render for a tiny square, I render for a scene and that scene doesn't look good squished down to nothing. I also like square thumbnails for my gallery but I never render a square image.

dphoadley @ rickymaveety
You are mistaken if youthink that your cropped thumbnail is superior to your uncropped thumbnail.  The truth is that the latter is far more interesting than the former.  I'd NEVER click on the teh cropped version, whereas I just might on the cropped version as it shows a much more intriguing image.  Thus, cropping would not be working to your advantage, and it might be advisable to rethink your entire gallery strategy.
Just thought that you ought to know.
DPH

*"I'd NEVER click on the teh cropped version, whereas I just might on the cropped version"

*Make up yer mind Hoadley!!!! 

Quote - *"I'd NEVER click on the teh cropped version, whereas I just might on the cropped version"

*Make up yer mind Hoadley!!!! 

Blast arthritis, chilly weather, and stiff jointed fingers!  Misprint!  I meant that I just might on the UNcropped version.
DPH

Quote - The simple fact is you won't see a nude thumbnail here, whether or not you have the Nudity filter set.  This happened because enough people didn't bother to set the filter and then complained about the thumbnails showing things that weren't appropriate for either a: work or b: kids.

I realise your opinion that "Cropped and altered thumbnails are basically a deception" is valid for you but face the fact that you don't control the site and most of us just try to get by.

A lot of us have posted our reasons for cropping thumbnails.  They don't apply to you, of course, but they do apply to us.  For you to issue a blanket statement like the one I quoted is far from tolerant.  My impression, and this is MY impression of your statement, is that you want to convince every artist here that what we've been doing for years is wrong simply because you say so.

This will be my last post on this subject and I will no longer receive the e-bots about it because, patently, no-one is going to answer your question to your satisfaction.  I suggest you read the TOS for Renderosity as concerns the thumbnails.  This is why many of us crop them and why many rely on the system generated ones.

Just set the nudity filter at your end  then.

The deception is there whether you agree or not. If I click on a thumbnail of a face and get a T & A  image I wouldn't normally have clicked on, I have been deceived.

So nobody can answer my simple question?

I've read the TOS and I don't understand the logic when there is a perfectly adequate filter already in place.

Cropping thumbnails out of choice is one thing, being forced to is another.

Quote -
That said ... there are people who put a lot of work into their NVIATWAS images, and I hope they get every hit they desire, cropped thumbnail and content advisories notwithstanding.  Just not from me, and I appreciate the fact that I no longer have to look over a ton of those images in miniature just to get to the images I would like to see.

Don't see how you can say that. If you have the nudity filter set to off, you will still have to look over  a ton of those images in miniature but you won't know they are missable unless you click on them.

Steve:   Now this has been a rehash, but lets get to the meat of your question here, which seems to be, boiled down, if you can click a nudity filter, why should it matter that there be no nudity in thumbs.

I can only answer this, based on my personal opinion.  I do not work for renderosity, pay for their server, or anything else, just an artist.  Since my Kevlar's on loan (luck to your son darlin, keep the kevlar as long as you want!), I'll use the easy wash drip dry spatter guard.

Renderosity states, they would like the site to look more professional.  Granted, pleased or not by the thumbnail croppin rule, I have to agree with them.  You see, from the good, bad, and the ugly, this is a business.   There are artists on this site, that would absolutely adore if serious people in the business took a look, and decided to hire, or showcase any one of us, in a magazine, spread, or gallery.   People can lie if they want and say they just "do it for themselves", but I have to think, if people are so adamantly persecuted by showing no boobs in a thumb waving about the elite artist banner, I'd think they'd like to make a few dollars out of what they love to do, if they could.

Let me introduce you to, other than the Naked Vicky in a temple with a sword, to what really is at hand here.......

Its where I'll need the drip dry spatter garment:

"JGPVBMANC"  = Just got Poser, Vicky, Breast Morphs and No Clothes.

If someone working for a high end art magazine was looking for new talent, even if they were looking for graceful nudes, how far do you think they would get in the gallery before they go , "Next?".   Seriously, How many V3 areola's do you need to see in close up, to begin to understand the lack of "something cooking" back there?

