I read the entire post about Gamma Correction and I'm a bit surprised at the stances that were taken on Gamma Correction.

I consider myself artist. Not because I do traditional art be it sketching or water painting. I don't consider myself an artist because I render in poser.  I consider myself an artist because I have taken an idea from my mind and have made a presentation of it.  I don't care if it looks photo realistic, I don't care if it looks fake, I don't care if it looks like a child did it.  How many times have people said that Picasso's work looks like something their child has done.  Did it make him less than an artist?  Does it make the child less than artist? No.

Regardless of if you use Gamma Correction or not, you have to first determine why you are rendering.  If you are rendering to produce realistic effects and lighting then you have to do the things that will help you accomplish it.  If you are rendering to produce work that stirs emotion in the human heart then realism is rarely what gets the job done.  Because it's not the realism that you are trying to capture but the emotion of it.

So before the battle lines are drawn just remember that we are trying to accomplish different things when we render.  Some of us express ourselves as more like Picasso and Salvador Dali, while other may prefer photo realism. When it comes to art there is no wrong way or right way to do it, unless you are trying to follow a certain style.  Other than that "the world is yours" so express and create what makes you feel good.

An argument that is never won. Because art is subjective in nature means that no one will ever agree exactly what it is ;o).

Laurie

Quote - An argument that is never won. Because art is subjective in nature means that no one will ever agree exactly what it is ;o).

Laurie

That even more reason to create what feels right for them then stick with that style.  If I had known Picasso's work as a child then I probably would have drawn more pictures and not cared if they looked real or not so long as they were creative.  And now as an adult, I find it nearly impossible to draw like a child even when I try using the opposite hand that I write with.

there are like 3 different sides to a coin LOL (i know there is only two in a normal world)

1. there are people that just render an image because they are interested in 3d but either dont feel motivated or inspired enough to grow out of their comfort zone. or they just wanna stay as is.

2. artists like me who are forever trying to learn new things and improve on what they already know.

3. those artists that are already good at what they do from years of schooling or self tutoring ....

and hence from there each artist has their own genre ....

me i feel comfortable only in dark fantasy or sci fi or just fantasy .... i'm not good at fluffy or child like images. .....

and i dont use gamma correction it does absolutely nothing for me.

My suggestion is: whatever makes it easier for you to achieve your vision, go for it.  The current Gc discussion/argument as definitely drawn battlelines, but understand that there are methods that simplify your workflow and reduces rendering overhead to create your art.  You may use a brute force method of expensive processors, mega ram and luxury video cards to blast your images into submission, or a technical approach which applies sensible settings and technology to reduce you computer's workload to accomplish the same end.  Which would you select? 

It is a matter of choosing the right tools to develop the style that is right for creating your art.

Well thats where that kind of opinion of what i am really doesnt concern me...

i'm not taking what your saying personally .... it just my thoughts after all .. on the whole "artist" matter that noone ever agrees on.

everyone can call themselves what they want, if someone like you chooses to give a name of sorts to the stages of where everyone is at with their work then so be it.

Sam - We do need a word for people who have an idea and try to visually represent it, and the word is 'Artist'.

I refer to people who create pictures, sculptures, drama, text, and sound for purposes other than pure instruction and technical illustration, and whose primary emphasis is aesthetic value and/or self-expression "artists" because it's much easier to type.

It seems kind of silly to say that no one is an artist. If no one is, the word cannot be used. I prefer not to strangle the English language in that manner..

Quote - IMO, you failed - EPIC FAILed - even, in the first sentence because you say you're an "Artist".  No you aren't.  Nobody is.  Anyone, even Picasso or Dali, Botticelli, Da Vinci or any of them cats, would curl up and die rather than proclaim themselves "Artists".  Except maybe Dali but he was taking the piss most of the time anyhow.  

You're as much an  artist as I am and I'm more of an artist than you'll ever be.  See what I mean?  It's total and complete bollocks.

