I've seen some poser images which seem like beginner people made them. Being that i'm kind of a beginner but am interested in sharing, culd i? Or only professionals are allowed to post?

Are you familiar with the phrase "opening a can of worms"? :) The gallery is open to all - if you're unsure, it has a beginner's section.

Course you could - feel welcome we all have to start somewhere LOL!!!

Only if you put first up the $10,000.00 premium fee to compensate all those viewers whose esthetic sense you might offend by doing so.
DPH

Do you know the secret handshake? you can't join the gallery without knowing it & you're not allowed to be shown it by anyone until after you join.

I'm kidding!

Sure you can I do it all the time!

we ALL started somewhere :)

**Holy crap Batman, we have the Joker in our midst!

**

Ok, i'm gonna start posting images. So is there a section where bad artists can put their pics?

  Just keep in mind : there are no bad critics, just people who don't understand why you put the mouth where the ear should be.   :lol:   Go for it... eventually you'll weed out the nitwits from genuine critique. Lou.

Quote - Ok, i'm gonna start posting images. So is there a section where bad artists can put their pics?

YES!  You can post them here: www.3dbuzz.com
DPH****

MWWAAAAHHHAAAAA!!!   Hoadley you are **SO BAD!
**

I am a NOT SO GOOD artist, I'm certainly not professional...  When you submit an image for upload (all kidding aside) there are two choices to make for two different categories.  One of these is Beginner, I think the first category.  You might even go look in the Beginner gallery and see what the stuff there looks like :)

Beginner gallery:
http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/browse.php?section_id=14&genre_id=

(although clearly some of those folks are NOT beginners and need a little push out of the nest :P )

Bless your heart tebop, everyone can post their images here!

Attached Link: http://www.askart.com/askart/artists/search/Search_Repeat.aspx?searchtype=AUCTION_RECORDS&artist=11009451

Sotheby's expects this single color painting to fetch nearly a million dollars at a current auction. And, looking at the link, I wanna puke because a different painting, with sharp edges is worth three times as much.

OH...MY...GOD!!  I can't even give my stuff away and this dingbat is going to make at least $800 thousand dollars after commision for a one color canvas their kid probably painted?  We are indeed headed for the End Days!

omg...gets my brush and tin of paint out.... hey this way I can be a traditional artist lmao  I just painted some frames black ....do u reckon they would fetch that much?

(makes note to self to note paint frames black when just had nails done)

Yep, the galleries are open to anyone :)

I'll give you some tips for posting in the gallery seeing you've never done it before.

Make sure you read this link:

http://www.renderosity.com/news.php?viewStory=13472

You can post nude images in the gallery, but the smaller thumbnail pictures cannot have nudity  of any kind in the thumbnail images.  That means when you make a thumbnail image you cannot have any of the following showing:  male or female genitals, no pubic hair, no naked butt cheeks  period,  including those that are wearing thong undies, no exposed female nipples or the breast areola surrounding them.  See through clothing that shows any of those parts is considered "nudity".

Careful of using Aiko in the gallery if you are doing erotic or nude or semi nude or provocatively dressed and/or posed figures.  Aiko tends to look very young in the face (depending on the morphs and textures used).  There is a no child nudity rule here, so if the character "looks" under age to the staff (even if the character has a very adult looking body but the face looks under age),  the image is removed and they talk to you about it.  I always tell people that if they are wanting to use Aiko in the gallery in "adult" type situations, then they should consider passing the image by a Moderator first to get their approval before they upload it to the gallery.

You need to upload 2 images each time you upload to your gallery. One image is the actual large image you are submitting for people to see. The other is a small image that contains a portion of your larger image to be used as a thumbnail on the main pages of the gallery. 

While the Renderosity server will automatically generate a  thumbnail size image for you by shrinking down your big image, it can't tell the difference between an image that has nudity or violence in it and one that doesn't. It will shrink down any image you upload if you allow it to autogenerate a thumbnail.  That wasn't a problem before the new thumbnail policy about no nudity in the thumbnails, but it's caused problems for many members who do post nudes in their gallery and depended on Renderosity to generate the thumbnail for them. Soooo....

I suggest you get used to making your own thumbnails each time because that will save you from accidently submitting nudity in a thumbnail and having your image pulled from the gallery.

For the image galleries, the maximum sizes are 4096x4096 / 512 KB   [524288bytes]
Thumbnails: 200x200 / 15 KB   [15360bytes]

Pick the right gallery to post it in. If the image has a "Poser" figure in it, regardless of what program you used to finish it up and render it, the image can go in the "Poser" gallery.  Then pick the theme  IE: portrait, people, etc.

Don't forget to pick a content advisory option before submitting your image: None, Nudity, Violence or Both.  You can get into trouble  for not having the appropriate content advisory marked, and you can get into trouble if you just pick one "just in case" when the image doesn't need one.  If you aren't sure whether your image needs an advisory on it, ask a Moderator.

