She's a bit more filled-out than the previous girl, but to me she doesn't look quite as statuesque because of it.  I'd say she's probably the next most stauesque girl in the folder, so is this closer to what you see as being statuesque?

If not, I think it must be just a European thing :blink:

Well if I half to chose I want a variety and , ah ,I chose them all.

Rock version

Up to now I was convinced that Vicky 6's proportions were completely made up and "impossible".

I still think her shoulder width is unrealistically narrow, but all the other proportions are a perfect match. Heck, even V6's boobs are actually lower (= more natural looking) than those of that model.

Knees, belly button, hip bones, all in the right place. Would be a matter of minutes to slim the hip and legs down to create a 100% match in shape, too.

That model must be quite tall in real life, given the head to body ratio. If I had seen her on a fashion magazine cover, I'd sworn she was photoshopped, but these porn/erotic spreads are usally not.

Well, looks like Vicky 6 not only has very realistic body details, even her overall body proportions can now be called "realistic". Though definitely not "average".

But definitely "possible" for a fashion model.

(Still don't like her narrow shoulders)

I hope you like European Techno, but if not, I guarantee the visuals will ease the pain :woot:
**Click Here To See THE Hottest Music-Video EVER Made
**

I hope vilters watches it, Roxie could sure use some of those Military hotpants!**
**

**@Joe
**You can say that again, wow, freaky how close they were even before the morph, it's true she's not exactly a regular figure either.  I'm not sure if she was altered in any way, but I very much doubt it.  The girls on the European sites tend to be raw and unedited I think.

Have to agree with you on her being tall as well.  Again, can't say for sure but here's another image of her in more of a pose.  If the height of her hips compared to the table is anything to go by, yes indeed, I'd say she's quite a tall girl.

I'd post a few more of her but she has her legs spread in them so I'll give that a miss on here :-D

pumeco : You take your pick of the Russian girls & I'll just half to suffer with the rest ;)

Too late mate, I already hired each and every one of 'em to beat me up as well :biggrin:
I don't see why Dith should have all the fun just because he's a DJ.

I take it no one found the girl auction amusing then?
I don't know about vending meshes, I think I'd better start vending humour pills :lol:

You're a boring lot today.
It was so bloody awesome I even got myself excited by it!

Quote - I'd post a few more of her but she has her legs spread in them so I'll give that a miss on here :-D

The internet is your friend.

She has an interesting tennis serve.... Grip gets a little slippery thou....

She must be confusing tennis with golf. There is no hole in one, in tennis....

lol....

Haven't seen a set where she's doing tennis though, no, the only other two pics I have of her are where she's reclining on that black table you see in the photo, and another where she's sitting on a chair backwards, with her back towards the camera.

Tell you what I did come across today, though, the attached girl looks very much like Roxie (in the face I mean).  The face shape, ears, eyes, very close to how Roxie looks by default I reckon.

If Roxie was a flesh and blood girl, she'd probably have the same looks - or close enough.

Do not post those pictures...

FEED the poor girls.
LOL.

Roxie' BMI is way higher then that poor thing.

No way is she skinny, no way, she has pleny of meat on those thighs (and arms come to think of it).

Dear Gawd...

Where is the 31st so I can quit looking at this stuff!!!!!!!!!

My kingdom for access to the "Ignore" button!

BTW, my "Ignore" button works perfectly fine only I'm not that bitchy, I'm a guy.

Moderator's don't have the "ignore" button.

And sorry you couldn't tell... I was kidding you.

:)

Yeah, well I bet my application to be the new moderator has been dismissed now!

Ha- Ha- Ha- ha- , bad luck for you pumeco. . 

I am the "new" toreador, and anything starting with anything else then "R" will be banned by definition. LOL -LOL- LOL-, Toxie- Roxie said so!

Just ordered a 15 kg sledgehammer from Amazon.

And an extra LARGE, Super-Sized, Turbo-charged, and Intercooled "DEL" button.