Forget about what "you" are and think about what your images are.  No matter how easy/difficult/good bad/black/white/good/shite your pics are, if you claim you're an "Artist", you just scored 2 million per cent (yes, I know) on the pretension-o-meter and I'll slap you purple. 

Well from the history of people claim that they are an artist.  They usually share a few things in common.

1. They love what they do and could really care less about what other people think about their art.  Including the fact that other people may think otherwise that they are an artist.  I define myself.  I don't let other define me.  I'm an artist in what I enjoy doing because I enjoy it.  I may not be on the same level as other artists but that doesn't make me any less. 

If you are more artist than I am then that's fine. What you do that makes you an artist has nothing to do with what makes me an artist. Spend less time telling people what they aren't and more time enjoying what they share.

well said fighting wolf .... i agree with you.

Quote - My suggestion is: whatever makes it easier for you to achieve your vision, go for it.  The current Gc discussion/argument as definitely drawn battlelines, but understand that there are methods that simplify your workflow and reduces rendering overhead to create your art.  You may use a brute force method of expensive processors, mega ram and luxury video cards to blast your images into submission, or a technical approach which applies sensible settings and technology to reduce you computer's workload to accomplish the same end.  Which would you select? 

It is a matter of choosing the right tools to develop the style that is right for creating your art.

Yes I can understand the right tools for the right type of art  there's nothing wrong with that.  If a person wants to create Anime cartoons then books on Realism aren't going to help.  If a person wants to create Realism then abstract art isn't going to be the best tool.  A person always has to pick the right tools for the job. But if they are exploring on their own creating something that's neither "this or that".. or maybe part of "this and part of that" then there is no reason to stick to the traditional tools.  Many times a new path requires new tools that combine two art styles or some that invent new tools to get the job done.

.

Do you ever get the feeling that people aren't really listening when you talk?

This is one of those times.

The science of gamma-correction has little or nothing to do with art. It has everything to do with what a renderer does: uses linear data to process colours.

That's it.

Why is no one listening to that? Why all the hubbub, anyway? If you feed a sausage-maker eggs when it expects meat, you're going to get something like sausages, but not really. If you feed a render process sRGB data when it expects linear data...

There's no point to continue. No wonder BB started to lose his cool.

Art is art. Rendering is something software does. One is not the other.

Let me give you an example from the medical arena: sedation is not equal to analgesia. The degree of sleepiness is not the same as pain relief. Do you know how many nurses understand that? The fewest. And patients suffer needlessly because of this simple misunderstanding.

Applying or not applying GC has nothing to do with art. It has everything to do with giving your render engine appropriate colour information to work with.

Can it be that easy? YES! it's just that easy!!!

the last time I used gamma correction was playing the original Doom...;)

Chances are, you'll never face a harsher critic than yourself, so if you're satisfied, it should be 'good enough' for anyone...

Quote - My suggestion is: whatever makes it easier for you to achieve your vision, go for it.  The current Gc discussion/argument as definitely drawn battlelines, but understand that there are methods that simplify your workflow and reduces rendering overhead to create your art.  You may use a brute force method of expensive processors, mega ram and luxury video cards to blast your images into submission, or a technical approach which applies sensible settings and technology to reduce you computer's workload to accomplish the same end.  Which would you select? 

It is a matter of choosing the right tools to develop the style that is right for creating your art.

I guarantee that those who use "the technical approach" are doing so on machines with a lot more processing and ram than I am. Nor has anyone managed to persuade me that that "the technical approach" will simplify my workflow, as opposed to making it impossibly complex.

I am beginning to think that I'm in the wrong forum.

Perhaps Poser, with all its flaws and the "necessity" of overly complex workarounds, just isn't the right software.

It's apparent that using GC makes one an artist. Is this even up for discussion?

Quote - > Quote - Sam - We do need a word for people who have an idea and try to visually represent it, and the word is 'Artist'.

Wrong, wrong and yet again wrong.

Anyone, yes Anyone who defines themself as an "Artist" with a capital A deserves rotten tomatoes, cabbages and other splashy and/or smelly fruit and veg throwing at them at high velocity.

