I repeat: dadaism is called art. Sigh

Bah - your example was boring. :p

I'd rather hear about canned feces any day of the week.

In the upscale artworld there are the ... critiques ... or art gods who define what we, the ignorant publit are suppose to like.  Follow the rules carefully or all you have is kitch or worse.

While in college although the "photorealism" trend was catching on rapidly ... non-representational art was prefered ... luckily I was in Wyoming where Charles Russell, Remington and James Bama were kings.  But all the same there have been long periods where representational (realistic) art has been considered cliche.  IF you were an illustrator you were commercial and not a real artist because you wanted to get paid for your work.  Gee how terrable is that????

A lot of movements were ment to just push the boundries of art, redefine it and try to use it to view the world a little differently.

Good illustration is when the impressionists first started they were condemned for NOT being representational .... BUT then when they became overwhelmingly popular the traditinalists where dismissed as passe (even though schools still taught the techniques and some amazing works came from that ... see

http://www.artrenewal.org/

They believe that is was a horrid mistake to move into the impressioist and them=n moden art movements.  Extreme believfs, but very interesting.

Just food for thought. :)

Boni 

Einstein never flunked a math class.

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1936731_1936743_1936758,00.html

Neither did I.

I can play every note of Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue from start to finish, from memory, and have done so since I was 16. I am asked to do it frequently, since it is pretty fucking entertaining.

However, I never managed to assemble a piano myself.

This fact has never bothered me, nor any of my listeners.

" I can play every note of Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue from start to finish, from memory, and have done so since I was 16. I..."

Our guitar amplifiers go up to 11

11 is one number louder than 10

So THERE!!!!!

There is obviously a misconception here. No one is against Poser 'because it is cheating' but because the figures are not good enough.

"because the figures are not good enough"

That is the reason.

Incorrect.

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?p=573885#post573885

Quote - nothing wrong with Poser, but...- - - - - -

It's important to state if you didn't create the model. Although the textures and the rigging ARE important, you must agree that when someone posts a character image they are implying that they created the character from scratch. At least, that's what the majority of posts here are. So if you didn't, it's best to say so right away so we know what to look for. Otherwise it's a waste of time for us to comment on a model if you didn't create it...

Quote - I'm sorry but I'm so not interested in this now. Try modelling your own character and make it look like a poser model - then you will get praise, just posting a poser model is boring. Yes Its CG but its not your work as you didnt model it.

Did you read that one? You will get praise IF YOU COULD MODEL IT YOURSELF. They like the models. They don't like that people render them who did not model them.

bagginsbill If you cannot see that the Poser figures are not good enough you need to go and get your eyes examined.

Quote - Why I have little respect for Poser.
Poser is on the bottom of the creative pyramid. Down there with people who use Fractal Programs to generate random images they call art.
The poser community consists of people obsessed with fake boobs and questionably 'anatomicaly correct" 3d men for which they can do whatever.
Sure, they have some people who model their own poser people from scratch, but sertainly not the majoraty.
I realy just dont care to interact with people who are fooling themselves into thinking Poser work is somehow automaticaly art when most of the work was done by someone else and the same people theyre using occurr innearly everyone elses poser work too.
Its just completly ignores what it is to be original and creative.

This is totally clear to me, what they think.

Vintorix,

I do not grasp your point. You said

Quote - No one is against Poser 'because it is cheating'

That means nobody - nada - not one person. All I had to do is show even one person that explicitly said the opposite, which I did. I never said anything about the other part of your statement. You are a fucking nitpicker with no purpose.

"bagginsbill If you cannot see that the Poser figures are not good enough you need to go and get your eyes examined."

This is the point where those who have not passed out from the tediousness  of this  subject, begin posting links to their favorite poser  gallery renders done by so & so.

Bye

unsubscribed<<<

"You are a fucking nitpicker with no purpose"

And you are living in self delusion.

Quote - bagginsbill If you cannot see that the Poser figures are not good enough you need to go and get your eyes examined.

