I use shadows because I find it impossible to create a realistic render without them; that having been said I experiment a lot with lighting in a scene before I do a final render.  The only time I wouldn't use shadows is in a simulated studio portrait set up.

I have been a long time Poser user back to Version 4 by Curious Labs.  The Pro Pack 4 had real improvements that I could use (multipane viewing, etc.).  Most of what is in Poser Pro 7 is not stuff I will use--although it would be good to have the performance enhancements that people say they have with it.  Consequently it's not worth the money for me.  If I had the money to clunk down $200 right now, I'd buy the $200 of Quidam and experiment.

Having had bad experiences with Daz Studio after version one; I would be hard pressed to to spend a lot on an enhanced version.  I would only do it if Poser were shelved and it was the only figure rendering program available.  That having been said I'd perfer to upgrade my Carrara to the most recent version.  It's come along way with natural environments that won't crash my computer the way Vue has.

I'm hoping for the best for Poser 8.  I was not dissapionted with Poser 7 except for the fact that "Universal Poses" don't really yeid the results I'd hoped for.  The multiple undos was worth the price of admission alone to me.

Don't forget DAZ Studio Advanced comes with both 32 bit and native 64 bit versions.

Coldrake

Quote - actually, i think lots of people don't use shadows because they have to work hard to get good ones.  i'm sure i just need to upgrade, but I use P6 and i get bias errors on just about all dynamic and draping clothes.  and sure, a lot of people are on P7 and Poser Pro, but a lot aren't.

oh, and it's a lot longer than an hour if you use raytraced shadows and some of the most popular hair.

well thats your problem if you use raytraced shadows with hair. PIXAR,sony,WETA and ILM are not using raytraced shadows for hair.

Quote - It doesn't take hard work to get good shadows.  The work is learning what good shadows ARE (i.e., not depth-mapped, and not razor-sharp raytraced without blur, and not a big gritty AO stain).  I may misjudge my own shadows' quality but I think they're certainly a lot better than average - not saying they're perfect or even ideal, but "a lot better than average" takes me no special work to set up now that I realize how terrible some of the "not" methods I named really are.  People dumping heaps of pics in the gallery here with shitty shadows  (or no shadows!) , well, as long as that kind of thing is nailed to the top of the art charts/top 9 page, a lot of people will keep right on doing it regardless of how bad it looks.

Hmm I guess since I've cancelled my file locker service here I need to move my sample light setup to the new file host.
http://cid-b233dcaeefa9709c.skydrive.live.com/self.aspx/Public/Poser%20Freebies/Studio%20Lights/PJZ%20Studio%20Lights.zip

people also dont use shadows because they post an image in the gallery and they get perfect rating. and when you read the comments its like he rendered a perfect realistic human.

which is strange. not using shadows because using poser is a hobby is one thing. but to writte that it looks realistic is another .

Quote - well thats your problem if you use raytraced shadows with hair. PIXAR,sony,WETA and ILM are not using raytraced shadows for hair.

That doesn't really matter unless you're animating.  When you need to render 24 / 30 frames per second x 60 seconds x 90 minutes, and you only have a year to get it all rendered, you cut whatever corners you can - avoiding raytracing wherever possible is a major corner that gets cut.  For still frames, especially for "professional caliber" (whatever that really means) render time doesn't matter nearly as much if quality is of high importance.

but people still dont use raytraced shadows for fur and hair. hair is micro thin. and millions of hair. renedering wiht 3 raytraced shadows with normal results would crash the software IMO.

Quote -
people also dont use shadows because they post an image in the gallery and they get perfect rating. and when you read the comments its like he rendered a perfect realistic human.

which is strange. not using shadows because using poser is a hobby is one thing. but to writte that it looks realistic is another .

That's because half or more of the people who post comments are doing so to either repay a nice comment from someone else, posting a nice comment because the person is their friend, or hoping that by posting positive comments, he/she will receive positive comments in return.
Or a combination of all the above.

Too many times though I've seen people accused of gallery trolling for daring to speak their mind and calling it like it is, so people don't get alot of that "helpful criticism" they claim to want.

No one wants to have their images bashed, my motto is:  "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all." 

For the most part, practice makes perfect.  I think that people will eventually improve their techniques on their own without "constructive criticism" if they keep at it.  If people are discouraged, they are more likely to give up, and that would be sad because creating digital art can be a very satisfying hobby.

Quote - > Quote -

Too many times though I've seen people accused of gallery trolling for daring to speak their mind and calling it like it is, so people don't get alot of that "helpful criticism" they claim to want.

this happened to me. i wrotte that he should  use shadows( there were not shadows) and contact shadows(AO). and i got a message that was strange. funny actually.and i was not mean.

but the worst is when someone starts to bash your gallery. thats so funny to me.

Quote - No one wants to have their images bashed, my motto is:  "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all." 