Wizzy-wiz, you will be missed man.

Quote - **
@David**
If I'd known you were going to hunt her down on the internet, I'd have sent them to you mate :biggrin:

Haven't seen a set where she's doing tennis though, no, the only other two pics I have of her are where she's reclining on that black table you see in the photo, and another where she's sitting on a chair backwards, with her back towards the camera.

Tell you what I did come across today, though, the attached girl looks very much like Roxie (in the face I mean).  The face shape, ears, eyes, very close to how Roxie looks by default I reckon.

If Roxie was a flesh and blood girl, she'd probably have the same looks - or close enough.

You have any more photos of this girl ?
Different sessions might tell more.
From this one photo I would say she's had plastic surgery done.
on her eyes ,nose ,lips,& probably a ear tuck .
A vagina clip ,A breast job & what is up with those nipples ?

The last two aren't as overly skinny as the first, but the first thought that come to my mind is still too skinny, not stauesque. IMHO they could all do with a membership to a gym (a much better way to maintain weight than not eating properly), a personal trainer, and a chef/nutritionist. Of course the same thoughts often run through my mind when I see images of most of the top fashion models today - so my tastes may be a bit out of the norm.

I would say it's crystal clear now what body type you prefer 

If you plan on making commercial characters, a quick look through the galleries and the markeplace here might be a good idea. There are a few characters with ultra slim bodies, but the majority definitely have a bit more meat on their bones. Of course who knows, maybe a lot of people prefer the same body type as you do, and making a character like your first lady might be very popular. 

**

@vilters**
If I were in charge there would be chaos, that is all.

@RorrKonn
That's the only picture I have of her, and even if it weren't I wouldn't post it here now.  No sir, I've posted three European beauties so far, all of which apparently have an eating disorder, and bloody hell, the last one even has plastic surgery!

What?!?!?!

About time someone else chipped-in and posted some natural women from their side of the pond.  Ones that have never been near that overpriced junk known as Photoshop.  Oh, and no burger fanatics, either, she was strictly for Wiz's pleasure!

Yes, I'm trying to piss you all off, so prove me wrong.  If the example I posted of statuesque is off, well ok then, post a "statuesque" woman that is more statuesque than the girl I posted, lets see her, and don't even think about posting a fatty with an Elvis-style burger fetish - I said statuesque - not walrus!

Statuesque is delicate, elegant and shapely - go for it!

I'm off to bed now, and in the morning, if I see a picture of a more statuesque woman than the one I posted on the other page, I'll forgive you all.  I'm not saying it's impossible but I think you'll have a hard time finding one.

If nobody can find one, I'll just have to assume you were all talking nonsense :biggrin:

**
@DustRider**
But those women of that body type are not a specific preference as I've pointed out before.  The statuesque woman was posted as an example of statuesque because that's what the thread is about.  The second one was posted as a second example for the same reason.  The third was posted for the face, nothing to do with the rest of her.

I actually have a very wide pallette when it comes to preference.  I like anything from the girls I've posted, right up to the babe-type such as Kim and the Auction Girl on the other page.  There tends to be just one thing that's common among my preference, and that's the wide hips (but I still like women that don't have that feature).

That said, I don't like wide hips with narrow shoulders, or narrow hips with wide shoulders - she has to be balanced right.  What Joe pointed out about V6 is a perfect example of wide hips with narrow shoulders, it looks terrible.  Anyway, thanks for the tip regards the vending, I already do that.  This thread is just as good for getting a feel for what people want, and yes indeed, statue girl would have gone down well despite what has been said here.

The reason I know this is the amount of views that certain body types get in image galleries on the web.  There's no better indication of what men want than the amount of views accessed from a thumbnail gallery, because they can already see what they want to click on before they click it.

It's effectively free marketing research done for the vendor.  You click on a specific babe out of a list of images, then that's what you like.