You are aware that if you get too close to a van Gogh you will see that it is just squiggly lines of paint? I have spent almost 40 years in the medical field. Yes, the models are far less than perfect. But they are just part of the scene. If you pick on each individual part, you are left having to say that a painting is nothing more than squiggly lines.

Poser is a low end modeling tool. If you want better, you have to pay more. I cannot afford the more expensive programs. Poser fulfills my needs. Like comparing a BMW to a Geo Metro. Both serve different needs. Why not make a better model, or better, a series. I probably would buy them.

Attached Link: http://forums.cgsociety.org/archive/index.php/t-372685.html

• some of 'em hate poser, but others don't
• the thread is 5 yrs. old
• they may be basing their opinions on poser 4 crap (which still gets posted here) or even poser 5/6 (not good enuff IMVHO)
• like many poser users, they may not know about the new features or have the patience to try them out

minor correction: poser ain't a modelling tool, with some exceptions. it's specialised in its use for character posing, hair and cloth functions, animation and rendering, and most 3d users are unaware of the improvements in FFRender.

Quote - > Quote - Why I have little respect for Poser.

Poser is on the bottom of the creative pyramid. Down there with people who use Fractal Programs to generate random images they call art.
The poser community consists of people obsessed with fake boobs and questionably 'anatomicaly correct" 3d men for which they can do whatever.
Sure, they have some people who model their own poser people from scratch, but sertainly not the majoraty.
I realy just dont care to interact with people who are fooling themselves into thinking Poser work is somehow automaticaly art when most of the work was done by someone else and the same people theyre using occurr innearly everyone elses poser work too.
Its just completly ignores what it is to be original and creative.

This is totally clear to me, what they think.

Not sure where that quote is from (again, didn't read all the posts here), but I have little respect for people who type "sertainly", "majoraty", "realy" and "innearly" (not to mention the lack of apostrophes in that post) while trying to sound smart.

As for the actual content of the quote... We're Poser users here, everyone here knows that that quote is just a load of cr*p.

Quote - Cgtalk should be for those of us who create our own models.

Oh, sorry... I wasn't aware CGtalk became ModelTalk LOL

You know I don't care about any of these and nobody here should. My problem was with Vintorix mouthing off that we were all delusional - that nobody is putting Poser down because of using other people's models parametrically. That belief, which he put forth, is contradicted by the evidence of the quotes I'm showing. Holding onto a false belief, while confronted with solid evidence to the contrary, is the definition of delusion.

And, collectively, while I don't have a problem with the Poser community, you're delusional if you think you justify yourselves to the CG talk community.

Quote - And I am sorry to say this, but if ILM, WETA, DISNEY, SONY, DIGITAL DOMAIN, or any self repecting 3d shop will not accept reels with poser models on them, they must have a good reason.
And if that is their standard, then that is OUR standard.

As wolf said, this discussion is indeed tiresome. It won't get you anywhere at Pixar.

And I still render other people's models and show you how to do better.

I wish Vintorix would use some of my shaders. It hurts me to look at his Poser images. The Vue ones are good, though.

Your shaders won't work in Cinema4d... I think that's what he uses, I think I saw him mention it in another thread.

Edit: ah, checked his gallery. Poser too. Strange, as so many of his posts seem to be against Poser...

I like the specular of the one in the far right. Don't know if it's accurate to pearl, though...

grin

I'm too tired to be methodical. I'm just poking at parameters now, hoping for a gestalt to just flow over me.

Quote - It's not - that's the least correct.

Yeah, I was just about to correct myself. Googled for some pearl pictures and noticed none of them has such a hard-edged specular.

I'm using double reflections and triple speculars and double scatters - this is turning into a very complicated mess.

I'm thinking about writing a genetic algorithm shader generator.

Instead of me trying to guess what will look right, I'll let some parametric "DNA" generate many variations on a shader.

Then I will act as the "environment" and apply "selection pressure" to winnow out the bad ones.

Then run it again.

Maybe after a few days I will find the perfect pearl shader in the pile.