For the most part, practice makes perfect.  I think that people will eventually improve their techniques on their own without "constructive criticism" if they keep at it.  If people are discouraged, they are more likely to give up, and that would be sad because creating digital art can be a very satisfying hobby.

I didn't say anything about "bashing" anyone's images.
Your response seems to indicate you equate the honest pointing out of flaws with "bashing".
If someone checks the little box that indicates he wants critique for improvement he should be grateful, not offended, when someone points out he has no shadows, or shadows that conflict with the direction of the light, or dead looking eyes in his figure, or any number of other things.

And so by your logic, being "nice" by saying nothing is actually "nicer" than offering the criticism you know an image needs, and what the person wanted? That makes no sense.

If people are so easily discouraged by negative comments to their imagery then perhaps they shouldn't post it on a public digital art website. Either that or grow a tougher skin and live with the bad comments along with the good . If they're so easily discouraged by a few negative comments, they probably ought not be using any 3D software at all, let alone posting their work. Forget about any comments - the learning curve of various software itself is enough to discourage allot of people, particularly the easily-discouraged.

Either that or uncheck the comments box. But then they also shut out the fawning and the mindless praise from their clique. But that's what it comes down to, really - most of the people who post art here allot really don't want the honest criticism, they want to see the fawning and the mindless praise from their clique.

Collecting stamps or bird watching can be very satisfying hobbies as well, and there's much less chance for someone's feelings to get hurt. ;-)

We could fix the gallery - there should be two checkboxes:

[X] I seek praise

[  ] I seek advice

And one more checkbox that I would use:

[X] Do not show images seeking praise but not advice.

There's a "learning" thread at Daz where somebody posted an image with terrible nostril glow, no shadows at all, and the first response was "Technically Excellent!!!" snort

There's a big difference between being unsophisticated about technique (just learning - don't bash me) and being just plain embarassing.

Quote - We could fix the gallery - there should be two checkboxes:

[X] I seek praise

[  ] I seek advice

And one more checkbox that I would use:

[X] Do not show images seeking praise but not advice.

Oh, that would make my life so much easier.  :lol:  We don't get a ton of them, but we often get emails/sitemails where it's "Member X made a rude comment.  I want it removed now!!!!1111!!!!"....and, we go to it, and it's "Pretty nice pose, I like the hair, what would make this pop is proper use of shadows." complete with a link to a discussion on lighting.  :blink:
I mean, yeah, if you're gonna go in and be all "YOU SUCK, LEARN TO USE SHADOWS", it's not appropriate and counter-productive.  But, um, if you're given feedback, and take it as bashing, that's on you, not the commenter.  (I don't care how you spell that word.)

Quote - Your response seems to indicate you equate the honest pointing out of flaws with "bashing".

I don't think Tomsde meant that, but a whole lot of people here do respond to basic honesty as a personal attack.  In one of my own experiences here, even though the person was specifically asking for feedback, the reaction went so far that they complained to site administration about me with a lot of inventive nonsense.  I didn't let it get to me but it was certainly a lesson on just how extremely some people delude themselves about the quality of their work.

Quote - > Quote - No one wants to have their images bashed, my motto is:  "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all." 

For the most part, practice makes perfect.  I think that people will eventually improve their techniques on their own without "constructive criticism" if they keep at it.  If people are discouraged, they are more likely to give up, and that would be sad because creating digital art can be a very satisfying hobby.

I didn't say anything about "bashing" anyone's images.
Your response seems to indicate you equate the honest pointing out of flaws with "bashing".
If someone checks the little box that indicates he wants critique for improvement he should be grateful, not offended, when someone points out he has no shadows, or shadows that conflict with the direction of the light, or dead looking eyes in his figure, or any number of other things.

And so by your logic, being "nice" by saying nothing is actually "nicer" than offering the criticism you know an image needs, and what the person wanted? That makes no sense.

If people are so easily discouraged by negative comments to their imagery then perhaps they shouldn't post it on a public digital art website. Either that or grow a tougher skin and live with the bad comments along with the good . If they're so easily discouraged by a few negative comments, they probably ought not be using any 3D software at all, let alone posting their work. Forget about any comments - the learning curve of various software itself is enough to discourage allot of people, particularly the easily-discouraged.

Either that or uncheck the comments box. But then they also shut out the fawning and the mindless praise from their clique. But that's what it comes down to, really - most of the people who post art here allot really don't want the honest criticism, they want to see the fawning and the mindless praise from their clique.

Collecting stamps or bird watching can be very satisfying hobbies as well, and there's much less chance for someone's feelings to get hurt. ;-)

Actually, constructive comments with information how to improve have no need of appearing negative or de-motivating.  Trouble with a lot of people wanting to make critical comments is that they don't know how to deliver them without demotivating negativity.

I'm yet to see someone whom doesn't want to improve their skills.
I'm also yet to see someone whom likes to go through feeling like crap while trying to learn something, or read other people's comments.

