In the OLDEN DAYS when Poser was young-the galleries were a place for showing work-and getting constructive (usually) criticism.

I'm baffled- I posted this-which at least I thought was an interesting render even if cliched subject. Perhaps at least a nice use of light emiiters.

Looking for constructive criticism. One comment. Not even a comment about the robe not fitting right on the thigh. Maybe a depth of field suggestion? Nope!

I do Know I wont post in the Renderosity gallery-at least Poser again. It's a waste of time- and rather discouraging. Of course I might try finding some of the current popular styles-and emulate them with the latest garb and hair-just to see what happens. :-)

Anyone suggest a gallery where I might at least get a "nice-but could use...." Or even- GAAK! That color scheme is HIDEOUS! -1 stars!

Maybe plain default lighted renders without shadows really are 20X "better"?

Maybe I just need some SLEEP! :-)

Here over renderosty a critic forum excist. 

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showforum.php?forum_id=12474

Try here :)

And now some critic :)

The effects are nice, but the lights are to much chaotic. It looks like they come all from a wrong direction.

The warrior should be more focused and the skeleton should go more in DOF.

The Pose is a bit unatural for this scene. 

And the outfit need overworked, different texture and material. :)

I'm not certain this venue is entirely what you might be after.

Here's my take: an image made in Poser involves...

-- a sense of composition
-- several technical components such as shaders, posing, lighting, etc
-- message: what is it you want to say

The critique gallery Ladonna mentioned does not allow technical discussions such as shaders and such. I know: I tried and was told to stay on topic. Well, I really thought I was on topic.

Just fyi :glare:

Quote - I'm not certain this venue is entirely what you might be after.

Here's my take: an image made in Poser involves...

-- a sense of composition
-- several technical components such as shaders, posing, lighting, etc
-- message: what is it you want to say

The critique gallery Ladonna mentioned does not allow technical discussions such as shaders and such. I know: I tried and was told to stay on topic. Well, I really thought I was on topic.

Just fyi :glare:

Really? This is odd.....How can I give constructive critic when I can not give tips in specific stuff?

I think that most people are happy to just look at the images and probably wouldn't have anything to say; however, maybe if you specifically asked for constructive critisim in the description people would leave it.

Looking at just that image in the gallery, I don't get the impression you're fishing for it, and I'd rather not leave unsolicited feedback. I'm sure others have similar thoughts... or maybe they really don't have any feedback and they think it's just fine.

 Thanks for the critique! There are no actual LIGHTS in the scene- all lighting is emitted by the objects themselves.  No point, spot, IDL, or infintie lights. The only control is ambient intensity and color.

 The lights are from the candle objects (the candle body is whitish and the flame yellowish) and the lamp flame is yellowish. They are all omnidirectional (360 degree radiators). The bluish light is emitted (360 degree) by the globe on top of the wand. So-they can't be from the wrong direction-since they are arranged in space where the actual objects are. There IS no way to control falloff of intensity. There is a candelabra behind the skeleton emitting the light at the back.

 I think you are right about the poses-and I SHOULD add DOF to blur the skeleton to show that it is not a GIANT skeleton right on top of the sorceress-but at a distance

Quote - And now some critic :)

 

The effects are nice, but the lights are to much chaotic. It looks like they come all from a wrong direction.

The warrior should be more focused and the skeleton should go more in DOF.

The Pose is a bit unatural for this scene. 

And the outfit need overworked, different texture and material. :)

 Thanks Robyn! It seems that the Critique gallery is useless then. I just found a WIP gallery-I might try there.

Compostion-message- I think I got caught up in the fun of technology with the glowing objects-an endless test renders to see if it worked-and lost the message.

I suppose it looks like a bald V4, in a red and blue peasant dress-holding an odd axe-and a wand emitting blue light. Perhaps the skeleton is horrified at the color scheme of the outfit? "-)

Quote - I'm not certain this venue is entirely what you might be after.

