Renderosity Forums / Poser - OFFICIAL
Welcome to the Poser - OFFICIAL Forum
Forum Coordinators: RedPhantom
Poser - OFFICIAL F.A.Q (Last Updated: 2025 Jan 11 12:18 am)
Subject: Why are alot of the thumbs cropped ?
Tiari, I have the sudden want to have your babies. I get the vague impression that we may be of the same gender (from your avatar), which may cause some problems, but, if not, bonus points for me.
(that's my way of saying I agree. Only being a dork about it.)
Sitemail | Freestuff | Craftythings | Youtube|
Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it
into a fruit salad.
Quote - 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.
Sorry for the late response, but I sort of left this thread behind as it was getting a little (a little??) strange.
It's not that I never (ever) click an image that has a nudity tag. Most of the time, I can see from the thumbnail whether or not the image has any interest for me as an artistic piece (as opposed to just a T&A render).
If it looks like it's going to be an interesting piece, or if I know the artist is someone whose work I respect, I will click away no matter what type of tags are on it. I have absoutely no problem viewing nudity in art .... I'm just not a big fan of porn. And, when I can't see any artistic merit in a piece, then it's just plain old porn to me.
Of course, that's one of those things that's in the eye of the beholder. Someone else might look at something that I don't see any merit in and think it's Leonardo freaking DaVinci ... and then there are people who think that Michaelangelo's David is porn. Go figure.
Could be worse, could be raining.
Quote - I can choose to view nudity, AND the desire not to see one more breasts in a thumbnail close up. Why is that so difficult to understand?
It isn't that it's difficult to understand (although I don't, but that's not the issue) - it's that your particular preference is now being enforced, which makes you happy because it is your preference. If the decision had been to go with another standard that you didn't like, should you just shut up and be happy and smile? What if the policy was changed such that ALL thumbnails absolutely must have nudity in them, for all images, even those that have no nudity? Would that please you? Probably not. Would you say anything in complaint? I sure hope so!
edit: to be as explicit as possible (which is my point) I would complain too in such a case, because what you have is a guarantee that the thumb will not represent its associated image.
You know, pjz99, I'm just happy that no one much cares if the House Mouse has clothing on or not.
If they had completely banned nudity from the galleries, I could see the need for intense arguments about artistic freedom. But they didn't .... the closest I can come to an analogy to what they did is something from the film industry ... make the artist edit the preview for his or her "R" rated film so that it is suitable for all ages. That's something that is done every day and I haven't heard much of an uproar about that.
So, the filmmaker can have nudity in his/her R rated film, just not in the preview because that preview is being shown to non-R rated types of audiences. Not a big deal in my view of the world.
Is someone else's preference being shoved down the filmmaker's throat?? Well, yes and no. He/she still gets to make an R (or heck, even an X) rated film, but the rest of us aren't forced to view the R or X rated bits when we go to the theater to see a G or PG film. And, we get to make a choice, based on that preview, as to whether or not we want to go to see that film.
So, now back to the gallery here. The thumbnails for me are all little previews of the art, and I can tell, both from the edited thumbnail and from the text tag, whether that image is something I want to see or not. If not, then I don't bother to click on the image .... if yes, then I do.
Of course, the one obvious way that the analogy sort of falls apart is that filmmakers have to twist their artistic integrity all the time in order not to get X ratings for their films ... which is generally death at the box office. But then again, maybe the analogy still holds in that there are certain depictions that, no matter how artistically they might be conveyed, are simply not allowed here (such as nude children).
Which brings me to a question that I probably shouldn't ask .... but where was all the outrage about artistic integrity when that call was made? No topless or nude childlike fairies?? No artwork depicting a bunch of nude children at the old swimming hole? And .... I don't remember anyone making so much as a peep in protest.
But then, maybe one was made and I just missed out on it. That could certainly be the case.
Could be worse, could be raining.
My point has never been about artistic freedom. Since I'm self-taught and haven't had art teachers drilling that into my head my whole life, I haven't picked up that conceit. My point also is not that there is one global standard that will make everyone happy; completely the opposite. You may be crediting me with things said by others, but my complaint is about being forced to provide thumbs that do not represent their image. Before the change I was allowed to submit a thumb that was a fair representative of my images, whether or not other people liked that; now I am not allowed to do that.