Yes, but you threw the veggies at FW whose post most emphatically does not refer to artist with a capital letter. You're the first one who used it that way.

I also tend to use it with a capital letter at the beginning of sentences. It's an old grammatical convention, I know, but one that we still expect writers to follow except when they're being purposefully obtuse.

I prefer to call myself "artistic". I'm artistic, but I'm not an artist. There's a connotation of narcissism in that to me...lol. But that's just me ;o). And as one very smart person pointed out to me, someone who's been deemed an artist is most likely dead and if that's the price one must pay, I'd rather remain plain old "artistIC" for now...lol.

Laurie

Quote - Do you ever get the feeling that people aren't really listening when you talk?

This is one of those times.

The science of gamma-correction has little or nothing to do with art. It has everything to do with what a renderer does: uses linear data to process colours.

That's it.

I purchased Poser to create and not to be stuck on various technical things such as GC.  My entire goal for poser is to create what I like.  There are people that think the same way and there are people who purchased Poser to learn the technical side of things and there are people who go from creative to technical and have the ability to mix both.

So while GC has it's function, it's function has no importance of why many people use Poser.  Many people may get to the point where they want to get technical about things like that.  Take it like this. Someone can ask you to make a website based on what they want.  You see that everything that they want for the design of the site is wrong in terms of user friendliness, and search engine optimization.  Well guess what.  maybe the person doesn't care about that so you can mentioned it once and if they still feel the same way then that is just the way that it is.

How easy is? Simple.  Why did you buy poser? and for what ever reason. That's the way it is. Regardless of if you bought it to create art or to learn more about the technical side of it.  Either way.  It all goes back to what you like and what makes you happy.  And all of the pushing from either side isn't going to change anyone's mind if there goal is set.

Quote - I guarantee that those who use "the technical approach" are doing so on machines with a lot more processing and ram than I am.

Pentium 4 2.8 gHz with 1 gig RAM (almost 6 years old), NVidia GeForce 6600GT.

I chose the "technical approach" because I like to get the most out of Poser, not to show off my system's processing prowess.

And there you just answered your own question.

What makes an artist and what is art? Whatever trips your trigger ;o). End of story...lol. Of course, for each person, that's gonna be different. Doesn't mean it's wrong, just means for every 50 people you ask that question, you're gonna get 50 different answers. It's pointless to argue.

Laurie

Quote - > Quote - Sam - We do need a word for people who have an idea and try to visually represent it, and the word is 'Artist'.

Wrong, wrong and yet again wrong.

Anyone, yes Anyone who defines themself as an "Artist" with a capital A deserves rotten tomatoes, cabbages and other splashy and/or smelly fruit and veg throwing at them at high velocity.   Art is a nebulous concept at best; those who define it or themselves by it end up vanishing up their own fundamental orifices.

Better to be a paint monkey, a pixel hack, a colour junkie than an "Artist".  Just make pictures however you make them and fuck the rest.

I've thrown paint around for probably longer than most people on this forum have been alive - and I'm damn good at it, too - yet I'm no artist.  Nor is anyone else here.   As I said before, pretension overload.

That's not to say we can't produce works of art.  Note the lower case.  Honest, it's really important.  I believe some of my 3D stuff has artistic merit and I know for sure there are several others here who tick all the boxes but to call any of us "Artists" is just taking the piss.

 

Don't sell yourself short.  There are things that you can do that some people only dream about doing.  Don't ever minimize your talents. Give your talents the credit they deserve FROM YOU. 
Why do you dislike the term "Artist" so much?

Quote - > Quote - I guarantee that those who use "the technical approach" are doing so on machines with a lot more processing and ram than I am.

Pentium 4 2.8 gHz with 1 gig RAM (almost 6 years old), NVidia GeForce 6600GT.

I chose the "technical approach" because I like to get the most out of Poser, not to show off my system's processing prowess.