Finally, when you are ready, upload it to the gallery.  Never pick "Preview" because for some reason when you preview the image it counts it as an upload so you won't be able to upload the image if you have "previewed" it because that will have used up your one upload per day quota  Always just upload it and then if you need to make changes to something  click "Edit" below the image.

Finally,  have fun!

Love to see new images, it is so interesting, bring it on.  Sharen

And if you pay me five euro for every image, you get a nice comment!
:tt2:
Just kidding, every new artist is welcome, everyone has to learn, and perhaps you surprise us.

regards,

Bopperthijs.

Damn, I missed DPHoadley's reply

Oh well, who bothers

Ya know......if they opened up a 'Bad Art' section in the galleries --- I'd bet that it would do a brisk business.  I can just see it now: people would tailor their stuff to get it in there.  I can just envision it: Bad Art contests, Bad Artist of the Month on the front page...........

And why?  Simple.  "The Top 10 Worst of" lists are a lot more popular reading than the "Top Ten Best of" lists.

But of course: some of us wouldn't have to make as great of an effort as others in order to get into the new gallery. 

Many people think that just because some of us make it look easy.....it means Bad Art is therefore something that just anybody can do.  Like falling off of a log.  Well, that sort of thinking stems from Bad misinformation.  In reality, the ability to produce true Bad Art is an inborn talent.  Either you've got it, or you don't.

And if you've got that sort of talent -- then you are fully qualified to attend a big-name art school in New York City: where you'll make sculptures out of toilets.  And then sell them for $800,000 to absolute fools.  Either that, or you'll get Big Government Grants to churn out images drawn with dog poo on bits of toilet paper stolen from public toilets in the subways.

Bad Art is an Art.  And why do you think that a certain type of artist is referred to as a "Con Artist"?

It's because a good con job is a true work of Art.

All of that is to say this: post away.  Everyone's welcome.  Hey, they even let me in here.  Just be careful to stay within the TOS.

Take a look at my FIRST renders! You'll laugh your ass off. Not that I'm Leonardo de Vinci now, but at least I know how to get the hair to stay on, LOL!

Gagnonrich said *Sotheby's expects this single color painting to fetch nearly a million dollars at a current auction. And, looking at the link, I wanna puke because a different painting, with sharp edges is worth three times as much.

*On the plus side, the character who coughed up one and a half million quid for a blue rectangle still hasn't noticed that he has it hanging up upside-down.

So is there a section where bad artists can put their pics?- heck, I use to Poser and Bryce galleries..it's worked so far..;)

I sure hope it's open to beginners because I've been posting for months! :)

But seriously, the more the merrier!

Quote -
And if you've got that sort of talent -- then you are fully qualified to attend a big-name art school in New York City: where you'll make sculptures out of toilets.  And then sell them for $800,000 to absolute fools.  Either that, or you'll get Big Government Grants to churn out images drawn with dog poo on bits of toilet paper stolen from public toilets in the subways.

ROTFL!
This reminds me...
I was cleaning our dog's poo from the back yard this weekend, contemplationg this or that from rendo, when I was suddenly struck with an idea, excitedly bounced off into the house and proceeded to tell my honey....
Honey, Honey, I know just the perfect get-rich-quick-scheme... We should advertize and sell "Artistic-Puppy-Poo-Paper-Weights" !!! And tried to drag him out to the yard to muse over the ionterestingly stacked fresh pile.
Of course, he thought I was suffering from sun exposure, held my head in his hands, looked thoughtfully into my eyes and asked... "Honey... What's wrong with you?"

Well darn I had no clue there was a beginner's gallery. Had I known it I would have used it as I just started posting pics in the gallery very recently!

The dog poo paper weight has already been done for years. LOL. Now, I have not seen real dog poo embedded in amber. Does not mean that it has not already been done too.

Post your image where you think is a proper gallery for you. Does not have to be in the beginners gallery, have you seen some of the images in the regular galleries?

I was a Fine Arts major back in the early 1970's when Andy Warhol's soup cans were considered art. I remember going to the Art Museum and seeing carpet padding - the grey felt kind - cut in strips and hanging on the wall as "art". I dropped out of art school and majored in Russian (not very money making either) It was only with Bryce and Poser that I finally got back into art as a hobby. I was so disgusted at what was considered art back then. I remember Jackson Pollock? Didn't he dip worms in paint and let them crawl around on a canvas and that's art? I ended up as a reporter/editor/photographer for newspapers for years, and once in a while they let me do an illustration for a special section. Art is truly in the eye of the beholder or in the eyes of people stupid enough to follow the popular art "trends".

By the way, I can paint you a blue rectangle. Anyone want to pay me a few milllion for it?

Shit, you charge too much money, I'll do it for half a million.  I'll even use a roller!

Ha! You're all too expensive.  I'll take 1/4 of a million and I'll throw in 2 others in red and white absolutely free!

i could do it for the same price but with 4 colors!!