Here's my take: an image made in Poser involves...

-- a sense of composition
-- several technical components such as shaders, posing, lighting, etc
-- message: what is it you want to say

The critique gallery Ladonna mentioned does not allow technical discussions such as shaders and such. I know: I tried and was told to stay on topic. Well, I really thought I was on topic.

Just fyi :glare:

Okay, how about to make the lights more soft. ( Or the effect from the lightemitter) Try with a softer ambient color and value.

As I can see, the candles are oversaturated. To Vivid. 

Imagine a dungeon. There is no way to archive such a vivid light with candles in a dark Dungeon. 

Don't give up on the Art Critique forum. It's underused but is exactly what you're looking for. Of course technical comments are OK there. We should use that forum a lot more. If you post there I'll respond. If I don't respond, PM me to remind me that I said I would!

I actually like where you're going with this image. Of course the lights wouldn't look quite like that in a real dungeon, but I've been real dungeons (lots of times) and the reality isn't as interesting as your take on it here! I like the vibrancy of your lighting.

The skeleton looks odd to me, and is too distracting. It looks as if it's about to grab the girl, while she appears disinterested in it. An anomoly. The girl's pose, the direction of her gaze and the candles/lamps all drag the eye to the right of the picture ... but then there's the skeleton doing its thing on the left. That's the compositional feature I'd want to resolve.

Quote - > Quote - I'm not certain this venue is entirely what you might be after.

Here's my take: an image made in Poser involves...

-- a sense of composition
-- several technical components such as shaders, posing, lighting, etc
-- message: what is it you want to say

The critique gallery Ladonna mentioned does not allow technical discussions such as shaders and such. I know: I tried and was told to stay on topic. Well, I really thought I was on topic.

Just fyi :glare:

 

Really? This is odd.....How can I give constructive critic when I can not give tips in specific stuff?

I wondered the same thing, Ladonna, but the point was fairly adamantly made, so I let it go. I think a lot of it is because people know I'm more of a shader-junkie than an artist, and the mods wanted to keep the discussion on an artistic rather than a technical level.

For me, it's all one and the same. :blink:

Quote - The skeleton looks odd to me, and is too distracting. It looks as if it's about to grab the girl, while she appears disinterested in it.

First I saw the many light effects then I looked more closely and realized what the image wants to tell. And there I had the same feeling as you. Also: the skeleton's hand that touches the girl is too dark to make the effect that it probably should do.

Second thought: again a thread about missing criticism in galleries. It's not as often as DAZ vs. Poser but ... weird and in a few comments this will turn into another debate about "art"...

deviantART.

In your image posts you can requests critiques and comments usually provide them even without explicitly asking for them. There are also groups specifically dedicated to tutorials/techniques.

Your first concern: check whether your the image tells a story or is it just a bunch of stuff thrown together. Case to ponder: The last Starfighter (1984) vs. Tron (1982).

Bye!!!

P.S.: it is a community for grown ups so no risk of meeting control freak "mommies" telling "babies" to "stay on topic".

Quote - Anyone suggest a gallery where I might at least get a "nice-but could use...." Or even- GAAK! That color scheme is HIDEOUS! -1 stars!

http://www.cgsociety.org of course.

@ RV - when I was moderator of the Critique forum, your post would have been on topic.  Dunno what's changed there.

 @ Eric - When you post a pic, you have to accept there's no automatic right to comments.  Picasso didn't leave a guestbook by his paintings.  Even posting elsewhere is no guarantee you'll get constructive - or other - criticism.  

FWIW, at first glance I think your composition is off; the skeleton takes up too much attention and the pose is awkward.

