Quote - > Quote - I'm assuming that "shadow catching" means you can move shadows around independent of the objects which cast them.)  Is this correct? 

No.

Quote - Ah. No that's not what it means. 

Shadowcatching is on default for the Ground Plane in Poser so you can easily see how it forks. Basically it's a material that renders invisible - but on which shadows are cast. and caught :)

Right.

Quote - Weird advertising wording, though.  I didn't think moving a shadow was possible in Poser,

Why are you still on that? Did you see the words "move shadows" somewhere? In your original post you said you assumed that, and TG said that's not what it means.

sigh  You are such an engineer.  Please re-read your post and pay attention to your your tone.  You have managed to come off as utterly condescending and... well... somewhat rude.  Your information is, indeed, accurate, but you've conveyed it in a way that nobody in their right mind wants to read, because it makes them feel like an idiot.

The "move shadows" thought I had was not related to the original question, except that the promotional ad made me infer that such a feat was possible. ("Using the Shadow Catcher, you can separate shadows from their underlying surface and put them virtually anywhere.")  I understand... shadow catching refers to adding shadows to a transparent surface and then "putting them virtually anywhere" via a background image.  But  I was simply wondering if my initial idea (from a mis-interpreted ad) was possible.

If you read my little brainstorm, my idea is possible.  It's not "shadow-catching."  I get that.  But it would be an interesting technique.  I appreciate being told what the actual definition of shadow catching is.  I understood that after the second post.  But my question was more of a reference of what I wanted to do, not what the formal definition of "shadow catching" is.

It's worth noting that I'm a physics teacher and web designer with a master's degree in molecular biology and experience in javascript and php scripting.  I'm NOT a moron.  And yet, in the first two sentences of your post, you managed to make me wonder if I was.  I am continually saddened by the tone that some people take when being "helpful" on these threads.  As a teacher, I feel  compelled to point out that simply spouting correct information is not enough to instruct other people.  Trying to put yourself into the shoes of the learner might be nice. 

And, incidentally, if someone does get something wrong the first time, or if they choose to do something in a less-than-efficient or round-about way... should they be flogged? Publically humiliated?  Drawn and quartered?    Trust me, there are MUCH dumber questions to be found in the universe.  For example, on a test that asked "Why doesn't the Leaning Tower of Pisa fall over?" I had a student respond today with, "Air resistance." 

Perhaps that's why I have more patience for "dumb" questions and round-about thinking styles.

I really do appreciate the tutorial, but your instructional strategies leave something to be desired.  You might want to work on this a tad, lest you offend people without need.

Intel Core i7-8700 6-Core 3.2 GHz (4.6 GHz Turbo), 32GB RAM, two GeForce GTX 1080 Ti GPUs

DS 4.10, Photoshop CC and CS6, Poser 11 Pro, Vue 2016, CarraraPro 64bit, Autodesk Inventor, Mudbox, and 3DS Max

One in 68 children is diagnosed with autism.  One is mine. ♥