You know - it would help if you numbered the things... ;)

As for the rest? Meh - I suck at mesh making (and I can prove it, too!) OTOH, most of the mesh-making crowd probably sucks at troubleshooting a complex multi-server software suite.

Quote - You know - it would help if you numbered the things... ;)

Heh. I suppose I'm very obtuse, but I had an expectation of communicating something by not numbering them.

Here's what I was thinking:

I should number these.

But it will be interesting to see how people deal with my not numbering them. Will anybody want to give their opinion without numbers? If so, will they take the trouble to circle the one they like and upload that image? Or will they describe it in many words? In fact, do I really want their opinion?

Really all I care about is changing the subject. Intentional thread drift.

If I can get them talking about my failure to include numbers, then I've succeeded.

Quote - Really all I care about is changing the subject. Intentional thread drift.

I noticed that part, picked a nice one that was easy to point ("far right"...), and only then noticed "d'oh, I picked the worst one!"... Not trying to give excuses for my lack of perception of better here though - I really did think that one looked nice, and had to look for references to realize it didn't.

Note: I'm using a Poser Hi-Res sphere here, reduced to 5% size. That is the reason the scale on the Fractal_Sum is so large. Those scale numbers should be reduced to around .2 for actual size props.

My Bump is in inches.

Saved - thank you!

I read with interest the CGSociety stuff above.  I have posted work there for years, and take great pleasure in deliberately mentioning Poser in the title of my pieces - it drives the hit count wild.  I monitored it once, in one day, my piece had over 700 views, compared to about 150 for the other artists' pieces posted the same day, many of which were far superior to my own efforts.  And some of the Poser-bashing is quite eye-wateringly offensive too.  What I've never mentioned over there is how much professional work I've got out of Poser, as I suspect that would really drive them nuts.  A while ago they made a valiant attempt to increase the quality threshold of their galleries, now my Poser work doesn't even get accepted for people to be able to bash.  I uploaded the artwork above a little while ago to my portfolio there, as I thought it was one of the best Poser-based images I've ever done, and I only submit my best work there.  Just this morning I got the (expected) email informing me it had been rejected for display in the forum gallery.  Have a read of this:

"Paul-Francis,

We are sorry, but your recent art submission to the CGTalk Gallery has been declined.
Your image is still hosted on your CGPortfolio.
("Stormbringer, Paul Francis (3D)")

We at CGSociety.org would like to offer encouragement for your next submission.

Your submission has been declined for the following reason(s):
Your image currently does not meet the general quality level of the Showcase Gallery. We suggest you keep working on improving your understanding of the critical foundations of visual art (composition, perspective, lighting, values, color, anatomy, figure...etc), and try again in the future when you feel you have significantly surpassed your current level of skill and knowledge.

The CGSociety Crew"

Ah well......

Of all of the more recent posts, your entry has been the most interesting, Paul Francis. No, the image is not one that particularly appeals to me either, but one cannot contest that a lot of work has gone into composition, perspective, lighting, values, colour anatomy and figure. Are you likely to get anything more specific about what exactly they found objectionable about your image, or is this the boilerplate rejection letter they send for anything they suspect has Poser roots?

Is 2008 too long ago to consider this thread a valid take on how CGSociety patrons see Poser?

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?p=5047724#post5047724

Interesting read.

Attached Link: Heliconian Summer

As far as I know every mail is different except for the the header. This is my rejection letter which I received when I tried for the first time some months ago,

Vintorix,

We are sorry, but your recent art submission to the CGTalk Gallery has been declined. Your image is still hosted on your CGPortfolio. ("Heliconian Summer..)")

We at CGSociety.org would like to offer encouragement for your next submission.

Your submission has been declined for the following reason(s): * We're very sorry to let you know that this work does not yet meet our standards as a completed piece for the Showcase Gallery. We'd like to encourage you to post your work in the WIP forum to develop it further before submitting it again.

Actually, this thread is heaps more interesting!

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?p=5445610#post5445610

There's a lot of very level-headed business-minded people over there to balance out the purists.