I also do not care for the way the policy was rolled out, with the cheerful candy striped tone, when there's nothing whatsoever friendly about it, and various other objections that I have that relate more to the delivery of the policy than the actual policy itself. Site admin staff seems to have finally figured out that they should quit trying to get buy-ins from people who won't ever buy into it, and just quietly enforce it (not a complaint, that's just the way it should have been done from the first day).
Oh, and for the record ... my avatar is a fair representation of me in that I am female with long blonde hair and a face that looks pretty much like that
The rest of it?
Neighborhood designation: "Crazy Cat Lady"
Political affiliation: either socially liberal Republican or fiscally conservative Democrat ... I never can decide
Religion: Budhist (the only one for miles around -- although technically Budhism is not a "religion" in the true sense of the word)
Favorite Ice Cream: Chocolate Chip
Sexual Preference: hoplessly straight ... born that way and can't do a thing about it.
Tada!!!! (Takes a bow ....) You now know more about me than most of my friends in the real world.
Could be worse, could be raining.
rickymaveety: thanks for the explanation. Clear as glass.
By the way, I used to browse the galleries in much the same way you do. Used to. Now I only click on non-tagged thumbnails that look interesting, and on images uploaded by artists I respect - and on the very few thumbnails flagged as nudity that still manage to look interesting AND convey an impression of what lies beyond.
Which means I'll miss out on a lot of dross. No problem, I wouldn't have clicked those thumbs anyway.
Which also means I'll miss out on quite a few uploads and artists that are actually good. I don't like that.
Well, that's my view. Just as valid or invalid as anyone else's.
What is NOT valid is the idea that one view should be enforced over the other. In this regard, many posters from both sides of the issue are WRONG.
Especially since there's no need to enforce a policy that only supports one of the viewpoints. Someone (forgot the name) mentioned the idea of dual thumbnails on the front page article. One nude, one non-nude. With a bit of PHP and database coding this can easily be accomplished. Extend the programming with autogeneration of the "nude" thumbnail and autoreplacement by the Content Advisory standard thumb (if no "non-nude" thumb is supplied) and you'll have a very workable system.
Then both proponents AND opponents of the new policy as it is now can view the gallery exactly the way they want. Everybody happy.
The pen is mightier than the sword. But if you literally want to have some impact, use a typewriter
Oh, well ... no you are right about that. You can't just submit a full thumbnail anymore if your thumbnail would show nudity or violence.
Welcome to the land of the PG preview.
Sorry they rolled out the policy in a way that was upsetting (or use whatever descriptive you want) to you or to anyone else for that matter. I wish that the powers that be could find a way to do things that made everyone happy all the time, but that's not going to happen. No matter what anyone on the planet does, it always seems to end up making only some people happy.
Or as we of the Budhist persuasion generally note: "Life is sufferring." You'd think we'd have a more jolly credo .... but such is not the case.
Could be worse, could be raining.
svdl .... once again you have shown me to be in error. Yes, a dual thumbnail system might be a good idea. And pjz99, if you mentioned or if someone else mentioned that idea earlier, I managed to miss it.
Don't know that they'll ever institute something like that, but it might be just the ticket.
Could be worse, could be raining.
I don't expect the PTB here or elsewhere to always SUCCEED at keeping everybody happy.
But I DO expect them to TRY. Within reason.
Edited to add: I hope this doesn't sound too snippy. rickymaveety: thank you again. It's a pleasure having a discussion with someone who actually listens to another's ideas.
The pen is mightier than the sword. But if you literally want to have some impact, use a typewriter
svdl .... I think sometimes they do try, they just fail miserably.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of people out there who believe quite firmly, that everybody thinks or should think, the way they do.
That somehow, if we are in lockstep with them, then the world will be perfect and we'll all be happy.
It only takes one or two of them in a group of PTB, and unless they get shouted down (which makes them very unhappy indeed), the PTB stop trying very hard.
Could be worse, could be raining.
That's a strong possibility. I've seen this happening at my previous job, two self-important loudmouths that imposed their ideas over everyone else, eventually driving the company to bankruptcy. Good thing I left long before they went broke....