Pumeco : I never got involved with this or that look.
I try to avoid politics,religion or anything that involves personal opinions.
Cause it's a endless argument.
You all can like any style you all want.
I was not putting the girl down with the plastic surgery.
I guess I was just felling sorry for her. I'm sure she was fine looking before it all.
I will rag on that plastic surgeon that done a bad job on her nipples thou.

Well hell let me brake my own rule and tell ya some of my personal opinions.
but I woun't respond to any comments to it.
plastic surgeons that helped the solders that keeped getting shoot in the face
cause they had to poke there head out of the trenches.WW1 WW2 it's how plastic surgery got started.
or help kids borned with clip palate or help people that really need it .
those plastic surgeons have honor ,dignity ,compassion.

But the plastic surgeons that feeds on the to young cause some magazine
who could careless about humanity.
told them they alt to look like a super model.
There nothing but a peace of shit parasites.
I would have no objection to throwing them in to a trench.

@pumeco: Well your girls have apealing  waist/hip/chest proportions, but I realy think they are still to skinny. Besides their small bodysize it just doesn't look healthy to me , when every rib bone of the girls rib-cage is visable.

Even more : people look like 10kgs more on video or photo. So in real life those models you've posted will look even more skinny.

**
@RorrKonn**
Same here, I have no interest in politics and cannot stand politicians.  No one and no entity should be able to dictate what a country full of human beings can and can't do, simple as that.  We're all earth beings and this is our planet, it belongs to us, not to a select few power-mad individuals who made it "to the top" through corruption and lying to the citizens of the planet.  I was in two minds of using "Earth" as the location on my profile, because that's where I really live, Earth.

I'm a citizen of Earth and shouldn't need a bloody passport or anyones permission to explore it.

Plastic surgeons?  It's not the surgeons I dislike, it's the media that brain-wash women into thinking they need them in the first place that are the problem.  But all of this stuff is irrelevant to what was posted, you still failed to show a more statuesque woman than the one I showed.

Statue Girl therefore takes first prize for "statuesque" by default.

Regards the art, bloody awesome, I'd vote for her as mod.  And that babe on the bike isn't a million miles away from the girls in my folders (especially the Retro/Vintage one).  I'd happily post images of the sort of women I think are goddesses, but they're nude and look suggestive and I'm not sure I'm allowed to post them.  You'll notice the women I've posted so far are either clothed or are in a reference-style, non sexual pose.  The babes in my Retro folder look a lot more seductive than the girls in those images - don't think I'd be allowed to post them - they might be seen as porn.

@Timberwolf
Bear in mind that she has her arms over her head, that's why you see her ribs.  She looks perfectly healthy to me, perfectly normal.

Seriously :-)

Oh No we can not post porn.we can not post porn links.Just no porn anything.

Biz's girl on the bike is my personal idea of a dream girl.

she's probably not ya statuesque play boy style everyones dream girl.

but she's my dream girl ;)

BTW, who's the artist, their full name I mean?

I have a couple of books on Erotic Comics and Artists through the ages, they're like an illustrated chronology right up to modern day stuff but I'm not sure I've even seen this artist before.

Looks nice and gritty, nice stye and colouring!

Some links to statuesque women.

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5515/11059679673_1d7a5eb309_o.png

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.28050.1372367802!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/gallery_1200/kate-upton.jpg

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5486/12178361396_40d7766414_o.png

Just did a quick google search.

Actual statues don't count, lol, and the other girl (nice as she is) totally is not statuesque!

I just looked through my other drive and found another girl who is statuesque, she has a rounder figure than the original Statue Girl I posted but I'd rate her just as highly on the statuesque scale.  So where is she?

Well, I've decided to make you all sweat for a bit first, especially Wiz.

So what sort of girl could pumeco possibly be hiding on his drive this time?
Shall she be goddess or shall she be dog?

We shall see later, that is all.

Quote - Some links to statuesque women.