1.  IMO there's too much much SSS on the skeleton.

2.  Candle flames are wrong in both shape and brightness.

3.  Candle wax is glowing too much.

4.  She isn't holdn't the lighted staff with a proper grip, especially considering how important it should be to her.

5.  The problem with her dress and the leg as you mentioned.

6.  Her tiara isn't snug enough on her head.

Is that what you wanted to hear?

most people dont want to hear criticism.

i used to post critiques/suggestions but stopped because it was a huge waste of time. id take the time to write out constructive criticism and then id just get snarky PMs back about why i was wrong.  or id take 10 minutes to critique someones work and would point out something like the feet are floating 2" off the floor in their 'pose' and id get a response about how 'i know' - but theyre not going to 'waste the time to re-render'.

and then on the flipside you have people who post stupid preference-based criticism:   like you spend weeks working on some elaborate piece and theyll post 'great render, but her breasts are too small'. *
rolleyes*

the more i think about it, the more i believe the whole 'ZOMG WOW thats great!' type comments are just better for everyone all around.

Hmm. You might want to tweak your composition too, Eric. Even if you add dof to blur the skeleton, the image is too heavily weighted towards the center-left. In that area you have figure-figure-light-light-light. The right side of the image is broken; with the door frame and the geometry of it, you essentially have a blue 'strip' that cuts the image off, then to the right of that you have lights like your left border has. So your composition has action all in the center to left region, a blue zone of no action, and a lighted zone of emptiness.

Now this kind of compostion is a valid structure, but only in specific cases. Using these elements, the classic would be something like this; pulling the camera back so you see your focal point, your sorceress, in full length. Change her pose to where she is obviously in motion, and shift figures to where she is spinning towards the skeleton. The blue zone could be left as is by simply placing parts of another skeleton in the process of falling apart and to the ground; moving the staff out of that zone and placing a smaller lightsource in it would mate the two. The unbalanced compostion would then serve a dramatic purpose; your eye would go to the brightest thing first (which by contrast is the blue zone), register what is there, track to the next associated thing (the staff), then the sorceress, and how she's posed would aim your eye finally at her target. So the imbalance becomes the same imbalance you see in a dancer in motion. It becomes a snapshot of someone in mid-action.

Another example of unbalanced composing would be having your sorceress facing one direction at one end of the image, and having just the arm visible, almost grabbing her shoulder. The presence of the arm indicates that something her size is just out of viewing range, which establishes and -implied- balance to the image components. Implied is good enough, so long as it is carefully managed.

I rather like what my editor says on that issue; 'It sucks!' isn't a critique, its an opinion. Like assholes, everyone has one. And getting your shoes filthy, making loud, oderous, embarassing noises, and leaving a pile of socially unacceptable offal behind from a single orifice are traits that are shared by assholes and opinions alike'.

The galleries have become, mostly, a strokefest for a chosen few ;). I never go in the place...lol.

Laurie

Quote - The galleries have become, mostly, a strokefest for a chosen few ;). I never go in the place...lol.

Laurie

lol!!!  I wouldn't say the galleries themselves are a strokefest, but there are definitely a couple (One for sure) that will send you a PM if they think you gave them a low rating and hurting they're chances of making the 'Most commneted/Rated' section. 

I for one, think MOST people on here can be quite pleasant and helpful.  The thing is, if you want actual critique, you have to ask for it specifically.  Most people, myself included won't give anything perceived as negative feedback unless specifically asked. 

Posting in the forums and asking for that helps a lot too, as a lot of the more vocal people are here in the forums.

-Jeremy

Quote - most people dont want to hear criticism.

i used to post critiques/suggestions but stopped because it was a huge waste of time. id take the time to write out constructive criticism and then id just get snarky PMs back about why i was wrong.  or id take 10 minutes to critique someones work and would point out something like the feet are floating 2" off the floor in their 'pose' and id get a response about how 'i know' - but theyre not going to 'waste the time to re-render'.

and then on the flipside you have people who post stupid preference-based criticism:   like you spend weeks working on some elaborate piece and theyll post 'great render, but her breasts are too small'. *
rolleyes*

the more i think about it, the more i believe the whole 'ZOMG WOW thats great!' type comments are just better for everyone all around.

