Further proof that my idea of isolating the nudes to a separate gallery won't work. In pjz99's screenshot, count 'em, THREE crotch shots with the nudity filter ON!   I fuggin-luv-it!!!

But the real question is, are they tasteful crotch shots?
[ducking and running]

I'm not even going to bother with the Kevlar, to me, I've stated such in previous posts on this thread.  I have some great opinions on this subject, and I do, sadly find myself with the degenerate tired eye roll at "consorship!!" and people jumping on soap boxes.

As for great images not being viewed because of a cropped thumb?  WRONG........ sorry to dissapoint you.  I've done that experiment.  My complete black square, yup, thats it a black square, thumbnail got more views than any other picture i have.   So all the complaints about cropped no nudity thumbs somehow curtailing the ability of images is totally dead to me.

Now, I understand there's some mild nudity, which it seems rediculous its cut off from thumbnail view.  However, if it stops the big ol crotch shots, horking huge nipples in my face, and big ol man stuff hanging out dangling all over......... I'm good.  Believe me, thumbnails like those?  To me that says "Come see the quick poser porn!!!".  I have NEVER once been enticed to view any of those images with thunbnails that focus on genetalia, or breasts.......... because its telling me what the artists main interest and focus is.

I like nudes, really i do, but i no longer comment, or even truly keep open any picture that has nudity for the sake of nudity.   Pin ups, poser sceenes with "jane" just nude someplace with no real feeling behind it.  

Its gotten to a point (and people, i'm a pervert so this is sad), that I see that breast popping out of a shirt, or a nude vicky on a park bench and all I can think is "WHY is this figure naked?  There's no purpose to it", and its closed and forgotten instantly.

Now now i'm not saying no one has a right to make nudes.  I dont see anything offensive about the aforementioned image.   The problem is, the rules are made to stop the oncoming wave of trite, ill thought out smut images that flood the whole gallery.  I am SO sick of that floodgate...... and I agree with the remanufactured peddled out imagery that gets this onslaught of re-used formulae with the ooos and ahhhs.

Now, recently I put up an image for a music room of a guitar that was sharp and clean and nearly got completely ignored, evey by the critique group i'm in, except a small handfull.

I put up aphrodite with a bare breast?  Different story.

I'm seriously considering finding other forums and communities for art.  I could care less about the thumbnail policy, I think there are larger things going on here that are bigger problems.  I've been here for years now, and have things with extreme high ratings....... yet not once never made AOM, got any of my images on the newsletter, nothing.   Granted its possible I suck, but I'm doubting it considering I make a living at this.

I'm not equating nudity w/ 'bad art' or non-nudity w/ 'good art'; just to get that straight from the start.

I'm not at all surprised that nude renders are popular.
Half? A Third? of the entire internet is nude and porn. Whatever the percentage, there are billions of nude and porn websites.
So the amount of nudes in an open art gallery such as Renderosity's seems to be in the general ballpark of the internet as a whole.

What is surprising to me is that there aren't enough people in an art community interested in serious artwork to make more of an impact in the ratings vs. the fan clubs.
If members here want the art galleries to be taken seriously by the 3d community in general, then they have to stand up and be counted; so to speak. If the members just ignore the cheap nude crap images and let the fan clubs decide which are the best images, then the gallery deserves to be treated as a joke.

A big drawback to this for me is that 'My Recent Views' is visible on my gallery page. So if I want to go and rate a garbage nudie pic as the garbage it is in my eyes; it ends up on MY gallery page. That's absurd to me. MY gallery should just what it says, Mine; my own work.
Then there is the fact that the act of rating an image as garbage, adds a view to it's counter, making it more likely that an image I think is terrible would make it onto the Most Viewed List.

I think that last time this kerfuffle came around, someone suggested that it could be possible to use a thumbnail generated from a slightly different (i.e., covered up) version of the image, as long as the slightly different image didn't look like it had a cheesy slapdash covering. In otherwords, I could have used an uncropped version of my "Naked Catgirl in a Temple with a Big Fish" where she was nearly naked, and had her naked in the main image. I was able to get a cropped thumbnail OK on that one though. (Except that it seems almost impossible to get a thumbnail down to 15K in size. I had to go with 100x100 pixels and the worst quality jpeg. Meh!)