The pen is mightier than the sword. But if you literally want to have some impact, use a typewriter
More than once, I've been one of the poor nimrods among the powers that be who tries like crazy to promote the compromise position only to have everyone else give in to the self-important loudmouth and leave me the only one who votes against the SIL's idea.
Unfortunately, no one ever remembers that I was for the compromise. They just remember that I was one of thePTB when the rotten decision got made.
Sometimes, you can't win for losing.
And, no you didn't sound the least bit snippy to me. Frustrated, maybe ... but since I knew that I wasn't the reason for the frustration, I didn't take it personally. And, I like discussing things with you too. I always learn a lot, or see things from a different perspective when you are part of the discussion.
Could be worse, could be raining.
Quote - Especially since there's no need to enforce a policy that only supports one of the viewpoints. Someone (forgot the name) mentioned the idea of dual thumbnails on the front page article. One nude, one non-nude. With a bit of PHP and database coding this can easily be accomplished. Extend the programming with autogeneration of the "nude" thumbnail and autoreplacement by the Content Advisory standard thumb (if no "non-nude" thumb is supplied) and you'll have a very workable system.
Then both proponents AND opponents of the new policy as it is now can view the gallery exactly the way they want. Everybody happy.
From what I've read from posts about the PHB coding on this site (particularly when something goes cock-eyed, and the username change bit), I think that'd almost require a complete re-write of the code here, making that a less "appealing" choice for the PTB.
And I find it interesting that we have this "autogenerate thumbnail" feature, but if you've got nudity in you image you aren't (not can't, technically, the feature doesn't go away for nude images) supposed to use it.
Wouldn't it make more sense (yeah, I'm probably talking crazy here, I do that on occasion) to code in something that checks, before an image is uploaded, whether the "nudity" tag has been set, and which would disable the autogenerated thumbnail, forcing people to either go without or to put up their own instead of leaving it in place for people to get in trouble if they forget?
And believe me, people will run afoul of the autogenerated thumbnails in nudes, even if you posted in big red letters at the top of the upload page that you aren't supposed to use that feature if you're doing a nude.
________________________________________________________________
If you're joking that's just cruel, but if you're being sarcastic, that's even worse.
PJZ99: Actually, I do have to wonder if the upset is because now, the other half is pleased. Was I supposed to be pleased before, when it was not my way? Because it was your way? I'm confused.
I had stated in my previous posting, elloquently I might add, I am a mature responsible adult. If renderosity had changed it to a policy that did not agree with me, I would find a place to my liking. Since I have already stated that, I find the commentary that I should complain slightly redundant. Actually? I would not. I find no point in giving complaint or argument to something that is obviously not in my justistiction to subjectify.
Would I be thrilled to go elsewhere? No, certainly not. I would of course be dissapointed, however, it is not a life ending nor altering experience. It is no more different to me than if I were to say, I decided to no longer buy products from vendor X for some reason, and move to vendor Y. Its preference.
To me, a change to a policy on a website is hardly enough to get my knickers in a twist. (Or panties in a bunch if you prefer). Just the same as when the Thumbs were allowed, I did not complain about it, as it was their policy to accept them at the time, wether I liked to look at them or not.
Simply put, I do not own this website.
Now. If congress in some fashion decided to make laws against nudity in all art, or that somehow artists who did so in contraband ways would be blacklisted or persecuted, I would lobby, with every ounce of my being to rally against it. Though some abstract and oddy arranged erotica is not of my particular taste, I would still defend the right to create it if one wished. However, that battle is hardly as diminutive as cropped thumbnails on ONE website out of millions that display, sell, exchange and glorify art.
JenX: I do not think babies would be possible in the conventional sense, however I hear many same sex couples use invitro fertilization :)
SDVL: I completely agree that Renderosity could have instituted a better way to go about the whole issue. I would take a guess, however, that their complaint department might have made the pressure to change in a timely manner insurmountable. Perhaps, if we had even the slightest inkling at the behind the scenes aggrivations of the people taking the complaints, perhaps they made a quick fix to quiet the mooing cows. Perhaps if those that would like to see something instated that worked better went to the powers that be with these suggestions directly, perhaps in time we will see change.