I agree, after I got a few hatemails because I critique the render ( In a constructive way) I give it up too.

Quote - I'm not certain this venue is entirely what you might be after.

Here's my take: an image made in Poser involves...

-- a sense of composition
-- several technical components such as shaders, posing, lighting, etc
-- message: what is it you want to say

The critique gallery Ladonna mentioned does not allow technical discussions such as shaders and such. I know: I tried and was told to stay on topic. Well, I really thought I was on topic.

Just fyi :glare:

I'm unsure why it was felt it was off topic, I wouldn't see it as off topic.

@Eric - I would give the critique gallery a try and see if that is what you want.

Don't give up too soon, I only started uploading renders in the gallery here during last year.  I have had both positive and negative comments although by far the most were positive.  In the few nagative comments and the person in question took the time to say why they felt it wrong and and what could be done to improve it.  In each case I did make a point of thanking the person and did try the changes suggested.   While such comments were very few I did learn something about that particular render and also had something I could keep in mind for future renders.

Like some of the others have stated here, I am reluctant to leave negative comments on renders unless it is clearly asked for although I do mention in the comments on renders I like why I like and image or parts of it.  The reasons for this are two fold, firstly I do not feel I am skilled enough to judge others (as it may seem by some) and I really would not want to discourage anyone.

Snarly, Mackis, Blackhearted, Tool_pe_pe, Adroge, DaleB,  Ladonna, Kim, Laurie and Robyn and Mr. Samuel Therapy- thanks for the feedback!

 Thanks for the feed back! I see all the points- as I said to Robyn, I was caught up in the glow of working with the effects-and lost sight of the story. Partly because it took soooo long with soooo many test renders-since we can't SEE luminous objects in the preview.

There are shadow artefacts-it may be that I need to add ONE light at a low setting to smooth those over- I have my Samples set pretty high-using dimensions render python script.

The three parameters that can be adjusted are the Ambient value, color/texture, and SIZE. There is no falloff control for ambient objets.

 But you need to render to see the effect of every change. The staff needs to be deleted and redone-I have three staffs actually- one visible in camera-the other two with high Ambient values-and set at a 90 degree rotation. But somehow I could NOT parent them to V4's hand-(she was not among the choices) so when I tried MOVING her hand up towards the skeleton-the staff stayed behind.

If the staff is a prop, it needs to be parented by "Object" -> "Change Parent".  Fair warning, it might move on you, and it's a pain to get it back where your posed hand is.  In instances like those, it's best to parent things in the default pose, fine tune it (possition it), so it then moves with your new pose already parented.  That's what I do at least.  There might be an easier way though.

 Thanks! I know at some point Poser decided that I should NOT be able to select V4/ hand as an option. It was happy to let me select ANYTHING BUT V4!

Quote - If the staff is a prop, it needs to be parented by "Object" -> "Change Parent".  Fair warning, it might move on you, and it's a pain to get it back where your posed hand is.  In instances like those, it's best to parent things in the default pose, fine tune it (possition it), so it then moves with your new pose already parented.  That's what I do at least.  There might be an easier way though.

way to step up with the critiques and advice everyone....

now where is the gallery I submit to if I just want ego-boosting smoke blown up my backside regardless of the mediocrity of my render :P

Just kidding of course...  I agree with the origional post that it does really sting to post a work to the sound of crickets.  I never used to have that problem when I first started rendering but now a lot of the time there are parts of the render I am really proud of and parts that I know could be better but I hear nothing what-so-ever.

Quote - way to step up with the critiques and advice everyone....

now where is the gallery I submit to if I just want ego-boosting smoke blown up my backside regardless of the mediocrity of my render :P

why, here of course! And a couple others I won't mention...lolol. :P

Yes, I know. I'm evil. :P But I've seen renders where I'm screaming "My EYES!" and there are folks who go "Beautiful render" "This is awesome" etc...

