Quote - Maybe I'm cranky these days, KW, but I find myself reacting emotionally against posts which try to assert what "everyone" does and what the "general population" needs.  That could just be me being irritated because I've been handed the spiel about "linear" workflows before and it reads to me like a lot of garbledygook which is intended to shift the topic slightly while not clearly stating much of anything.

All of which perhaps indicates that my self-imposed withdrawal from Poserdom may not be ready to be ended yet.  :lol:  Back in my hidey-hole, then.

Cage - Please don't retreat from the conversation.  I think I'm not saying what I mean very well.  I'm not talking about what people need to do with their work.  I'm just trying to say what I think is possible and isn't in terms of Poser's programming.  As you know, probably better than I do, programming is good for fixing a consistent problem.  It sucks for fixing an inconsistent problem.  The more inconsistent the problem is, the less programming is able to fix it. 

In my experience, not only does each person make materials in their own manner (outside of people who follow Bagginsbill's style, who probably already use linear workflow), but most people don't even approach different materials in the same way.   Implementing linear workflow is just a mathematical transformation.  Deciding what to apply that transformation to might be problematic, but not the transformation itself.  The grey area of what to transform will only affect materials and lights so much.  The big change will always come from implementing the workflow itself, and I don't see a programmatic way to mitigate that in some ways and not in others according to the particular vision of the material or light maker.

Poser can't analyze a node structure, turn that into an understanding of an aesthetic, and then implement the linear workflow version of it.  It can't guess what someone intends by their material.  It can't guess that this ambient boost wasn't meant to make the material glow, but that one was.  Different people did and still do different things with each material they make. I could see transforming the old face_off RSS or the original V4 skin material trick, but that's the only two norms I can think of off the top of my head.

Maybe I, RobynsVeil, and even Bagginsbill and Snarlygribbly have missed how to programmatically transform materials to more GC friendly versions rather than just replacing them wholesale.  Maybe we've all overlooked some consistent problem to correct, some automatic transformation to perform.  Heck, maybe AI programming is way better (and I know it's really good) and more affordable than I know.

I just don't think any of that is true.

So, for the situation you seem to be saying further Poser development might achieve (materials working with GC onwhile still having the same or similar look as their non-GC version), I think (I don't know, but I think), will require materials made by people who are comfortable making materials. 

Maybe I'm totally misunderstanding the average Poser user, but I think the average Poser user is dependent on content creators and not interested or prepared to create content themselves.  Maybe that's an assumption, but I thought it was a fairly safe one.  I don't have an emotional stake in the answer, frankly.  I think it's great either way.  But I figure it's safer to assume people won't make content themselves and be wrong about that, than to assume they will and be wrong about that.

I am not stating that people in general need to use linear workflow in general or GC specifically.  I am not saying that content creators have to use it.  I am saying that I don't think Poser's programmers or average users can do anything about the existing materials (or lights, for that matter)  that don't work well with GC.  I think that the only way to make lots of content work with GC is for content creators to make new, GC friendly content.  I am not saying people need GC friendly content in general, in case that's what you were thinking. 

I'm truly sorry if what I've written is "garbledygook" to you, but I've really tried to be as clear as possible.  That's why I've written so much.  I don't care about shifting the conversation.  I honestly don't care whether people use GC or not.  As I stated initially, many of my favorite artists don't use it, and produce beautiful works.  I do care, though, if people understand what it is, how it works, and what it changes.   I care that people know the actual limitations of either workflow, as well as what it takes to switch from regular to linear workflows.

I personally never had a big problem switching workflows.  As far as I can tell, that's because I focused on what I was doing, not what I used to do.  Every time either I or other people I know of tried to base linear workflow content on regular workflow content, it was a huge, frustrating PITA.  Thing is, simple stuff works great with linear workflow, so it's not like you have to turn yourself into a material maven or lighting guru to switch.  But it's probably best to either let go of wanting things to look the same as they did before or not switch, because the whole point of switching workflows is to make everything look different.

Quote - LOL. I think that sometimes the evangelists for a new technology are their own worst enemies in that regard.... It's going to take some time for content creators to catch up and until then, things are going to be more compled than ideal I would guess.

Um, I'm not an evangelist for new tech.  I don't know if I would call technology I've been using for four years and learned about from others who were already using it "new" even just to Poser,  but I have literally no stake in how people choose to realize their own artistic vision.  Did you read my post or just react to what you expected it to say?    You said exactly what I did, but without any details about why content creators would need to catch up to make using GC less complex.

Oh, and my works with what I'd consider rich shadows and linear workflow:

Midnight Theatre (I think I actually need make the scenery lighter)

Light Study 07 (deviantART, nudity)

Light Study 06 (deviantART, nudity)

Light Study 05 (nudity)

Light Study 04 (nudity)

Light Study 03 (nudity)

I have another 2 or 3 in the works, as well.   Two need postwork and one needs finishing in Poser.  Using linear workflow has never stopped me from doing low light works.