I'm glad you take the "technical approach" because it's people like you that I go to first when I need to learn something about the technical side about Poser..  When I need to know something technical I'm always looking for BagginsBill's response or another technical person's response.  The first thing that I think is.  "hmmm that sounds technical" I better ask this question in the Renderosity forum because I need to know the technical answer to my problem and someone there knows.

Quote - ...Why do you dislike the term "Artist" so much?

Have you ever met someone who regards himself or herself as an Artist? :lol:

If I may, Sam, I think this is all about self-perception. People do innocently (i.e., without guile or pretension) refer to themselves as "artists" - as opposed to technicians or mathematicians or clinicians - but too many then claim some sort of "Licence" on that basis and that just plain tastes bad.
I'm guessing Sam's in the UK... being seen as "pretentious" is right down there with pompous or bourgeois or having halitosis: people tend to cringe. Learnt all that here in Oz (I'm from California most recently: "ten years ago" recently), which subscribes to much of the same standards.

Quote - I'm glad you take the "technical approach" because it's people like you that I go to first when I need to learn something about the technical side about Poser..  When I need to know something technical I'm always looking for BagginsBill's response or another technical person's response.  The first thing that I think is.  "hmmm that sounds technical" I better ask this question in the Renderosity forum because I need to know the technical answer to my problem and someone there knows.

You flatter me enormously by putting me in the same space as BB, when he and I both know there's a chasm of understanding between his knowledge and mine.

As far as the art side of things: I'm lost. My lovely business partner has so much more skill and sense for this than I do, on the order of point-something to seventy-five thousand or so. Roughly. You know her as HeRaZa. So, perhaps I focus on the technical side because a true sense of art eludes me. I see art a bit like the ability to perceive colours or to put notes together to make music. You got it or you don't.

The technical side by itself cannot ever hope to achieve anything enduring, anything with an emotional impact, because it's just technical. Art appeals, inspires, evokes emotion of some sort or fuels the imagination. I haven't put anything into my galleries that would generate any of those responses, and I don't intend to: I know my limitations.

Ooo... another seasonal pissing contest! How drole.

Most of my friends are paint, draw, take photographs, sing, play music, write poetry, or plays some kind of sport.  They would all consider themselves some sort of artist in their own mind based on their skill level.. They often say things like  "I may not be the best but I still consider myself an artist because what I do means more to me than getting paid for it" and they say it's a part of them.

The only arrogant artist that I met was my 7th grade art teacher who constantly yelled at me about how sorry my art is and how I had no artistic talents and would never possess the ability to draw.  All of my life I enjoyed drawing up to that point.  From that point on I spent most of my life trying to erase the voice of her saying that. every time I picked up a pencil.  She wasn't horrible because she considered herself as an artist.  She was just a  horrible person regardless. She probably ate her own kids.  ha ha ha.

It wasn't until college where people would sit and watch me draw that it became clear to me that she lied and that there was probably something in her life that she hated and every time she saw me it reminded her of what she was lacking.

But that was the only bad person that said she was an Artist that I've met.

Quote - > Quote - I'm glad you take the "technical approach" because it's people like you that I go to first when I need to learn something about the technical side about Poser..  When I need to know something technical I'm always looking for BagginsBill's response or another technical person's response.  The first thing that I think is.  "hmmm that sounds technical" I better ask this question in the Renderosity forum because I need to know the technical answer to my problem and someone there knows.

You flatter me enormously by putting me in the same space as BB, when he and I both know there's a chasm of understanding between his knowledge and mine.

As far as the art side of things: I'm lost. My lovely business partner has so much more skill and sense for this than I do, on the order of point-something to seventy-five thousand or so. Roughly. You know her as HeRaZa. So, perhaps I focus on the technical side because a true sense of art eludes me. I see art a bit like the ability to perceive colours or to put notes together to make music. You got it or you don't.

The technical side by itself cannot ever hope to achieve anything enduring, anything with an emotional impact, because it's just technical. Art appeals, inspires, evokes emotion of some sort or fuels the imagination. I haven't put anything into my galleries that would generate any of those responses, and I don't intend to: I know my limitations.