I have to wonder if they are either blind or insane.

A member of a clique I guess ;).

Laurie

    I have a suggestion for the candles.  They are blown-out white, though I realize that their ambient needed to be set high to make IDL effective.  Make their ambient gentler, and then compensate by using an unseen high-ambient emitter.

     If you use P8/PP2010, the emitter needs to be hidden inside the candle/flame, and then the candle/flame must be set to not cast shadows and not be visible in raytracing.  Avoid reflections that would see the candle, because only the hidden emitter will show!  This is a major shortcoming of setting the visible candle prop to be not visible in raytracing, but if you don't do it, the emitter will be blocked.

     If you use P9/PP2012, it is both easier and better because the emitter geometry does not need to be physically concealed within other geometry, but only needs to be set to be an emitter while not being visible;  i.e., the render shows the IDL emitted, but does not show the object itself.  In fact, you can use a cylinder which is considerably larger than the candle;  this will be seen by more rays and so the IDL light will be more even.

     Another option is to use a point light in combination with the IDL, and this is what I find usually works best, especially if you wanted to apply SSS to the candle.  For that, you need a geometry such that rays will both enter and exit the wax.  A simple cylinder will not work well.  Instead, you want a cylinder with a recessed depression -as formed in real candles- with the point light placed down inside that well.

     If the playset is all one piece, the P8 technique won't work.  The candle/flame would need to be a separate prop so that their properties can be different.

 Frankly-I'm enjoying the feedback- I can start a second thread for those who want smoke blown! :-)

I make copies of each candle- and turn OFF "visible in camera"- then turn off transparency for the flame- and crank up the Ambient value-the problem is it still makes the visible candle body too bright. I'll have to play with ramping up the IDL intensity-and add a fill LIGHT

Quote - > Quote - way to step up with the critiques and advice everyone....

now where is the gallery I submit to if I just want ego-boosting smoke blown up my backside regardless of the mediocrity of my render :P

why, here of course! And a couple others I won't mention...lolol. :P

Yes, I know. I'm evil. :P But I've seen renders where I'm screaming "My EYES!" and there are folks who go "Beautiful render" "This is awesome" etc...

I have to wonder if they are either blind or insane.

A member of a clique I guess ;).

Laurie

 Hi Sean- I just saw your post. I am using the Large Emitter NOT seen by the Camera technique in PPro2012/ Unfortunately- it still makes the visible candle body blown out-due to proximity.

I am using SSS. I think I can use my rudimentary modelling skills to make such a candle cylinder with a depression on top.

Thanks! I think you may have described this on the RDNA forum awhile back.BTW: thanks again for the Lightsaber emitter set up!

Quote -     I have a suggestion for the candles.  They are blown-out white, though I realize that their ambient needed to be set high to make IDL effective.  Make their ambient gentler, and then compensate by using an unseen high-ambient emitter.

     If you use P8/PP2010, the emitter needs to be hidden inside the candle/flame, and then the candle/flame must be set to not cast shadows and not be visible in raytracing.  Avoid reflections that would see the candle, because only the hidden emitter will show!  This is a major shortcoming of setting the visible candle prop to be not visible in raytracing, but if you don't do it, the emitter will be blocked.

     If you use P9/PP2012, it is both easier and better because the emitter geometry does not need to be physically concealed within other geometry, but only needs to be set to be an emitter while not being visible;  i.e., the render shows the IDL emitted, but does not show the object itself.  In fact, you can use a cylinder which is considerably larger than the candle;  this will be seen by more rays and so the IDL light will be more even.

     Another option is to use a point light in combination with the IDL, and this is what I find usually works best, especially if you wanted to apply SSS to the candle.  For that, you need a geometry such that rays will both enter and exit the wax.  A simple cylinder will not work well.  Instead, you want a cylinder with a recessed depression -as formed in real candles- with the point light placed down inside that well.