Though I do not wholly agree with the thumbnail conundrum, I can see it from a business standpoint.   Do you seriously think an editor from heavy metal magazine, the New Yorker, or the like, would go past even two pages of "whats new" in the galleries before, again, going "Next??".

New users do come here to "look around", and I hate to break it to everyone, first impressions are important!  Would you seriously put in your professional portfolio the boob close up to advertise?  I doubt it.   We as members have had experience with "whats in" the galleries, new users don't know some of the "in your face flying genetalia" that would greet you otherwise, without the thumbnail rule.   I can only imagine what kind of impression that leaves.

On a last note, though that may not totally answer your question, the impression the gallery leaves, does not just reflect on renderosity, but bleeds over into every member who uploads to it.   Every one of us.

dphoadly .... what you and I think about the superiority of any thumbnail is just a matter of our opinions, and we much agree to disagree.  I like the "detail" thumbnail better myself.

However, I don't need to rethink my gallery strategy.  First, because I rarely if ever crop.  And second, because cropped or uncropped, my gallery is seldom if ever viewed, and I am fine with that.  I'm one of those undiscovered treasures that everyone likes to talk about.

And, steve1950, you are just plain wrong when you say that "the deception is there whether you agree or not."  If you are the only one being "deceived" and no one intends to deceive you, then the deception exists only in your own mind.  Period.  Deception is a matter of intent ... not perception.  One is deceived when someone intends to trick them.  If there is no intent then the person just made an error in judgement and really just deceived themselves.

If you click on a thumbnail of an eye that has a nudity flag attached to it, and you end up seeing a nude ... then you haven't been decived ... you just (apparently) can't read.  No deception ... you simply made an error in not understanding that a nudity flag means .... nudity.

As for why I don't use the nudity filters .... I do think I answered that ... quite comprehensively.  So, I won't bother to address that issue yet again.  Just back a post up, read it, and you will have my answer at least.

I deal with people much like you every day, steve1950.  They tend to speak in "universialities" as if their view was the view of everyone in the world.  It's the "it's a deception no matter what you say" .... or "it's true no matter what anyone says," view of the world.  Well, to you and to all those people who take that tack, it's true for you.  But, please don't even try to argue that it's true for everyone and anyone.  You won't get very far with that argument, at least not with anyone who has any sense of logic.

Quote - > Quote -

That said ... there are people who put a lot of work into their NVIATWAS images, and I hope they get every hit they desire, cropped thumbnail and content advisories notwithstanding.  Just not from me, and I appreciate the fact that I no longer have to look over a ton of those images in miniature just to get to the images I would like to see.

 

Don't see how you can say that. If you have the nudity filter set to off, you will still have to look over  a ton of those images in miniature but you won't know they are missable unless you click on them.

Steve  .... what you said makes absolutely no sense at all to me.  The images have a text flag regarding violence and nudity.  A text flag.  I don't bother to click on the ones with a text flag regarding violence or nudity.  It's very easy for me to bypass those without clicking on them because ..... are you ready .... I can read.

Depends on if they are 'creatively' cropping or just hacking up the image as if they have no clue.
To 'lure' one in using good taste is one thing, but to hack out just an eyeball because one thinks they are being 'cute like the rest'....well, that 'eyeball', unless something wickedly cool is about it, certainly would not 'lure' me in and if it does 'lure' someone in and there isn't some wickedly cool image behind it, say nothing more then another rendered Vicky or Sydny face like all the rest, then I guess the person who got 'lured' in should be mad...at them selves for being so foolish, or just plain nosey that they just had to see what was behind such an uninteresting thumb.

Now myself, I crop for nudity and I crop for creativity and I crop simply because a 1024x768 image doesn't shrink down to 200x200 proper or if I do 'square' it out then the thumb looks too amaturish...therefore I get 'Creative' with it.