Yes he knows a lot but sometimes that's not always a good thing. People who are highly knowledgeable sometimes forget to speak about what he knows from the perspective of a beginner.  Things that are basic to him may be way over someone's head.  But someone that's knows more than me, but less than him may be a better teacher to help me understand because that person has a better understanding of why I may not be grasping the knowledge because it was fairly recent that they were having the same problem.

That's correct that the technical side by itself cannot stand on it's own but even creative people have to learn something technical.  The reason my  renders after I learned poser were much better than some beginners is because I applied some of the technical art stuff I learned when I took art classes.   The technical things I learned from junior high art classes and college art classes I use in my poser renders.  But I couldn't use it until I learned some of the basic technical stuff with poser lighting.

oh by the way RobynVeil
Your gallery is full of comments from people who are impressed by your renders. 

Oh, my just when I thought we were all going to buy the world a Coke and live happily ever after. Oh well, what the hell.

BB lost his cool because that's his personality - brilliant man and probably a great guy, but that's just his style - don't blame the audience. I hear Einstein wasn't exactly warm and fussy either. And to be fair, I've seen him be very patient and tolerant and even shrug off chaff from people - you just never know which one you're going to get. He deserves a great deal of gratitude and respect for his contributions. I’m just as awed by his skills as anyone and I read his stuff even if it doesn’t apply to what I’m doing, just to see the man work. But, people cut him hella slack, to the point fawning indifference at times, and ultimately, I don’t think that is a good thing. I understand the rationale. As I believe he himself has said, he doesn’t have to do this, so I imagine folks tread softly lest he take his stuff and depart. If he were making cool stuff for Vue or Carrara maybe I’d feel the same way. My opinion, agree or disagree as you will.

Artemis, interesting grouping, though at the risk of incurring Sam's wrath :-) I notice you didn't use the term "artist" for the first group. Do you believe that the casual user who is comfortable with what they are doing can be an "artist?"

Sam, I do agree that there is probably a certain amount of pretension in self-designation but hey, we all want to be something when we grow up.

"...or a technical approach which applies sensible settings and technology to reduce you computer's workload to accomplish the same end. Which would you select? "

Now there's the nub of the problem to me. On the one hand you say "whatever makes it easier for you to achieve your vision, go for it," but then there's the kicker 'if you're not doing it my way, you're a not sensible dolt who substitutes horsepower for smarts.' I know, that's not literally what you're saying and, giving you the benefit of the doubt, it may not be at all what you meant, but it can come across that way. I’m not an artist (honest Sam!) but reading the GC wars threads, I certainly sometimes get that impression [in general, not to you personally]. You can blame us for being obtuse, for misunderstanding or twisting what you're saying but it is what it is. I came from psychology which, despite a bad case of physics envy, is still not an exact science. Perceptions often matter more than facts when dealing with human beings. Artists, real or self-proclaimed, if anything may be a particularly sensitive branch of the species. If you want to communicate with them, then you might consider that what may seem a perfectly logical observation to you, sometimes nets a negative response. That's just my non-scientific, non-artistic opinion and sincerely not intended as a put down. I’m just trying to explain why you’re inputting 2+2 and maybe getting pi in response.

Robyn, you keep emphasizing the difference between art and rendering. I don't think anyone is not hearing you, but it's like saying On the Origin of Species is not Genesis at a Baptist revival. I just checked the front page and “artist” is mentioned 10 times, “renderer” 0. Heck, they even used to use the tagline “The Artists Community,” or some such. The point is, most people here are here for art in some way or another. Some may be into the more technical aspects of 3D, but art is the common denominator. I’m honestly not saying that discussing technical issues shouldn’t have a place, but to the degree that you separate them from art, sometimes people may find them less compelling – any more than the technical superiority of Linux gets much traction with Windows users who just want to do their thing. I’m sorry that you or anyone else feels frustrated but I it’s just different points of view and sometimes the more one side tries to get their point across, the more less agreement there is. [Edit] I’m sure that your artistic skills on a bad day

Now that probably have succeeded in offending everyone, I will probably render a NVIATWAS as penance to Vicky for my part in profaning the temple with discord – I may or may not use GC. I suggest everyone else do the same and we can have a new, fun thread to show them off. Kumbaya peeps – peace out.