*"But the real question is, are they tasteful crotch shots?
[ducking and running]"
*Absolutely!! You mean to tell me there are 'other' kinds of crotch shots?

BWAAAAAAA- HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!

(also ducking and running....dang it, Conniekat! No fair, I wanted to hid under the sofa!)

I dont even bother going to the galleries. Im sick of Vickie renders with big, ugly boobs. All they do is slap a texture on it and dial in the chest as high as it can go. No wonder why Poser is frowned upon. Just rate the gallery XXX and have done with it seeing thats all anyone uploads anyway.

Quote - I think that last time this kerfuffle came around, someone suggested that it could be possible to use a thumbnail generated from a slightly different (i.e., covered up) version of the image, as long as the slightly different image didn't look like it had a cheesy slapdash covering. In otherwords, I could have used an uncropped version of my "Naked Catgirl in a Temple with a Big Fish" where she was nearly naked, and had her naked in the main image. I was able to get a cropped thumbnail OK on that one though. (Except that it seems almost impossible to get a thumbnail down to 15K in size. I had to go with 100x100 pixels and the worst quality jpeg. Meh!)

I see your point with this but I still think that making a separate thumbnail to 'cover up' parts of the real artistic image (note i'm not referring to Huge Naked Gazongas In A Temple With A Small Vicky Attached) detracts and quite probably destroys the artistic value of the image by presenting the prospective viewer with something that is not a true representation of the original piece of art.

The other thing of course is that, as people have said on the forums before, if the thumbnail does not display the nudity that the full sized image does, the possibility exists that someone may miss the word 'Nudity' and open it thinking it is safe/acceptable for them to do so. They would then be presented with something that they weren't expecting which could piss them off and possibly even maqke them shy away from that artists altogether.

Acadia, the way the weather in my country is going at the moment if I visited Canada it would be like taking a vacation in the Bahamas! :)

You people need to wise up, this was never done for the users here, nor does it have anything to do with art.  It's to make the gallery look like it has less nudity in it than it does - purposefully intellectually dishonest.  Stop kidding yourselves.

I can attest to acadia...after my bitching and reposting of my thumb which I clearly painted a bikini on to cover the breasts on Rhapsody - I was banned for 3 days like some isolent fucking child.
The nazi mods then went through my gallery and removed 5 or 6 images which they deemd in violation of the TOS. Further to that, I was informed that one more violation would result in my permanent ban from rendo.

To be honest, if anything renderosity does thwarts or keeps anyone from making another gratuitous nude daz figure shot (dialed up boobs, unrealistically long tallywhacker), Hey, I'm all for it.

Poser is frowned upon for lots of reasons, this being one of them.  This is a 3d art site, I never saw any advertisement of it as porn, soft porn, or cheap thrills.   After a while, an observer becomes TIRED, yes dead TIRED, of "bodacious brunette #17".    Basically, you've seen one, you've seen them all.  I'm well aware what private human anatomy looks like on both sides of the coin, so do most people, we don't need physiologically impossible references to jog our memories.

Its amazing, but did you notice the gratuitous nudes, or nudes without purpose are generally overstuffed in the POSER catagory?    Its a pretty rare day I see vue, maya or the 2d art galleries filled with nudes.  Why would that be?  Oh wait...... Poser figures come nude, outfits cost money, and with a relative knowledge of the program you can make a resonable facsimilie of a nude female and render it with a plain background and no other trappings in what...... less than an hour?

Lets face it folks, Poser is the primary tool for the "I failed art class, but want to make my own RPG avatar of Lolita the nude overbulbous breasted swordslinging warrior!".  If you don't believe me, take a look around at other art sites, do a search for the medium of poser.  We're not alone.  Check out the overinflated Furrette renders with mammaries so large she could feed an entire nation of pack cubs.    Vickie, and even heaven forbid Mike, with such anatomical impossibilities jammed in your face, its no wonder people hear the word "poser" and go UGH!.

Sadly, people who make real art with poser, even new users trying their best to learn all get lumped into the "poser's for pervs" catagory.

