That reminds me...

I recommend the book "Journeyman - The Art of Chris Moore". It's a long interview interspersed with some absolutely bad-assed artwork - nearly all of it acrylics or inks on various commercial boards.

In that book, a very telling quote comes out, which I think cuts to the crux of the whole thing:

"I've dabbled with a landscaping program called Bryce but it didn't do much for me, becuase it's so recognizable. That's half the problem with using computers, that the programs that you're using can have an influence over the way the thing looks."

...and yes, the man has a point. It is drop-easy most of the time to tell which program did what action on which mesh. Half the time, you'd be hard-pressed to tell if the person posting an image used anything other than a default light set (be it HDRI or not).

I think that this is what the purist types in CG Society yap on about... that much of it looks so much like the others. 

Now mind you, if you can take canned/purchased bits and make something fantastic with it, cool... and I suspect that even the uber-snobs would cough up begrudging respect for technique and execution. 

I believe the main gripe is not what you have or what you use, but what you actually do with it.

Another bit to consider is that asking mesh-wranglers what they think of your render from a bought mesh is sort of like asking a hyper-focused custom car builder what they think of the paint job you did on an otherwise unmodified Hyundai Sonata.  The answer is not going to be quite what you're looking for, yanno? 

/P