     If the playset is all one piece, the P8 technique won't work.  The candle/flame would need to be a separate prop so that their properties can be different.

     Doh!   Yes, I've encountered that issue with proximity to the emitter.  You might try one of these cheats:

• reduce the diffuse value for the candle/flame
• set diffuse value to zero, and use alternate diffuse instead
• set diffuse value to zero, and use a (low) ambient setting instead

     I have such a candle in the RDNA community gifts;  just re-scale it to make it more slender.

I am most impressed with this thread.  Good on you, Eric, for starting this discussion.  I gave up showing anything in galleries because of the gadflies and the people that will take art and call it their own.

Teque

 Hi Sean

Thanks- I'll go looking for it and try your idea below!

Quote -      Doh!   Yes, I've encountered that issue with proximity to the emitter.  You might try one of these cheats:

• reduce the diffuse value for the candle/flame
• set diffuse value to zero, and use alternate diffuse instead
• set diffuse value to zero, and use a (low) ambient setting instead

     I have such a candle in the RDNA community gifts;  just re-scale it to make it more slender.

 TeQue

Glad to hear it! Perhaps if we get enough interest in the forums-we can continue to do this-for other images as well! It's nice to not be creating in a vacuum. I thought it was one of the reasons for an online art community.

Quote - I am most impressed with this thread.  Good on you, Eric, for starting this discussion.  I gave up showing anything in galleries because of the gadflies and the people that will take art and call it their own.

 

 

Teque

Right you lot...

I'm no longer on the staff here but I suggest you all start posting in the Critique forum.  Last time I looked in it was very quiet.  You folks could do yourselves and others a big favour by becoming active in there.

If you're fed up of the back slapping and ass kissing that goes on, do something about it.  Get involved in changing the process and maybe others will be interested in doing the same.

You've had word from a staff member in here that discussions about improving shaders are definitely on topic and I said the same so if you get any grief in that department, refer the complainers back to this thread.

Who knows?  If enough of you get involved, you may be the start of a shift in attitudes here.  Slow process, I know, but it has to start somewhere. 

Yay! I mean........yes sir..........  she marches brightly over to the Critique  Forum

Quote - Right you lot...

I'm no longer on the staff here but I suggest you all start posting in the Critique forum.  Last time I looked in it was very quiet.  You folks could do yourselves and others a big favour by becoming active in there.

.......

Quote - Right you lot...

I'm no longer on the staff here but I suggest you all start posting in the Critique forum. 

"It stinks!" - Jay Sherman

I think there are (at least) three types of criticism that I’d label:

1. Esthetic Criticism – How the work affects the viewer/critic emotionally, whether they find it attractive, moving etc. – almost completely subjective.
2. Craftsmanship Criticism – Evaluating composition, use of color, space, light perspective, texture etc.
3. Technical Criticism – Looking at the detailed techniques used to accomplish something, shaders, algorithms, formulas, render artifacts etc.

Types 1 and 2 are probably more what people generally think of as art criticism I would guess. That’s from a traditional media perspective though. You probably don’t see much commentary on the percentage of whatever oxide the artist used in his pigments. People who are more familiar/comfortable with that type might see 3 as irrelevant or even undesirable.

Type 3 is perhaps somewhat more unique to 3D CGI, but it is certainly relevant as it often ties directly with number 2. One example here is the candles being ‘blown out’ no pun intended. The solution of course lies in the technical realm. There’s probably always going to be some tension for people who see the technical as distracting from the artistic. I think that it has to be an integral part of the whole but it may take careful presentation in small doses to bring some of the traditionalists along.

In the galleries, you’re probably going to get mostly Type 1. Everyone has a valid opinion in that area, even if they are too hurried or whatever to elaborate. I like the dungeon setting and the POV from behind the skeleton. Moodwise, the setting should probably evoke either dark, sinister, creepy etc. or it could even be funny, but I don’t get either, just neutral.