I would not count on it though. I do not see many bringing out the honey for the flies.
I also would state, i am not particularly on one side, or the other. Though I actually like the policy, I was not screaming for it, and could have lived just as happily with it the other way. I am particularly easy to please. There are more important decisions in life than to boob, or not to boob in a thumbnail........... like what I will have for breakfast.
Rickymaveety: I pretty much agree with everything you've had to say on the matter. In the simplest words, right on.
In closing, I do wonder ........ often, though less now as the topic is getting old, the "my way or the highway" seeming attitudes. I really do not think Renderosity people sat around trying to figure out the best way to beat down the masses with oppression. They are just human beings, like the rest of us. A mistake? Possibly,
Tiari:
Quote - PJZ99: Actually, I do have to wonder if the upset is because now, the other half is pleased. Was I supposed to be pleased before, when it was not my way? Because it was your way? I'm confused.,
Why are you confused? If you are unhappy about something, you should either try to change it, or reach some compromise within yourself so that it is no longer intolerable. I can't recall even making the implication that your preferences have less value or merit than mine. I suggested a compromise early on, in fact.
Quote - Just the same as when the Thumbs were allowed, I did not complain about it, as it was their policy to accept them at the time, wether I liked to look at them or not.
Is your point that, because you don't complain about things that make you unhappy, nobody should?
Quote - I find no point in giving complaint or argument to something that is obviously not in my justistiction to subjectify.
Nonsense, unless you never spend a penny here. Renderosity gets 50% of the great majority of any purchases made here, plus the services like file locker (for which I pay) and the like. You are not a doormat, you are a customer. If something makes you unhappy (e.g. titties in thumbnails) you're completely entitled to complain about it.
Oops, one odd tangent for Tiari:
Quote - I do not think babies would be possible in the conventional sense, however I hear many same sex couples use invitro fertilization :)
That's a matter of engineering :)
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_31_17/ai_77607698
I don't know why I got the idea that Rickymaveety (sp? dangit, I hate when that happens..;) was a middle-aged man...woops, wait...that's me...;)
I come here because it's fun to make pictures, I learn things, and there's some really good stuff here, without having the middle-and-lowbrow stuff cut out. That works for me...
I wish I'd said that.. The Staircase Wit
anahl nathrak uth vas betude doth yel dyenvey..;)
PJZ99: Hello again! LOL. I'm actually having some fun in debating with you, as thank god it hasn't boiled down to a who's better than who plethora of insutls. LOL. Though I have no intention of changing anyone's mind, especially yours as you have a right to the way you feel, I like that we can clarify ourselves like human beings who have a modicum of decorum.
So, on that note...... I will clarify if it helps at all, what exactly I'm getting at.
Though Renderosity has a market place, and you have the ability to pay for a file locker, no one is making you give them money. If you do not like their policies, you can move elsewhere. Though you pay for a service, you do not run the service, nor the place of business. I may pay for services of a hotel....... pesea for example, but it is NOT in my justistiction to tell the manager how to tell the company how it advertises. Just because I pay for the hotel room, does NOT give me the freedom to strip naked and press my bodaciousness against a window of my room for public view........ because its personal expression.
If i dislike the services of the hotel or restrictions it puts on me, I take my buisness elsewhere. As long as such business conforms to statues by the better business beauro, and federal and local laws........ I could make suggestions to the owners, but ultimately they will run it as best works for them and their perceived clientel.
A website is not a magical mystery domain of business, it operates like any other. As long as their practices are legal, by federal and state juristictions, they may run it any way they see fit. As long as they are providing you with a service you have paid for (recieving an item purchased at the market place, making sellers accountable for their items, allowing you to upload so many things to a file locker), you can rail against the machine, but they will ultimately do as they see fit.
As a consumer, money is power, and the best way to make your statement is to take away the big green machine that runs their business.
Some are not thrilled with the "cheery happy tone" renderosity used to state the change in thumbnails. Could you imagine the reaction at all if it was flippant, crass and harsh? Though I dont think you made that statement yourself (can't recall who did), it does smack of the six of one, half dozen of another. If the happy cheery customer soothing tone was insulting, would a rude in your face demand have been adored? LOL I think not.