Quote - "boilerplate rejection letters..?"

As far as I know every mail is different except for the the header. This is my rejection letter which I received when I tried for the first time some months ago,

Vintorix,

We are sorry, but your recent art submission to the CGTalk Gallery has been declined. Your image is still hosted on your CGPortfolio. ("Heliconian Summer..)")

We at CGSociety.org would like to offer encouragement for your next submission.

Your submission has been declined for the following reason(s): * We're very sorry to let you know that this work does not yet meet our standards as a completed piece for the Showcase Gallery. We'd like to encourage you to post your work in the WIP forum to develop it further before submitting it again.

Which is why I asked.

"good artist copy, great artists steal" Picasso

Use Poser all you want I am sure that 90% of the people at CG Society do. But when you "copy and steal" you must always add your own stuff so that the orgin is unrecognizeable. The only thing that is tabu is publishing the Poser figure "as it is". That is an unforgivable crime and a seven year old can understand why.

Quote - Is 2008 too long ago to consider this thread a valid take on how CGSociety patrons see Poser?

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?p=5047724#post5047724

Interesting read.

hehe, and the first reply comes from "Senior Software Engineer, Smith Micro" 

Quote - > Quote - Is 2008 too long ago to consider this thread a valid take on how CGSociety patrons see Poser?

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?p=5047724#post5047724

Interesting read.

hehe, and the first reply comes from "Senior Software Engineer, Smith Micro" 

Yeah, he's why we have FireFly, right?

Quote - > Quote - Is 2008 too long ago to consider this thread a valid take on how CGSociety patrons see Poser?

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?p=5047724#post5047724

Interesting read.

hehe, and the first reply comes from "Senior Software Engineer, Smith Micro" 

Just had an evil thought about the Huggz Club moving enmasse to CGSociety.

Ah Firefly - now that was a TV show!

The quotes being from older threads is not evidence that the sentiment has changed. The same would be said today, if the topic were allowed.

It's because at CGS, unlike here, they attack anybody who is not paying attention to existing threads and if you bring up something already asked and answered like this, they invoke the "beating a dead horse" meme, and you're done. Here we go through it all again.

And just because some consider Poser a necessary evil for meeting deadlines, it's obviously still viewed as inferior quality, as well as cheating. And it is.

The other thing that happens a lot is this: people mistakenly equate improvement with success. Just because your art is not as dreadful today as two years ago, does not mean you have stopped producing dreck. It's still dreck. Almost everything, to 4 9's, (that's 99.99%) is dreck.

Suppose you painted something beautiful ... on black velvet ... and the dogs are acting like people - but they're not playing cards they're standing in a temple with a sword or something - it's still dreck.

If your get your picture accepted at CG Society it cannot be completly dreck. Likewise if you get accepted at www.raph.com, where 1400 experts and art lovers judge every submission it cannot be completly dreck either. But at the Poser forum you will never get to know if there is hope for you or not.

Vintorix - thanks for the link to raph. I have not seen those images before. I love it.

Not dreck:

http://www.raph.com/3dartists/artgallery/imagePage?iid=6782

Does your stuff (not Vintorix, I mean all the readers of this thread) even begin to stand next to that? We're doodling hobbyists - get over it.

Whoops - I found some dreck at raph.

http://www.raph.com/3dartists/artgallery/imagePage?iid=6732

Before in this thread it has been emphasized how skill in one area not necessary transfer to another. I know (or should I say I have been told) that bagginsbill is expert is his special sort of field. But to hear him pontificate over what is art or not is rather comical, because of Taste and Style he knows nothing. I happen to know how pictures like the first one, which bagginsbill approve of is created. You have a high resolution photo. You model the Poser figure in the same pose and then project the photo in Bodypaint and fine tune with Ray brush. Render with vray. Anyone can do it who know the procedure. The other picture or the other hand, demand real skills in sculpting, painting and high-end modeling and above all demand an artistic talent, opposite to the first picture that is a mere photograph.

evil evil evil...