Depending on what I want to tease, I might pick the face of a book with a title "How To Seduce A Dragon" from within the scene and make that my thumb...good tease for a nude Vicky with an embarassed dragon now don't ya think?
Or for a huge family portrait of several characters I'll zoom in on just one of the more interesting or alureing faces and make that my thumb and then the title will tell a little more about it as well in hopes to 'lure in the suckers'. Or I might choose just a hint of the character, like a shoulder or a hand and focus more on capturing some of the background scene to give a 'feel' to the image as a whole and just a hint of the main attraction...and again, choose a title that also goes along.

Other then that, if I enter a gallery and only see an Eyeball or an uninteresting ?? that tells me nothing of the image and the title doesn't even appeal....I aint no cat and I'm about an courious as a door nail...

(P.S. don't go seeking my gallery here, I took it down more then a year ago...)

You mean peeps look at the galleries when they should be working!! Surely not???

Wotcher never heard of Lunch Hour?...and stop calling me Shirley..;)

There's what, 100,000 plus people using this site (actually, probably 20,000 artists, 60,000 lurkers, and 20,000 clone accounts..;) There's all different levels of skill here, from newbies to dedicated artists. Some can crop with skill, some just don't know any better.

If you see someone that doesn't show skill in making good thumbs, there's little harm in making a friendly suggestion, a hint on how to do it better (I need all the hints I can get, for example..;) And for anyone (Geep, Geep?..;) who wants to make a tutorial on good thumbnail presentation and composition, would be a more constructive way to go about it.

Quote - Steve:   Now this has been a rehash, but lets get to the meat of your question here, which seems to be, boiled down, if you can click a nudity filter, why should it matter that there be no nudity in thumbs.

I can only answer this, based on my personal opinion.  I do not work for renderosity, pay for their server, or anything else, just an artist.  Since my Kevlar's on loan (luck to your son darlin, keep the kevlar as long as you want!), I'll use the easy wash drip dry spatter guard.

Renderosity states, they would like the site to look more professional.  Granted, pleased or not by the thumbnail croppin rule, I have to agree with them.  You see, from the good, bad, and the ugly, this is a business.   There are artists on this site, that would absolutely adore if serious people in the business took a look, and decided to hire, or showcase any one of us, in a magazine, spread, or gallery.   People can lie if they want and say they just "do it for themselves", but I have to think, if people are so adamantly persecuted by showing no boobs in a thumb waving about the elite artist banner, I'd think they'd like to make a few dollars out of what they love to do, if they could.

Let me introduce you to, other than the Naked Vicky in a temple with a sword, to what really is at hand here.......

Its where I'll need the drip dry spatter garment:

"JGPVBMANC"  = Just got Poser, Vicky, Breast Morphs and No Clothes.

If someone working for a high end art magazine was looking for new talent, even if they were looking for graceful nudes, how far do you think they would get in the gallery before they go , "Next?".   Seriously, How many V3 areola's do you need to see in close up, to begin to understand the lack of "something cooking" back there?

Though I do not wholly agree with the thumbnail conundrum, I can see it from a business standpoint.   Do you seriously think an editor from heavy metal magazine, the New Yorker, or the like, would go past even two pages of "whats new" in the galleries before, again, going "Next??".

New users do come here to "look around", and I hate to break it to everyone, first impressions are important!  Would you seriously put in your professional portfolio the boob close up to advertise?  I doubt it.   We as members have had experience with "whats in" the galleries, new users don't know some of the "in your face flying genetalia" that would greet you otherwise, without the thumbnail rule.   I can only imagine what kind of impression that leaves.

On a last note, though that may not totally answer your question, the impression the gallery leaves, does not just reflect on renderosity, but bleeds over into every member who uploads to it.   Every one of us.

Isn't there several false assumptions in there? 

Most of the artists in the galleries are self admitted hobbyists so trying to make the thumbnails look more professional is a contridiction in terms. A lot of those that post in the galleries are beginners so if they're looking for people to hire them they have a lot more improving to do to get to a professional level.

That leads to  another assumption How serious are the people that they want to promote the artist too? I can see if they were commercial advertising companies they it would be inapropriate but if they're looking for the graphic design that most of those companies use, then they're looking in the wrong place. 