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5515/11059679673_1d7a5eb309_o.png

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.28050.1372367802!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/gallery_1200/kate-upton.jpg

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5486/12178361396_40d7766414_o.png

 

Just did a quick google search.

That's what I was going to suggest - ask the great interwebs oracle - google. Just do a google search for "statuesque images", and you will get a lot of examples of what people think is statuesque.

IMHO statuesque is more than a body type. There also has to be a certain elegance to the image/subject. In addition to the elegance, there is also an air of confidence and beauty that trancends the physical traits. Proper body language is a huge part of statuesque. If you do the google search an image of Katherine Hepburn will be in the first 50-100 images. It's more of a portrait, but to me she is very statuesque in the photo, because in that photo she conveys everything I see as being statuesque - timeless beauty.

The closest thing I have in my gallery to stauesque would be the image in the link below. It's really more Frazetta-esque, but it does have some of the elements that invoke the idea of statuesque in my mind.

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=2511337

Actually, Statues do count, since that is where the term derived from. Tall and curvy.

@Ghostofmacbeth
But the real statues aren't of statuesque women, they're sort of sem-voloptuous, and the real babe, she's looks more the typical babe-type figure!

@All
Here you go, you cannot possibly say that this statuesque beauty is too skinny, or can you?  Then again, I think I'd better hold my breath on that one 'cause you never can tell with you Americans, you're a strange lot!

Either way, imagine giving her a full-body massage, bloody hell :woot:

Can't judge all Americans buy a few.

We never where or wanted to be what they considered Artist.
So No ,you won't find us in there art history books.

Well if you didn't know this ,ya about to find out that I'm older then dirt.
Before there where PC's we had DC & Marvel comics but they where censured.
in latter years they made some PG stuff.

but we had Heavy Metal Magazine comics when from time to time it got published.
Ya just never new when or if there would be a next Heavy Metal.
In the back of Heavy Metal you could buy hard to find comics n books.
Some comic stores had not porn but uncensored stuff ,spencer's in the mall had posters.
In latter years some Artist like Boris ,Royo had calendars and there where covers of the fantasy novels.Rock album covers.
Some had Art books in Art Stores.
But cool not porn but uncensored Art was hard to come buy.

Heavy Metal Magazine .

Simon Bisley .

Oscar Chichoni .

Olivia De Berardinis .

Juan Gimenez .

Boris Vallejo .

Luis Royo .

To name a few.

in 1988 the rock band poison released open up and say ahh
they censored the album cover.

open up and say ahh

I'm not judging Americans, I was just being witty.  I blame the media for trying to brainwash us all into believing that America is fat and doesn't realise it.  It's nonsense of course, in fact American women in general are extremely hot as far as I'm concerned.

You do eat a lot of burgers, though, cos I've seen the burger bars on every corner in the movies :biggrin:

Anyway, you should never have posted those links.  You've distracted me now.  I absolutely LOVE that stuff, and now that you pointed out Bisley, I have seen his work, I've seen lots of it.  I'm just a noob but I love it to bits.  That Heavy Metal Magazine as well, I could look at that stuff without ever getting bored, awesome!

The only time I get to see it is online on various websites.  I'm not even sure they sell that publication in the bookstores here.  I'll have to look in WHSmiths next time I'm in there, but I reckon I'd need a specialist shop for that stuff.

I started getting into that art not too long ago out of frustration with 3D.  I just got sooooooooo fed-up with not being able to do what I want with it, even though I'd spent so many years messing around with it and so much money on it over the years.  Nothing has changed and nothing ever will.

I still have nothing to show for getting into 3D or CG so I said to myself, screw it, I never used to waste so much time achieving nothing when pencils, paint, ink and paper ruled.  You don't have to worry about the price of keeping up to date if you do things traditionally, and real art is actually worth something whereas prints of renders from a computer, are not.  I mean you don't have to worry about whether your pencil is 64-Bit compatible, either, none of that crap.

Imagination - materials - done!