If an image is not a succes, it still doesn't mean that saying something to the effect of "It looks bad" is the right thing to do. Better approach would be to not comment at all, or say, It's nice, I wonder what it would look like with (insert suggestion here).

People whom want to dish out advice of sort with negative delivery aren't any better then people whom don't want to be exposed to it. Most of those whom like to dish out advice with bad delivery are often just as sensitive, if not more when the tables are turned. I've seen that about a milion times.

Quote - > Quote - Your response seems to indicate you equate the honest pointing out of flaws with "bashing".

I don't think Tomsde meant that, but a whole lot of people here do respond to basic honesty as a personal attack.  In one of my own experiences here, even though the person was specifically asking for feedback, the reaction went so far that they complained to site administration about me with a lot of inventive nonsense.  I didn't let it get to me but it was certainly a lesson on just how extremely some people delude themselves about the quality of their work.

Yea, unfortunately there are people like that too... My experience so far has been that its' a minority.

 It's not brain surgury to give critique.  You say something nice, you say what's wrong and how to correct it and finish with something nice. This has already been beat to DEATh and then some.  This isn't even beating a dead horse here. It's grinding bonemeal! :laugh:

Basic politeness goes a long way in all comments.  Remember, written communication can be easily misunderstood.

My main motivation in postomg my images is to share; in the world of art one can never produce a picture that will please everyone.  I wouildn't object to someone saying something like: "Good composition, but I think it would look better if the lighting was brighter."  I think we all know about the throlls who say things like "it sucks" or give you one star without saying why they don't like the picture.;  Maybe something is not my thing, but I'd never rate an image 1 star or hurt someone's feeling intentionally.  I've seen a lot of technically poor images; but it's a learning curve--I think people improve with time and practice.  When I look back on my early Poser images I sometimes think, I can't believe I posted that--but my pictures got better because I kept doing it.  I don't think it would have been particularly helpful if people just posted negative feedback.  Then there are people who still liked my old pictures better than the newer ones, go fig. I've deleted a lot of old stuff from my galleries because they are not up to my current standards.  Then again, some of the art critics are folks who never have any of their own work in the galleries; if people are wanting to tell me how to do it better, then show me, do a tutorial, but don't criticize if they aren't willing to put their own stuff out there.

Then there are those threads where someone will claim that Poser isn't art, or unless you model everything in your scene it's not art, or if you don't paint and draw with conventional art media it's not really art, and on and on and on.  I just encourage people to be tollerant of other's self expression.  If they ask for critique, then one can give them it without being mean spirited.

We've seemed to have strayed a bit from the main topic. but it's often good to discuss these issues.

Quote - Then there are those threads where someone will claim that Poser isn't art, or unless you model everything in your scene it's not art, or if you don't paint and draw with conventional art media it's not really art, and on and on and on.  I just encourage people to be tollerant of other's self expression.  If they ask for critique, then one can give them it without being mean spirited.

Yea, just about anything in extremes is no good - even chocolate!

Extremes make my kitty tail go pouff
So does my bum with too much chocolate :lol:

Gawd, Connie.  That sums up the entire topic, I guess. :laugh:  You goofball! LOLOLOL

Quote - Gawd, Connie.  That sums up the entire topic, I guess. :laugh:  You goofball! LOLOLOL

Kitty kut twough da kwrap!

Sorry, being silly, here...
hold this you can have the thread back.
Sowwy aboout that knot at the end... it's a kitty thing...

Bet they release a new version of "stuff it" though // geez

Smith Micro has pretty much trashed CP..anybody else notice that? They even managed to lose my original user name / password. Had to create a new account which concerns me of my Poser and other software licenses I have purchased in the past through e-frontier.

This is one time I do actually hope somebody else takes over Poser.

Now that Daz Studio 3 Advanced has been released, I think SM needs to get it together if they want to keep the Poser market.  Even I have been tempted by the allure of the new features in D/S 3.  The ability to crosstalk the clothes to the figure on demand would make it worth $100 upgrade price.

Yeah there's quite a few issues like that, where a very useful aspect of Poser file behavior like crosstalk has been treated as a feature by DAZ and D|S, whereas Poser treats it almost like a bug.

"Daz Studio 3 Advanced"? Who do they think they are, Autodesk? :rolleyes:

Well nevertheless, it doesn't tempt me even slightly. For as much as Poser aggravates me, D|S infuriates me. I really can't stand it. It's like one of those virtual reality worlds where the only real point is to create an outlet for massive advertisement that people might find interesting enough to hang around in.

But if D|S is in fact getting "advanced" [insert uncontrollable snicker here], that's a good thing. I hope they put the screws to Poser and S-M. I hope it sends the S-M Poser design team running in fear back to the drawing boards to create UberPoser. Not that I think that's actually gonna happen, just that I hope it happens. ;-)

 Let the best program win!

poser 8 has just come out