Quote - For what it's worth, when my father looked at my pin-ups he thought they were real girls, LOL! He asked me where I got them and if I had to pay them for posing.

:lol: That's funny! I remember that people who don't care much about the creation of 3D-art are often say something like "wow, this person looks like real" and such things.

Quote - 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...

In the recent Buzz3D related thread I said already that I can not confirm this biased approach for the professional artists that I know. I noticed however that it can be difficult to explain the value(s) of 3D-art to professional traditional artists. But that's more of a philosophical thing than something related to technical capabilities of either way to get the result.
Poser figures are sometimes used in professional context in some part of a workflow and sometimes they aren't. If the Poser figure serves the need than it will be used rather than creating a completely new figure.

The bias... Well, even if it does not sound nice I will say it like I hear it all the time: what is considered way above average Poser work here or at some other places is considered mediocre by many, if not most, professional artists. Especially if they studied both, traditional and CG art. Their arguments are that some addy-style pic requires nothing more than some practice. Practising the eyes, learning the applications that are used. Thus they won't consider it noteworthy skill just like it is not really a "skill" to learn a 3rd or 4th language over many years.
While studying art there'll be a point, I think it was after 6 semester, when students are expected to do pictures of way above average quality. A serious pro artist will of course many years after study and with thousands hours of painting only look down on those who dwell all life long on their mediocre level and think of them as great artists.
This looking down is not because of results but because of limits; - self imposed or natural.

Then again, if I ask our professionals what they think about what I did in some of the fancy apps by going most windingly ways to reach my rather poor result they don't look down at it. There are some technical comments and some saying like "oh yes, that's interesting, you should spend more time doing this" - something similar to some of the "great work, excellent, hugs, kisses, luv ya" here.
Ahem... Yes, it is possible to get respected by professional artists for using premade content.
It is not even more difficult than trying it with selfmade content.
If one uses some ready figure and clothes and creates some other parts of the scene by himself the picture suddenly won't look like all the other pictures. If this person has some skill using his chosen app then the result can be a decent picture. Showing this picture to any professional artist won't automatically make them look down at it as soon as the creator mentions Poser. There is some more logic for this statement in my other comment on the Buzz3D thread.

Using Poser right now and posting the results to certain galleries/forums will unlikely convince biased or ignorant people. That now is only the logic behind being biased or ignorant and the natural behaviour of people sporting said traits.More successful could be to use their favorite apps to make art they appreciate and then switching to Poser and do exactly the same.

Take Photoshop and XSI. With Photoshop it is said that one needs not much skill to totally destroy the least bit of artistic content an picture had. With XSI one needs much more skill to (artistically) destroy a pic, but one also needs a long time to see only a simple first result.
PS postworked pics will almost always look like that: PS postworked pics. Another category that is looked down at.

One could say it's the wide userbase that uses PS without a certain level of skill and thus their many mediocre / bad results drag down the few sophisticated results with them.
That's the same with Poser.
Those semi-professionals that fear the sight of Poser content in their sacred galleries have not much in comon with professional artists; except the will to dedicate themselves to their application or technique.
A professional architect won't look down at roman architecture because, if compared to gothic architecture, all they could do was to build squares or rectangles with some simple holes in the walls that serve as windows. - That's now a very reduced description and not an erudite one.
Some aspects of Poser can be compared to roman architecture, others are on pretty much the same level as in more flexible apps. A Poser picture done with knowledge about the application and with artistic skill is a Poser picture; ergo it can not be compared to a Max or Maya picture as it is. It can be compared with the used program in mind and by it's artistic value.
Those who can do this will do it. Those who can't do it today because they still have to estimate and judge about things will do it some far away day.
This leads to: it is definitively possible to "break into any professional cg ranks at all using 'poser' figures or content".