hmm.  let me clarify.  i wasn't saying: is poser perfect or can it do the same things as maya?  in fact, i wasn't even talking about animation (i should have been clearer about that).  this was still images. and i didn't mean here, i meant elsewhere.  if you want to rant on the commenting system here, please do that in another thread because it's completely unrelated.

let me repeat myself : "is it impossible to break into any professional cg ranks at all using "poser" figures or content?  is the bias so strong, that no matter what quality the work, people only see the flaws?"  notice the "poser figures or content."  not,  "is poser limited."  this is about the bias against it, not the quality of work.  as i mentioned, i've generally seen significantly worse posing and expression at other cg sites, and i've rarely seen work as good as addy's worst.  i'm not saying poser isn't limited- i've used it for years and i know its limitations well. 

i'm not asking should poser work get a  pass or saying "poser work is all perfect."  nor am i trying to start a debate about the quality of poser as a tool.  i'm asking whether people turn off the moment they recognize vicky or miki or other "poser" content, or flip to ultra critical. 

so it's better to have a picture in maya or cinema4d or max or lightwave, with poor posing and poor expression and hackneyed composition? with yet another female made from scratch that has 1/10 the quality of the available figures?   or to do badly proportioned, stiff, ludicrously posed cg drawings and paintings?  ok, i'll buy that, but i kind of think that sucks.  and that's honestly what i'm seeing get praised while some of the best work i've seen gets trashed for being based on a poser render.