[Edit] Robyn, I’m sure your artistic skills put mine to shame any day!

Quote - Some of us express ourselves as more like Picasso and Salvador Dali, while other may prefer photo realism. When it comes to art there is no wrong way or right way to do it, unless you are trying to follow a certain style.  Other than that "the world is yours" so express and create what makes you feel good.

Artists are only famous if they were the first to use a new art technique.  No one cares about the artists that followed using the same techniques.

You've missed your calling, LMcKensie: diplomacy is your forte.
And I concede your points.

In reading over the whole thread, one gets the feeling that the issue is more technology's dogmatic presence in art... where actually, technology is an assist to art. And that was really the point I was trying to make.

Quite frankly, there are enormous grey areas for ME in-so-far implementation of GC is concerned. For diffuse(), yet, no problem. Diffuse() and a bit of Blinn(), sure, I can even add the Conservation of Energy stuff to make that work. So far, my images make the Poser render machine happy (AFAIK).

But what about Reflection()? Refraction()? Transparency()? Note I spell these as functions (open-close parentheses)... and this is how I see making shaders: you make functions.

But overall, making shaders isn't art. All that stuff that goes on in the material room isn't art at all... and beautiful art has been created with Poser where the material room door wasn't even cracked once. Perhaps it wasn't correct but it was still lovely and inspirational.

Is being correct important? Dunno - now that I know about GC, can I still throw sRGB images at the renderer? Probably not... but I'm obsessive (after all, I'm a nurse - when you're a patient, you want obsessive). YMMV...

I'm trying to resist adding to the mellee of opinion and suchlike but I just can't resist :)

Below is a dictionary definition of Artist for you

"One, such as a painter, sculptor, or writer, who is able by virtue of imagination and talent or skill to create works of aesthetic value, especially in the fine arts."

In my mind, if an individual can read that sentence and say yeah, I fit that, then they can call themselves whatever they want.  It is not really for others to say otherwise, they can only say whether they like that persons art or not.

Like it or not popularity is a factor, but lack of popularity is not a barrier to being an artist.

John

"after all, I'm a nurse - when you're a patient, you want obsessive" 

“Doctors heal you and nurses keep you alive.”

Keep teching. I'm always delighted to see you (and others) continue to disprove the outmoded stereotype that technology is an exclusively male domain.

I seem to recall that photography was dismissed by "traditional" artists and digital art wasn't greeted all that warmly either.  Since they probably stem from different sides of the brain, it's not surprising that art and science sometimes make uncomfortable bedfellows, but they each seek to find truth in their own way. Or, as some pointy eared guy said,

"The glory of creation is in it's infinite diversity and the ways our differences combine to create meaning and beauty."  Let the church say Amen.

If you drive, you're a driver, if you fight, you're a fighter, so I say that from now on all of us who make art are to be called arters!! :)

     I'm a borg with a crush on TinkerBell.

     I have that cold analytical Nordic personality, and my background is all hard sciences -even the electives- and my "craft" talents tend toward welding and blown engine modification.

     But I enjoy making TinkerBell animations. ^^  It's all sort of a mathematical play-puzzle. :D

     I'm pleased if someone else likes my models or animations, but I will follow my own interests (TinkerBell, Lord of the Rings, Narnia) regardless of how it is received by others.  I'm utterly indifferent as to whether someone judges what I make to be "art" or not.
  ~ "The dogs bark, but the caravan rolls on." ~

     My view is that if you do/make with the intent of expressing yourself artistically,   then the work is art.

According to the topmost line on this page, there are 5136 artists currently online.

If SamTherapy's right and none of them are here, where are all the buggers? Let's go find them and poke sticks at them.

Quote:
"The science of gamma-correction has little or nothing to do with art. It has everything to do with what a renderer does: uses linear data to process colours.

That's it.