I used to love drawing, I really miss it.  And the thing is, I think those images you pointed out are waaaaaaaaay better than a photograph at achieving a visual anyway.  They're a feast for the eyes and although I like real images, I don't get the same sort of a satisfaction out of a photo as I do drawn images, it's just not the same.  You know what I mean because you said yourself, the biker girl is your ideal girl ;-)

There are a billion photos of babes out there, yet you chose a drawing to represent her

In answer to the original question - I always use "statuesque" rather than "down to earth". My renders are dance, fantasy and sci-fi and especially for dance renders the body shape I want to use is very much like the "statuesque" pics Pumeco has been posting. Those are gorgeous! I think maybe it is a European thing. Tall, slender blondes are very popular here. (In the same way I like the shape of M3 much better than M4.)

Here for me are some beautiful examples of the perfect female body and what I'm usually trying to achieve in renders:

The Ballerina Project

(Don't think there's any nudity so far as I remember!)

Ever watched the credits on the games ? 
there as long as the movie credits.
Takes a lot of people to make games.

Even a Poser render
Vicky ,hair ,cloths ,poses ,props  & renderer. that's 6 people to make one render.

For fast CGI Stills just a single one frame render with no animation.
1.DAZ Poser / but you restricted to available characters ,hair ,cloths ,poses ,props etc etc.
2.Photoshop with at least a Wacom Intuos Pro Medium or better / but you half to have the skills to paint.

1. zBrush with at least a Wacom Intuos Pro Medium or better / but you half to have the skills to sculpt & paint.

The Artist I listed made there mark long before PC's.
The old ways just can't compete with Photoshop & zBrush.
For a lot of different reasons CGI is just more proficient then the old ways.

@toastie
I shake you by the hand, sir, I'm glad someone agrees with me.  That ballerina website is superb, lots of graceful girls on there, 58 pages of them in fact.

Well, 57 pages actually because page 33 doesn't work for me.

Bookmarked.  Awesome site to use as reference, shame the images are so small though, I want epic sized images!  Can't imagine why they post them so small on a Tumblr site, it's not as if they have to worry about bandwidth.

@EClark
Wonder Woman is cool but she's like the DustRider babe, she's more an Amazon/Warrior-Girl, not statuesque.  It makes clear to me why people see the girls I post as skinny though, it's obvious now that Americans have a very different idea of what statuesque is to what I do.

As toastie pointed out, think more "ballerina" and perhaps graceful and you're in the right ballpark for statuesque.

@RorrKonn
Agreed, doing stuff on a computer has way more sophistication.  What it lacks though, is the "hands-on" ergonomics of holding a real pencil or brush and putting it to real paper.  I bet even the best Wacom tablet on earth wouldn't give that (although I hear they're very impressive, and I wouldn't say no to one).  There's also the end product to consider as well.  Make your art in the computer and the art is wothless from a collectible point of view because the original doesn't exist.

A real, physically produced work of art is a different story though.

I think there's only one 3D app out there that is truly fully "artistic" and that is ZBrush.  I think any person who masters both the 2.5D Pixol technology and the 3D technology in ZBrush has a very good chance at producing awesomness.

It's the bloody interface that holds me back 99% of the time, and those tiny sliders drive me nuts!!!

Don't forget that, when looking at many of these pictures, the tricks start long before Photoshop.  Standing in tip toe can give the appearence on longer legs but so also can a very low camera angle.  The pictures a few pages back show this very well, the one with the very thin girl is from a very low angle where as a lot of others are from a much higher camera angle.  OK the thin girl will still be thin but the proportions of her legs are silghtly skewed.

True, the girls are clever at teasing and the photograpers are clever at exaggerating!

The internet done for Art what the Radio done for music.
& the internet made it a lot easier for Artist & Musicians to share there stuff with the masses.

Before the internet some one had to agree to publish your Art.
Sixx:A.M. - Lies of the Beautiful People .
Good luck with that & if they did you only got very little money for it.
Sixx: A.M. - This Is Gonna Hurt .
Art galleries where political horrors.