Art, in and of itself, is meant to be viewed.  There's been arguments about this, "I'm making it for myself!"..... if that is so, why post it where other's see it?   That is a whole other argument best saved for another day.  So ....... when making, or posting an image, one has to ask oneself...... "Is my creation something I foist on viewers, or is it something I want them to enjoy?".  The "rights" of artists, well.......   I suppose it all depends on the purpose of your work.   Is it to throw a point at someone, or are you creating something you want others to enjoy?

If your answer is that you made it because YOU like it, well thats perfectly fine, but your moral standing, your vision, and your creation just might not sit right with everone and might meet restrictions.   Thats not so difficult to understand.

As for the bikini not being acceptable, we are not talking rocket science here.   It is a false representation of the actual image.  In effect, false advertising.   Even though it says nudity because it is flagged, well, I'm seeing a bikini or bra on...... perhaps the nudity is that there is some areola coldness?  I don't really know until I open it.

Though showing no nudity at all could also be construed as false advertising, when cropped the viewer knows there are hidden parts of the image not seen and at least can take a guess.

This could be hashed out nine ways to sunday.  There will always be those that oppose it, find something wrong with it, and those who could care less, or outright accept it.  Personally, I find there are better things to think about then wether or not renderosity accepts nude thumbnails.....

PerfectN: Forgot to add.   This is not meant as an insult in any way, and I do feel for your predicament.   However, considering the TOS regularions, and you have argued them before, I have to ask, seriously, how did you manage to not meet the regulations?     The TOS from my recollection states that covering up the nudity on a thumb is not allowed.

I've seen that happen to a few artists now, and I am left pondering if it didnt work the first time, why would it work a second?  (not saying you personally did this twice).   If I recall as well, from other arguments back and fourth with mods, it was stated somewhere there was no "grandfather clause" and all gallery images (even past ones), needed modified thumbs.

Again, I am sorry for your predicament.

I wasn't aware of the grandfather clause, and I completely understand. I also agree with you in that these are the rules of renderosity. However my problem is thus:

1. The is obviously a great deal of complaint over the thumbnail policy. To what great harm is there to modify them in order to allow for putting clothes in the thumbnail. The intial hair up my ass was that with my picture Rhapsody (which has been pulled until a newer thumb can be provided) I wanted to convey the image as fully intended. The picture consisted of a woman riding a winged horse sweeping down over the ocean where a group of dolphins were playing and splashing about. I was pissed because I was forced to put in a typical gallery headshot and I felt cheated. I think one of the mods told me that its a misrepresentation of the image - what bullshit!. If I show a headshot with a nudity tag or a painted thumbnail with a nudity tag - BOTH don't give an accurate representation.
   I agree with various posters that there are some poser artists that portray unrealstic images, but if that is there thing - then god bless 'em. My work is a far cry from that and its unfair that the masses get penilized for the few. But again, I understand there are rules in place. What I DON'T  understand is their absolute refusal to be open to other options and the somewhat anal, arrogant stance of some of the mods. Most of whom are untalented hacks. As we used to say in art school - "those who can...do, those who can't preach"

Quote - *"But the real question is, are they tasteful crotch shots?
[ducking and running]"*Absolutely!! You mean to tell me there are 'other' kinds of crotch shots?

BWAAAAAAA- HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!

(also ducking and running....dang it, Conniekat! No fair, I wanted to hid under the sofa!)

This kitty is hiding under the bed. 
You can hide under the sofa, you slender thing you - I don't fit under there. :P

Quote - I dont even bother going to the galleries. Im sick of Vickie renders with big, ugly boobs. All they do is slap a texture on it and dial in the chest as high as it can go. No wonder why Poser is frowned upon. Just rate the gallery XXX and have done with it seeing thats all anyone uploads anyway.

I look at it on occasion, but seldom comment on nudes.
Perhaps I should start commenting on some images with something to the effect to "I don't see why nudity was necessary to tell this story" or saying that nudity detracts from it.
Or, what's the point to it....   Of course, before too long I'd end up being accused of being a major grumpy prude, and that would make it uncomfortable to hang out around here. 
I have all the conflict and arguing I can tolerate already.
So... I dunno what to do... :(

I dio think if nudes and sexually provocative images were stigmatized a little bit more then they are, it may push some people into little more artistic growth, and would change the overall atmospehere a tad, and perhaps gain Poser some respect.