If they're fine art galleries they they're trying to promote to then how serious can they be if they get offended by  nudity? I think the impression you're talking about is just a facet of prejudice like the prejudice that Poser isn't art because you use premade models

The whole point of the problem is that you're sacrificing the many for the sake of the few. Does Renderosity seriously think they can promote to high art magazines or the New Yorker when only a small percentage of the artist in the galleries are on a professional level? 

I've seen stuff in Heavy Metal magazine that has a lot of nudity of the same type as a NVIATWAS so it can't be that since that's another assumption.

Isn't the whole point about personal taste? Some people like to crop thumbnails to show details and focus on relevant parts and there is good reason for that. Some think that showing the full frame makes it more honest and I can see a reason for that. 

What I can't see is forcing everyone to make thumbnails a certain way out of a false assumtion of what kind of impression it makes. That's just as bad as forcing everyone to have an auto-generated full frame thumbnail.

It certainly shows a total lack of tolerance for personal taste

rickymaveety: there's something I don't understand. First you explain why you don't use the nudity filter. Good and valid reasoning, by the way. Then you say you will not click an image that's tagged with nudity.

Now Renderosity requires that an image of a stone statue that depicts a nude figure is tagged with the nudity flag. You say you might be interested in such an image. Yet you also say you won't click a tagged image.

Something doesn't add up here.

No, he means he won't click on a posting that has the default "Content Advisory" icon from what I understood.

Quote - > Quote - > Quote -

That said ... there are people who put a lot of work into their NVIATWAS images, and I hope they get every hit they desire, cropped thumbnail and content advisories notwithstanding.  Just not from me, and I appreciate the fact that I no longer have to look over a ton of those images in miniature just to get to the images I would like to see.

 

Don't see how you can say that. If you have the nudity filter set to off, you will still have to look over  a ton of those images in miniature but you won't know they are missable unless you click on them.

 

Steve  .... what you said makes absolutely no sense at all to me.  The images have a text flag regarding violence and nudity.  A text flag.  I don't bother to click on the ones with a text flag regarding violence or nudity.  It's very easy for me to bypass those without clicking on them because ..... are you ready .... I can read.

This is definitely about the text flag, not about the contents of the thumb itself. And this is what doesn't add up.

Huh, so it seems.  I'm scratching my head about that as well.

Argon:  I make no assumptions.   Let that be perfectly clear.   Though it is true many on renderosity are hobbyists, some are not, like........ perhaps the other half?   As I stated, its only my opinion personally on what "renderosity must be thinking", not nessisarily what I want, or think.

You seem to be making assumptions of your own.

I have no particular predjudice against using a premade figure, matter of fact, I use them.  I do however, wonder at the calibre of CLASS....... yes, god help us all, the word of the day, CLASS of those who think a big boob in a 200x200 square is somehow artistic OR tasteful...... to anyone.

And therein, my friend lies the crux of the true problem.   This whole site and its member occupants as a whole are a community.  Some are hobbiests, some are professionals, and when it boils down to it, it is a business (as has been stated before).

Unless Renderosity wants to take on the entire human population and dissect the meaning of "nudity"........... I'm very sorry, the good, goes with the bad.    Perhaps if everyone loaded with a new female figure didn't feel the desire to implant silicone and zoom in and flood the galleries........ we could STILL be looking at thumbnails of artistic nudes.

My two cents.

I said the prejudice was similar, not that you used it, both are unreasonable since different people or companies have different impressions depending on their purpose. Would the galleries that showed the Robert Maplethorpe exhibitions even bat an eye at the nudity in the galleries?

If it's a business that they want to promote as proffessional why are hobbyist or beginners allowed on it then? You can't have both assumptions be correct so that argument falls flat in respect to the galleries. Only if they intend to get rid of a lot of members does your theory hold any wieght. Anyone is entitled to their opinion but the problem is when that opinion is forced on everyone as is being done in the galleries.

 It is a business in respect to the marketplace where people are trying to sell things but how does that affect the images posted in the galleries unless they're trying to only cater to the small percentage that are professional artist?

Your opinion on what constitutes CLASS is not shared by everyone even though it is being forced on everyone. And it doesn't take into account the skill level of those that are just starting out..