I think, seriously, a lot of this issue becomes a problem mostly for older members, ones that have been here a while. There seems to be a blurred line between what is fair, and what is not, and what is in the individual's power. If you decided to start showing art in a new gallery on another server and BEFORE you posted, saw their limitations and restrictions, and you hated them........ you would simply not join. I doubt highly you (or anyone else) because you wanted to belong there would rail against the machine of their business mechanics.
As far as Renderosity is concerned, I see it this way:
Renderosity is a busy "mom". But renderosity has a gaggle of children, and two of them are screaming their heads off. They may be the minority, but trying to sooth and quiet them is near impossible. Not only do they have the other children to deal with, and keep happy, they have older children who want thier lives to run smoothly...... and want bonuses, extras to their lives and "mom" to take them to greater and higher places and offer them more things. But, the Renderosity Mom can't possibly do all of this........ so....... it gives that minority a pacifier in each of their mouths. The Pacifiers quiet the screaming children......... so now Renderosity can focus on everything else around them........ including the ability now to actually look at those screaming children without great amounts of frustration.
THough people argue that children should not have pacifiers......... since they arent "mothering" all these children, its easy for them to talk, or offer alternatives that might, in the long run, require more work.
(I am not saying we are all babies or children, just using a visual here).
Though Renderosity's choice may not please everyone...... to them, perhaps if it quiets down the screaming going on in the background exhausting them..... now they can focus on other things......... and spend more quality time with the rest of us.
Its just a way of looking at it.
P.S. As for me and JenX...... I said invitro was one way...... or we could go out together and get drunk at a bar and solve the problem for free :)
I dislike your characterization of people who complain about the amenities here as screaming children. There is nothing whatsoever motherly about the business that Renderosity does, and I am not a child and there is nothing childlike about the many hundreds of dollars I've spent here. They weren't offered as a thank-you for Rendo lovingly allowing me to use their wonderful amenities. The amenities are offered here strictly because they adjunct profit. If the forums and gallery were not offerred as amenities, profits would be lower - ergo, the amenities are offerred and users are encouraged to use them. There's nothing friendly or loving there, it's just cold, calculating business moves.
You may have the perception that Rendo made this policy change to quiet some screaming babies, but to me it is pretty obvious that it's simply a business move. It's unfortunate that Rendo admin staff chose to act like it's not something business related. It clearly isn't in response to "screaming babies" demanding this change, unless those babies are flat, rectangular bits of paper with numbers on them and and have the names of dead presidents.
We tend to forget that Renderosity is not a free entity. Besides being a store and a community, it's Bondware's showcase.
And Bondware doesn't care about the community. It doesn't care about art. It only cares about showcasing and selling their software. Bondware is a business.
The more I thnk about it, the more I'm convinced that this policy change has been ordered by Bondware. The hurry with which it was implemented, without software support, the fact that each and every argument claiming that THIS is the correct way to address the problem can be proven to be invalid... This must have been ordered from higher up, for pure business reasons that have nothing to do with the community wishes.
Which means that complaining will not help. If Bondware believes this policy is good for their business, it'll stay, no matter what we say or do.
The pen is mightier than the sword. But if you literally want to have some impact, use a typewriter
Hmm.. Except a few (less than 5) all my pictures have cropped thumbnails. And they've had this ever since I started posting pictures here in 2002.
I like cropped thumbnails. I like MAKING them. I like playing with the "what do you THINK you're looking at here" - for instance a curved hip that some would think was a female... and then it's a man. Misleading? Well, perhaps. Or just mindf*ck? Who says you can't tease and play?
Then again, most of my Snape renders have the head or something recognizably "Snapish" in the thumbnail. That is to make the people, who likes to look at Snape pics see what they're getting. And since my pictures are rarely closeups, I like to make my thumbnail a close up.
The size of the thumbnail differs from where I'm ALSO posting the pic. I usually don't make more than one thumbnail. So if it's someting (like my Snape pics) I also plan to post in my LiveJournal, where the "trend" is 100x100 or 100x150 thumbnails, I make a 100x150 thumb. If it's something I also plan to post on RaunchyMinds (but not in my LJ) I'll make the size conform to RM's standards which is 175x175. And if it's something I'm only planning to post here, I'll make a 200x200 thumbnail.