Why is no one listening to that? Why all the hubbub, anyway? If you feed a sausage-maker eggs when it expects meat, you're going to get something like sausages, but not really. If you feed a render process sRGB data when it expects linear data...

There's no point to continue. No wonder BB started to lose his cool.

Art is art. Rendering is something software does. One is not the other."

Absolutely right.
Which is why statements from leading GC adherents such as "if you don't use GC all you'll produce is crap" are so misleading and unhelpful. Given the context in which they've been made the message comes across as: "if you don't use this mathematical technique when rendering then you can only produce crap artwork.

I fear it's the technical bods themselves that have blurred the lines and confused matters, and then they get upset because the distinction between art and rendering appears not to be clear to everyone.

Quote - According to the topmost line on this page, there are 5136 artists currently online.

If SamTherapy's right and none of them are here, where are all the buggers? Let's go find them and poke sticks at them.

Phew! I's safe then ;o). I'm only artistic...lolol.

Laurie

What's 'linear data'

I think I tend to agree with the thought that tech aides in making art, not the other way around.
Some folks get their whities a little too tightie, but don't expect a leopard to change it's spots.
You have to make art because you want to, not for glowing reviews from others. If those nice reviews happen, then kwel. But don't be crest fallen because somebody steps on your art.
Remember, it's for your enjoyment first!

Quote -
Oh dearie bloody holy buggering fuck.  Let me explain...

Anyone who defines themself as "an artist" has the capital letter implicit in the phrase.  

I am fully conversant with the rules of the English language - I have pencils older than you - and know full well that sentences tend to begin with capital letters, end with full stops and so forth, so the "mistake" I made wasn't done lightly, nor was it done carelessly,  which means, by any reasonable definition, it wasn't a mistake.  I generally expect the people I talk with - including those I post with on net forums  - to be bright enough to fill in the gaps.  I know sometimes this doesn't happen but I consider that to be collateral damage.

I'm also damn certain FW took my reply in the spirit it was intended (ie, being bright enough to fill in the gaps) so he/she/it doesn't need you to fight his/her/its corner.  That said, I could  give you a completely full and frank opinion of your post and somewhat blunt approach to irony but I'd be violating the TOS if I did.  So, take this in a sporting spirit and, have at you, Sir - or Madam - as the case may be.

Sam, you seem to be ready to go to extreme lengths to prove to yourself and others that you are not an artist despite your artistic abilities.  Pretension goes both ways and of all the posts in this thread, yours are the only ones that come off as being overly pretentious to me.  Pretension often goes hand in hand with arrogance and your last post proves this without a shadow of a doubt.  This is a public forum and there is no need for you to lay "between the lines" traps for others just so you can make yourself feel clever.

You can dress your speech with all the bollocks, fucks and shites you want but it won't hide your pretentious, arrogant nature.  Get a grip man!

 As for the OP, I don't call myself an artist and I don't know why :) But I´m sure it has absolutely nothing to do with gamma correction.  I always have GC turned on and it works for me.  I don't need to know how or why it works and I don't care if it works for someone else or not.

Quote - What's 'linear data'

I should have said "linear colour data" perhaps, but since Poser sees colour as numbers, it's just data to me.

BagginsBill explains it best, but I'll have a go. In order to be able to view images on our monitors and so forth, something called gamma-correction has been applied to the colour (and shades of grey). This includes actually any colours you see on your monitor, not only images. Poser requires uncorrected (un-gamma-corrected) colour information in order to process colours correctly. Un-gamma-corrected colour is linear colour data.
After Poser has finished processing (like in a Diffuse() node) then you have to gamma-correct those colours again in order for them to display properly.

Whether or not gamma-correctly leads to great art is not the point. It's about colour accuracy, not great artwork.

TY RobynsVeil

Sometimes people use terms so easily and everyone else but me seems to know what they mean, so I just had to take a deep breath and ask, even if some might sigh lol

You're welcome, Apple_UK.