The other assumption is that it was the only option we could STILL be looking at artistic nudes if the people used other options, it's easy to say the good goes with the bad but it doesn't apply when there was already a system in place but some were too lazy to use it and instead of forcing the people who didn't like the thumbnails to set the nudity filter in their profiles so that it didn't affect the rest, the bad was forced on everyone.

The other assumption is that those of us with our profiles set to view nudity want tits shoved in our faces.

It's like going to the bookstore to buy a Playboy and being given Hustler and Barely Legal instead.

As "in your face" as a quarter inch of tit can be, anyway.

pjz...I'm going to publically, and respectfully, ask that you allow me to have my opinion, as you have yours.  I physically cannot deal with having to explain my position and/or opinion to anyone who simply wants to argue with me.  Between trying to be overly careful not to say what I don't mean (pain meds kill pain AND brain cells at the same time.  Wonderful combo)and trying to curb my anger, I just can't do it anymore.  I've tried to ignore you, and have not responded to you.  My reply was in response to the previous post (which is now on page 3, and, since we're on page 4 I can't remember their name, but remember their cool sig picture).  It's hard enough being told repeatedly that my opinion shouldn't count because it doesn't match someone else's. 
So, you win.  You get +10 points.  You get the "going out of my way to argue" award. 
And, yes, I considered the thumbnails "in my face".  I've said it elsewhere......there's a difference between porn and art.  Some porn can be artistic, but not all art is porn. 

Okley dokey!  :laugh:

I smell a lockdown..;)  it's all good. Plenty of art to go around.

Quote - The other assumption is that those of us with our profiles set to view nudity want tits shoved in our faces.

It's like going to the bookstore to buy a Playboy and being given Hustler and Barely Legal instead.

But which is it? If you want to view nudity then why complain about the degree that it is shown? If you didn't want an either or choice to have nudity or not then why force it on everyone else with no nudity in the thumbnails at all? Isn't that a bit hypocritical? Where is the degree of tolerance shown in that?

 To use your analogy it's like having the the bookstore replace all the Playboy, Hustler and Barely Legal with Maxim and FHM because someone didn't like the Hustler and Barely Legal.

If you meant my sig picture, then TYVM for saying it was cool, it's got a link to one of my shops on CafePress. It's not that your opinion shouldn't count, but that it should not be forced onto others that don't have the same opinion. Would you want others opinions forced onto you?

So tell me how all this debating over this stuff will improve ya Renders ?

You all might be burned out on Poser but I'm not.

I'm more then burned out on endless debates about nude thumbs thou.

Why don't you all render something.with dynamic hair ad cloth,

I promise you ,you will get way more out of that then this endless debating.

May take a while but there's even a end to the render ,

When it does end you have a Killer Render.

A Killer Render is a lot better then a endless debat for Artist is it not.

I do not want to be impolite and unsubscribe to a thread I started.

So I would appreciate it if the debating can end.

Thank you

RorrKonn
http://www.atomic-3d.com

Quote - > Quote - The other assumption is that those of us with our profiles set to view nudity want tits shoved in our faces.

It's like going to the bookstore to buy a Playboy and being given Hustler and Barely Legal instead.

 

But which is it? If you want to view nudity then why complain about the degree that it is shown? If you didn't want an either or choice to have nudity or not then why force it on everyone else with no nudity in the thumbnails at all? Isn't that a bit hypocritical? Where is the degree of tolerance shown in that?