I’ll bet a lot of people don’t really feel qualified to give type 2, even if they have an opinion. I certainly never studied art theory. I may have a vague gut feeling on perspective for instance, but I wouldn’t necessarily know how to express it beyond the most simplistic terms. I can say that the lights are too ‘bright,’ details ‘washed out,’ you can’t tell the candles are candles and not glowing magical cylinders.

Type 3 not only requires technical expertise, it can become very detailed specific to the software and even the version. I don’t think that the gallery is really conducive to that. That’s where a critique forum may be especially valuable.

It was quite apparent - to me at least - from this thread that technical discussions were considered inappropriate in a critiques forum.
No problem.
I feel we do need a forum or discussion group where this sort of discussion might be appropriate. People appear quick to say: "not good to do here!' without suggesting where it might be good.

I'm rather sensitised to being inappropriate in a forum: I've had a lot of feedback that whilst I've got valid points, perhaps, this "wasn't the time or place". Or something.

Still looking for that "time or place".

It is pointless to discuss with moderators: they would never admit of having being wrong.

The only sensible way is to move somewhere else, something which is going to happen anyway after the discussion ends in you being banned.

Bye.

Quote - It was quite apparent - to me at least - from this thread that technical discussions were considered inappropriate in a critiques forum.
No problem.
I feel we do need a forum or discussion group where this sort of discussion might be appropriate. People appear quick to say: "not good to do here!' without suggesting where it might be good.

I'm rather sensitised to being inappropriate in a forum: I've had a lot of feedback that whilst I've got valid points, perhaps, this "wasn't the time or place". Or something.

Still looking for that "time or place".

Refer to my previous post. :) 

My 2¢, Eric..

Looking at it, my eye went to the right side, up to the Lantern, to the Girl's face (and wondered where the light on it was coming from), to the staff head, then towards the left lantern...Oh-there's a skeleton!  What's it up to?

I'd zoom in on the girl and throw a bit more light on dem bones.

Hope ths is helpful... 

Quote - most people dont want to hear criticism.

i used to post critiques/suggestions but stopped because it was a huge waste of time. id take the time to write out constructive criticism and then id just get snarky PMs back about why i was wrong.  or id take 10 minutes to critique someones work and would point out something like the feet are floating 2" off the floor in their 'pose' and id get a response about how 'i know' - but theyre not going to 'waste the time to re-render'.

and then on the flipside you have people who post stupid preference-based criticism:   like you spend weeks working on some elaborate piece and theyll post 'great render, but her breasts are too small'. *
rolleyes*

the more i think about it, the more i believe the whole 'ZOMG WOW thats great!' type comments are just better for everyone all around.

This is true. And I think it might be a global internet phenomenon. I've seen the trend repeated over and over at photography posting sites.

Only extremely rarely are comments based on the posting itself. They are almost always social and reciprocal in nature.

You get comments by giving comments. But they are unlikely to be of any use to you.

That said, I understand that RDNA started a dedicated forum for criticism. It might be worthwhile having a look there.

The only downside I've experienced in the Critique Forum is low traffic.  I have a fair amount of people I follow and critique, some of whom I subscribed to back when the Critique forum and gallery were the "Critique Club."   I'm more cautious about giving critiques after that experience, because lots of people said they wanted critiques and then either openly admitted they couldn't handle critques in general and left, or argued with every critique anyone gave them.  So even when people think they want critiques, they can find them intrusive in practice.  That said, I'm still thanked fairly frequently by those I give detailed critiques, and most of the people I give them to weren't in the Critique Club. 

I think a good indicator of being open to critique is whether someone mentions an aspect of their work they struggled with, or if their gallery seems to show some sort of change or growth.