Poser is a rather versatile tool, but as long as it has a reputation of being popular in low quality CG porn (or borderline porn) creation, it will not get the respect it deserves.
I mean look at the wikipedia's description of Poser... One of the three major related subjects to Poser is Poser Porn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poser
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poser_porn

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against Porn. But, I am aware of the fact that in most of the societies around the world, when regular daily things, ats, politics, sciences etc... are too closely related to pornography, nost people stop taking them very seriously.

Sure, nudes can be artful, but not every nude is art, and also, looking at rendo's galleties on would be left under the impression that most pieces have to have nudity in them to be art. Well, that's bass ackwards. If one looks at art at large, nudity is not the majority of art, and most artistic nudes in general have a very subtle understated sexual component.

Quote - What I DON'T  understand is their absolute refusal to be open to other options and the somewhat anal, arrogant stance of some of the mods.

Don't blame the moderator team for this, it all comes from Rendo management.

LOL yes lets save the sermons.   Sadly, good or bad, in an art forum we all tend to get lumped in together.   The fact is, its renderosity's site........ if we dont like it well, thats our problem.   Sort of like no smoking in restaurants, just because I dont like it doesnt mean they are going to let me light up.

I've seen your image, PerfectN, and i see nothing wrong with the image itself, and yes, its not quite nudity for nudity sake, thank goodness.   I can see how cropping that might take away from the zeal of the ambiance of the image as a whole.........   However, instead of the overdone headshot, how about focusing on a dolphin instead?  With a nudity tag we can surely get the idea there's a nude person in there........

That is, unless there's a nudity clause here now on fish, and animals too lol.

If its any consolation, those who know and respect your work, don't need a thumbnail at all to tell them the calibre of what lays underneath.

And...... thats a good point to everyone.  For those with a fan base at all, who have been here a while, are part of the critique group or are favorited at all, those who've seen your work really don't ever NEED a thumbnal to want to go look at your new stuff.

I agree, its harder for new users and unknowns...... but i'd hope those people don't immediately go gunning for porn shots anyway to have to worry about TOS.

I wasn't blaming the mods only (they could offer their input and suggest other alternatives - Im not saying they aren't doing this however) - I blame rendo as a whole.

Good point Tiari and thanks for the compliment.

Quote - That is, unless there's a nudity clause here now on fish, and animals too lol.
.

 
There is, at least for catgirls.

There is, at least for catgirls.
Oh no, I have to model some underwear for the cattails! 
I wonder if vue environment provides underwear for cattails.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/news.php?viewStory=13431

Yeah, cos I can see you'd really value the input of us nazi talentless hacks, right? :rolleyes:

Let's put this topic to bed. Again.

The reasons for the change in policy have been given again and again and again until I'm sure you all are as sick of hearing them as I am of repeating them.

Just for posterity's sake, I'll post them here again - and you can find them at the attached FP article too - before locking this baby up - since I see nothing constructive happening here at all. Again.

*One of our goals is to promote artists and show the world the wonderfully creative art work that is expressed through digital mediums. Another goal is to have consistency of the rules and presentation across all areas of our site: Galleries, Free Stuff, Tutorials, Blogs, Homepages and the MarketPlace.

In order to reach both these goals, we need to change the way thumbnail images appear to match the rules in the MarketPlace and the weekly newsletter. Thumbnail images across Renderosity will no longer contain nudity or graphic violence going forward.

Artistic nudity and violent images may still be uploaded to the galleries, and will still be marked with the appropriate content advisory warnings. The only thing that will change is what can be displayed in the thumbnail image.

Many Renderosity members have expressed to us that while they admire artistic nudity, they really don't like it when it's so "In Your Face" in the thumbnail.

In addition, we want to feature artists from the Art Charts in the weekly newsletter. However, since we don't allow nude thumbnails in our weekly newsletter, we can't do that until after we make this change.*