Damn! Where is this Bad Artists Gallery?? I want to be the best of worst!!!

:scared:

Damn!  What a piece of art! Sure it is!

:tt2:

Quote - Damn! Where is this Bad Artists Gallery?? I want to be the best of worst!!!

Click on the link, and you'll find it here: *VeryBadArtGallery.com
*

LOL
You don't seem to like them much.

Just saw this on the BBC News....we should ALL be millionaires LOL!!

Why not start a "Cream of the Crap" gallery? 

I'm pushing for the "Mehh It's Mediocre" Artist of the Year.  My stuff isn't toe curling bad but neither can it be considered good, the way I look at it is I get a kick out of making it and I like to share them in the gallery but I have no misconceptions about them.  The odd one I am still proud of and pleased with but on the whole I can see too many lighting, posing and composition bad decisions to ever be happy with them.

**EnglishBob - Great work, cool render, bravo, splendid, hugs........er....forget the hugs,LOL!!
I think your image could be improved though with some AO & SSS.

Some of this so called 'artwork' which sell for millions are complete & utter CRAP!!! If people can see something in these then they need to see a shrink. Or maybe I just have a closed mind!**

Quote - Just saw this on the BBC News....we should ALL be millionaires LOL!!

The Rothko piece had to be worth $72.8 million. After all, it had five colors--and some texturing. One cannot expect all that extra work to go unappreciated.

It just goes to show that the Emperor's new clothes look incredible.
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Emperors-New-Clothes.htm

I'm surprized noone brought up the painting cats yet!
http://www.monpa.com/wcp/

...methinks it's time for my Tigger to start earning her keep....

That reminds me, when i was about 5 years old, my grandpa mounted a canvas for me while he was painting his house, and let me have at it, so I would stay out of his way... 
I drew some sort of an abstraction, while pushing the colors around the canvas, thinking, yellow is goint to eat blue, and over there, red will attack yellow, and in this corner, oops, I dripped black, maybe I should stir it with my finger... ewww.
 He was proudly showing it to all the neighbors and visitors, and they were just gushing over it. They decided I was 'such a talent' and that it was an abstract painting of a dog, and what a genius I was :blink:

I was in much dismay, thinking the adults around me have gone completely nuts!

Excellent wonderful render, Bob!!!!! I even entered a horrible beginning Poser render in the "worst render" contest and lost. IMHO, mine was the worst. The funny thing is I was working for a newspaper when i did it and they published it in full-page color for their St. Patrick's day section. I still cringe at the thought. Dave would have liked it - it starred Posette and the Dork, complete with default plastic hair, LOL!

"

Mark Rothko's painting was sold by philanthropist David Rockefeller

**The auction record for post-war art has been smashed twice in one night.**Francis Bacon's portrait Study from Innocent X fetched $52.6m (£26.5m) at Sotheby's in New York - almost double the previous high for a Bacon work.

That was followed by a price of $72.8m (£36.7m) for US abstract artist Mark Rothko's 1950 work White Center (Yellow, Pink and Lavender on Rose). "

I need to find the buyer so I can sell them the Brooklyn Bridge, LOL.

BTW - Here's another thought: Vincent van Gogh's work was considered by many to be nothing but amateurish junk in his own lifetime -- by those few people who were even familiar with his work.  But.......van Gogh never painted a blue square, insofar as I know.

Wow! David that's beautiful!

Dave, that is your best! I really would hang that on my wall. I would think about selling that as a print. Well done!

Quote - I remember Jackson Pollock? Didn't he dip worms in paint and let them crawl around on a canvas and that's art? [quote] 
No, Pollock dipped his brush in liquid paint and swung it at the canvas, producing a splattering effect. However, and this is a salient point, Pollock was actually good at creating esthetically interesting works using this technique. He started off as a post-impressionist (I think this is the correct term), ala middle-period picasso, and started using a looser and looser brush stroke. Even his early abstract splatter paintings are representationalI and even figurative. In fact, most of his "abstracts" are really representational, but not figurative. http://www.kaliweb.com/jacksonpollock/art.htm has a nice selection of Pollack images.

One of the dirty little secrets of abstract art is that most of the good stuff is actually representational (albeit non-figurative); it is often the imitators who produce unviewable junk because they go through the motions without understanding that art has to be about something.

I'm a big fan of abstract art, as well as post-WWII classical music, so my esthetic sense may differ a lot from others in this forum.

Interestingly enough, some of the criticisms levied at Warhol for painting mundane objects like soupcans were also levied at Arthur Honneger, whose musical compositions such as "Pacific 231" and "Rugby" applied the concept of the pastoral tone poem to, respectively, a steam locomotive and a sports game. (Honneger's attitude was that he found trains and sports much more interesting than parks and wilderness.)

That being said, I think that the blue square is just not very interesting.