I go to the gallery all the time because I have so many subscriptions.  There's a lot of amazing and inspiring artists here.  Eric Walters - if you'd like me to add you to my subscriptions and critique your work as it comes out, I'd be very happy to.  Your work is very interesting, and I'd really enjoy it.  Just to warn, though, I often get backlogged on my comments.  My new images notifications are presently up to 23.  Only some of those are from people I critique, but enough so that it will take me a bit to go through all of them.  So if you don't see comments from me, it's probably just because I've gotten behind on my comments again.

Looking at that thread, I was the only one who thought the discussion might have been more valuable in another forum.   I had and have absolutely no official position, and didn't think my post implied I did.  I certainly didn't mean it as some kind of reprimand.  It was just (as I said at the time) that the post specifically involved a Matmatic script and I didn't think anyone who came to that forum could critique it.  I also thought none of the people who could critique Matmatic code would even find the thread to be able to do so (which they didn't, unfortunately).  To quote myself, "nor was i trying to say that it should be expunged from this forum as forbidden or some such."  So expressly not even suggesting (let alone dictating) that critique of Matmatic scripts be forbidden, let alone technical aspects of renders.

I did actually suggest the Node Cult at RDNA, since I didn't know of a material specific forum here.  And I also asked that maybe it was time for a forum like that here, but no one said anything.  That said, there are already lots of theoretical material discussions in this forum, and I don't know if people would find them as easily if they moved.

Edited to clarify: Robyn actually did comment on the prospect of an equivalent to the Node Cult here, but no one who actually had power (unlike me) did.  And that was a frustrating time when the RDNA forums were transitioning.  It's so much better now.

 Thanks for your two pennies! I absolutely got lost in the efforts to make pretty lighting with objects-and my "story" got lost along the way. Working on THAT aspect right now.

Quote - My 2¢, Eric..

Looking at it, my eye went to the right side, up to the Lantern, to the Girl's face (and wondered where the light on it was coming from), to the staff head, then towards the left lantern...Oh-there's a skeleton!  What's it up to?

I'd zoom in on the girl and throw a bit more light on dem bones.

Hope ths is helpful... 

Add some DOF.. It needs some depth...Also the render masters over at RuntimeDNA will help you out. Thre is a section for analyzing renders in their forums.

 Hi Kobalt- please do!

Quote -   Eric Walters - if you'd like me to add you to my subscriptions and critique your work as it comes out, I'd be very happy to.  Your work is very interesting, and I'd really enjoy it.  Just to warn, though, I often get backlogged on my comments.  My new images notifications are presently up to 23.  Only some of those are from people I critique, but enough so that it will take me a bit to go through all of them.  So if you don't see comments from me, it's probably just because I've gotten behind on my comments again. Looking at that thread, I was the only one who thought the discussion might have been more valuable in another forum.   I had and have absolutely no official position, and didn't think my post implied I did.  I certainly didn't mean it as some kind of reprimand.  It was just (as I said at the time) that the post specifically involved a Matmatic script and I didn't think anyone who came to that forum could critique it.  I also thought none of the people who could critique Matmatic code would even find the thread to be able to do so (which they didn't, unfortunately).  To quote myself, "nor was i trying to say that it should be expunged from this forum as forbidden or some such."  So expressly not even suggesting (let alone dictating) that critique of Matmatic scripts be forbidden, let alone technical aspects of renders.

I did actually suggest the Node Cult at RDNA, since I didn't know of a material specific forum here.  And I also asked that maybe it was time for a forum like that here, but no one said anything.  That said, there are already lots of theoretical material discussions in this forum, and I don't know if people would find them as easily if they moved.

Threads like this restore my faith in the forum.  Amazing how helpful and positive people can be at times.  After all the fight, bickering and general bad feeling recently, this is a refreshing change.

Quote - Threads like this restore my faith in the forum.  Amazing how helpful and positive people can be at times.  After all the fight, bickering and general bad feeling recently, this is a refreshing change.

QFT - it's getting so I don't want to read any threads in the Poser forum at the moment.