Even on pics that contain nudity, I practically never put anything blatant in the thumb. tits bore me silly and a thumbnail consisting of a penis would probably scare people away. And that goes for plain porn renders too, (those are of course not posted here) - I prefer to tease. Lure, you might say, rather than to show it all in one glance. And that's also why I dislike system-generated thumbnails.
(oh and a little remark. There's a reason why I love a certain uber-snarky potionsmaster...)
FREEBIES! | My Gallery | My Store | My FB | Tumblr |
You just can't put the words "Poserites" and "happy" in the same sentence - didn't you know that? LaurieA
Using Poser since 2002. Currently at Version 11.1 - Win 10.
PJZ99: I think you are taking my analogies a bit personal. I did state I am no way saying anyone complaining are children. I stated that completely clearly, though you would like to think otherwise. Though it is a business move, which, I've also stated before, you've missed the boat on what I was saying.......... completely.
I did not state by any stretch renderosity was a nurturing mother breast feeding infants in some hallmark picture post card. It is LIKE a mother (the management) trying to deal with a lot of children (members). Do not put words in my mouth because you cannot understand an analogy and think of it as personal slander. It is to showcase the addage "you gota do what you gotta do".
SDVL: Exactly. I've been saying it in numerous ways, business is business. This is for business reasons (of their own, no matter bondware or administrators or whomever). Its not as some catalyst of personal oppression.
Saying "I dislike your characterization" is not the same as taking something personally. Your analogy is pretty flawed, for reasons I discussed. If I missed your boat, you missed mine.
Privacy Notice
This site uses cookies to deliver the best experience. Our own cookies make user accounts and other features possible. Third-party cookies are used to display relevant ads and to analyze how Renderosity is used. By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understood our Terms of Service, including our Cookie Policy and our Privacy Policy.
I can see that some only want to see their own view, and not the other. While i can see why such issues on this topic bother those who do not want to change, the general assumptions are rather tart, to say the least.
Much zealotry abounds bandying about to martyrdom about "censorship" and rights, and so on and so fourth, as well as the abundant generalizations that anyone FOR the policy, must be some right wing evangelist. That those that are for it, are in the minority, and those with a professional slant, are also in the minority.
I can choose to view nudity, AND the desire not to see one more breasts in a thumbnail close up. Why is that so difficult to understand? Though lumped into a generalization that again, the minority right wing evangelist......... I will have you know, I am an athiest. Religion = none.
You can disagree with me all you desire and you have a right to your opinions. I as well, have a right to mine. There is such a term as going "down market". A difference between an image created for the sheer impact of sexual arousal, and an image created with a respect and reverance for the beauty of the human form.
Argue that. I will await that with baited breath.
This fact, with its irony has yet to be argued as well. The word "cropped". As if it is more work....... or requires some fanciful skill that someone might need to hire someone. I understand the arguments of those who like their ENTIRE image shown and don't want to crop it......... but someone explain to me the other half? This argument of oh dear jahoosaphat, now I have to make a cropped image........... but they had no problem before cropping out a gratuitous body part for a close up!
We can argue this til the cows come home. As one person stated, this argument is not going to make any strides in art, learn more about the tools we have, nor propogate a respectful reputation for what is Poser, and Renderosity in General.
As a respectful and mature individual, I understand that Renderosity is my domain. Though it feels like "home", in a sense, I do not control it, run it, pay for its servers nor do its upkeep. Neither, do I have to give the grease to any squeaky wheels in the complaint department. It is up to me, as a user of the services available to me, to decide for myself, if I personally find them acceptable. If i do, it is no argument, and I abide, which I do, so I abide. It is really no hardship to me. However, if I did not, I do have free will, and can go somewhere else to where the rules are more to my liking.
I am not here to make enemies. I am not here to debate the finer points of the dictionaries explanations of words and define, nor am I here to justify myself to anyone, or explain in minute microscopic analogy my faith, code of morality, or personal taste. I am here to be exposed to art, share my art with those who would like to see it, learn new techniques and skills to better myself, and deal with like minded creative individuals in the craft of creation.
Someone asked a question: I answered to what degree I could. Thats it.