So, nudity should be an all-or-nothing shot?  If I wanted to view explicit nudity/erotica, there's always r'otica or raunchy minds.  However, those of us (it's not just me, btw.  I just happen to be yelling loudly) who do choose to view nudes....well, it's all about that wonderful word: choice.  That's what the nudity flags are for...for those who choose not to view those types of images.  However, for those of us who, when the whim carries us, choose to view them, we want it to be our choice, not shoved down our throats.  And, when 1 in 5 thumbs leading to nudes are either blatantly nude or "suggestively" nude (i.e. suggesting a buttcrack is cleavage, etc.), it gets old.  However, I am looking at it from the point of view of former staff.  See, when I was here, every Wednesday and Friday (and every day in the D|S gallery), I had to try to look at and gauge every image in the gallery, sometimes bringing some up for review.  Now, I'll admit that there were a LOT of images in the gallery that, falling into the "inflataboob" category...the images themselves were well-made.  Lighting and texture were nice, atmosphere was good, and the overall images were great.  However, those were few and far between.  I liken it to....well, to use another analogy (I'm full of 'em.  Really.), it's like going to the beach, and the only people on the beach for miles and miles are morbidly obese men and women in thongs.  (Before we take offense to this, I'm against thongs on principle, because they're tacitly freaking uncomfortable.  Then again, I'm fat.  They weren't designed for fat people.  They were designed for Jenna Jameson.)
So, if you don't want to see it, you go somewhere else.  Let's face it.  There are few fat people that want to see themselves in a swimsuit, let alone a speedo.  I'm one of them.  
Sorry, I'm rambling again.  What my point is....and what probably isn't clear....is that, really, the gallery...it's a gallery.  If you were to submit your art to your local art gallery, you'd have to conform to their rules, or make your own gallery.  Any other gallery on the 'net has its' rules, too.  Most are actually stricter than Renderosity's.  
I'm going to stop typing right now....my head is going in 50 different places right now, and I have to unscatter my brain and get back to work :P

Quote - So, nudity should be an all-or-nothing shot?  If I wanted to view explicit nudity/erotica, there's always r'otica or raunchy minds.  However, those of us (it's not just me, btw.  I just happen to be yelling loudly) who do choose to view nudes....well, it's all about that wonderful word: choice.  That's what the nudity flags are for...for those who choose not to view those types of images.  However, for those of us who, when the whim carries us, choose to view them, we want it to be our choice, not shoved down our throats. 

That's my whole point is that it is about choice. How is taking away the choice and having no nudity shoved down others throats increasing it? Is it because some hypocrites want to have their personal taste forced on everyone? Nudity shouldn't be an all or nothing shot so why force a certain opinion of what they consider to be appropriate onto others? 

That's what the nudity flags are supposed to be for, not to CYA because you think you'll get into trouble for any flash of skin and to give those who don't want to view nudity a choice not to see it if they don't want to.

So how is forcing everyone to have no nudity in the thumbnails giving them a choice? That sounds like an all or nothing shot to me.

I always thought the lengths that people like boobrepli and willdial wento were funny because they were outrageously out of proportion. Does that mean that I was going to force them to dial back to a more sane level? No, because I tolerate their personal taste and gave them the choice to do their images the way they saw fit. I wouldn't want them to dictate what I put in my images either.

But that doesn't seem to apply to some on here that think they have a right to enforce their personal taste on others and take away their choices. To use your analogy again, if you didn't like the people on the beach, instead of going somewhere else, you got some security people to come and throw them off the beach.

If you were to submit your art to a local gallery for years and suddenly they changed their policy to something different then you'd wonder why if it was alright before then why is it so bad now? Other places might have stricter rules, but that's not what I agreed to when I signed up in 2002 so that doesn't really apply here.

The debate won't improve your renders and certainly the curtailing of choice won't but what good is putting all that time and effort into making a killer render if you aren't allowed to show it here?

sigh
you win.
whatever.
what I don't think anyone is getting...is both sides of the argument are pretty hypocritical.

The question in the thread was about the various reasons for cropping thumbnails, the answer being it was a matter of personal taste of each artist to determine how they wanted to present the thumbnail to the audience. The recent change in the thumbnail policy is directly related to that since it also involves the personal taste of the artist to choose what they want to put in the thumbnail.

If they put more effort into alternatives, like tailoring the nudity filter to allow for some more degree than an all or nothing choice then it might be less hypocritical but that is hard to account for the range of what offends some people or not. That only affects the people who choose to use the filter in their profile.

That doesn't compare to trying to force what your personal taste is to affect everyone. It's like when you see a channel on TV that has some stuff you like but other stuff you don't and instead of changing the channel to avoid the stuff you don't like, you force the cable company to change it to get rid of the stuff you don't like so that everyone can't see it either.

Which is a lot more hypocritical?