Please understand - few people seem to - that when you decide to change your methods to linearising colours before processing, then gamma-correcting afterward (in Poser 5-6-7-8, this can be done in the material room by adding a set of nodes; in PoserPro, you just tick a box, I think), you need to adjust your lights as well. There's another thread that goes to some length explaining why the poster has decided not to use gamma-correction and has posted images to show why. His lights were not adjusted at all, reflecting a complete lack of understanding about the whole process.

I cannot explain in as great a detail as BB did about how the whole gamma-correction process works and why your lights need to be scaled down after applying it: he's gone on exhaustively on the subject in a far clearer, better illustrated fashion than I could ever do. Just do a search on the Poser forum on "gamma" and user "bagginsbill".

"His lights were not adjusted at all, reflecting a complete lack of understanding about the whole process.

Stop lying. Thanks.

Quote - "His lights were not adjusted at all, reflecting a complete lack of understanding about the whole process.

Stop lying. Thanks.

stop being abusive. Thanks.

Quote - Stop lying. Thanks.

*Case 1:
A simple background scene by HoBoBo.
I plugged the textures into the ambient channel so that they aren't influenced by the lights.
As you can see, the scene renders exactly as the original photo without any changes.

There are eight infinitive lights in the scene.
Now switched on Gamma Correction. (PP 2010)
Suddely the scene renders blurry and flat !
Remember, I did not change anything else.

Let's add a figure.
While the skin is, well, OK, the face is horrible.
Brows are almost gone and everything has an ugly "soft" airbrushed style.

Now I switched Gamma Correction off, and everything looks fine.
The background is sharp and the figure has nicely sculpted shadows.
It's also neither too dark nor too bright.

Case 2: IDL + Gamma Correction

Again PoserPro 2010
The sky is self-lit by cranking up the ambient to 1.
There is a single diffuse light to add light and an infinite light to add a shadow.

Again, everything is very flat.
Especially the face is pretty bad again.
Car specularity is mostly gone, too.

Here the same lights with GC switched off.
You can see I had to "overlight" the scene to get the skin light enough.

Here is GC switched off again, but the lights have been adjusted.
Can't say I like the effect very much."

Here is the first instance of any mention of light adjustment. And this, with GC turned off.
I wasn't lying. I was carefully reading your thread, looking for some mention of light adjustment after applying gamma-correction, which, as you already know, needs to be adjusted (down) or your colours will be over-exposed.

Quote - What's 'linear data'

y=mx+b... 

When ever I hear someone refered to as an "artist", I think of a past church organist who was utterly unpleasant to deal with.  People would excuse his egregious behavior, saying "But he's an Artist", as if that meant he was exempt  from being civil. 

When I was chair of the Council, there were issues with him, which we met about.  He started off by dramatically flourishing a letter of resignation, and I completely shocked him by practically snatching it out of his hand, saying "sorry you'll be leaving us".

Hopefully I'll be forgiven for that small lie.  I did catch Hell from some in the Congregation for calling his bluff, but I consider it one of the triumphs of my term.

So, I don't consider myself an artist-I'm a technician at best...

Quote - > Quote - What's 'linear data'

y=mx+b... 

Not:
linear = sRGB ^ 2.2
?

Still learning, here... :biggrin:

Quote - When ever I hear someone refered to as an "artist", I think of a past church organist who was utterly unpleasant to deal with.  People would excuse his egregious behavior, saying "But he's an Artist", as if that meant he was exempt  from being civil. 

When I was chair of the Council, there were issues with him, which we met about.  He started off by dramatically flourishing a letter of resignation, and I completely shocked him by practically snatching it out of his hand, saying "sorry you'll be leaving us".

I am sorry, but you sound as if you are proud of this fact (??).
And to think how much you both would have grown had you taken the high road? Sometimes it is best to leave our first reactions at the doorstep.

 OH, heck.........I won't call myself a photographer anymore then.  Not going to call myself a mother, nor a computer tech, and......not even a female.  I might get myself into some kind of conflict with others as they proclaim to be nothin at all.  WTF,  I guess I will live with the pretense.

Teque.... who will "take the piss" and give it back.