What good would it do to make a song record it and then lock it in a safe ?
since camera & the internet we all get to see Davinci ,Vango ,Picoso etc etc
Might even be able to buy a poster or two.

With CGI ,No there's no original but I could have a print made & hand sign that one print.
Coast atleast $300 to make a oil painting with lead poisoning and all.
Air brush at least $500 ya where a gas mask and still spit paint for days.

Yeah I know all that, and like I said, I love CG art, I'm just frustrated with it because no matter what I try, I hit a brick wall with it.  I never used to have such issues with a pencil and paper, and I never will have those issues with it.  The cost of pencils and paper are non existent compared to the price of software, and the end product is likely to be worth a lot more.

YouTube is full of people teaching drawing and traditional art, it hasn't gone away and it never will.

With CG it always feels like an inifinte loop of:

>>>loop

*- Wrong program - Right program but essential feature missing - Essential features all there but program crashes - Program doesn't crash but has bugs - Program is as solid as a rock but the interface is incomprehensible - Program almost reaches what you want and you have to start again because it suddenly becomes incompatible with something else you need -

loop>>>

The whole thing's a farce, always has been.  It's been like that ever since I got into CG with Bryce2, it was like that even before then and still is to this day.  Nothing has or ever will change in that respect.

Natural media painting programs exist so that you can "mimic" a real pencil on paper, that's how superior CG art is - not.  Nothing is or ever will be better than the real thing.  A 3D print will never be as good as a real sculpture, and the result of a real media painting program will never be as authentic as real pencil on real paper.

:biggrin:

It's the same with synths, they're falling over themselves to mimic the sound of real analogue synthesizers using digital.  They'll never actually do it no matter how good they get at it.  The big brands are starting to realise it and are slowly bringing in real analogue gear again.  Real art is the equivelant or real analogue, and nothing in the digital domain will ever be as good as the real thing, no matter how good it gets.

Check out the photo attached to this post and make a list of how many software packages you'd need to pull it off and make it look as real as that photo does if you were to use 3D software.

You'd need something good at modelling, something good at hair, something good at particles so that you could do the water using fluid dynamics.  You'd also need some kick-ass talent to go along with the amount of money you just spent on software.

Now compare that cost to a sheet of paper, an eraser, and some pencils.

I've never seen a CG figure look as real as the women in that photo, but hang on a minute, that photo isn't even a photo, it's actually a drawing (no kidding).

CLICK HERE TO UNDERSTAND WHY REAL ART WILL NEVER BE BEATEN

So now you understand that whenever I come across yet another problem with software, I get more and more drawn to throwing it out of the window completely.  The only interest I have in CG now is for vending, I personally gave-up hope of using it for anything "artistic" long ago.

Your problem Pumeco is that blaming the medium for what it lacks instead of tailor your talent to use the medium. For instance, same picture you show of the girl in the shower. What if you sculpted her in stone taking a shower. How do you show the water in stone? Would you not call it real art? Or would curse the sculpting companies that made the tools to sculpt with. OR would find some other way to show the water, like actually using water or a  crystaline type of rock?

I think of Poser and CG art as a lot like Green Lantern's ring.  It's only real weakness is the color yellow.  But the only real limitation is your imagination.

It also depends on why you are using the software and if your 'art' has a purpose.  I have always had a fairly good imagination but lack any skills with pencil and paper.  OK maybe I could get better with some training and a lot of time but if I want to get my imagination into the real world I am not going to better Poser with my set of pencils.  Much better for me to spend the time trying to build the character and textures I need than trying to draw. 

I have had photography as a hobby for over thirty years and I enjoy it but without a vast budget I am not going to be able to photograph the Sci-Fi images I have in my mind.  I am also not looking for Photo Realistic in Poser but more a 'believable' image.  No one will look at any of my Poser renders and think 'that may be a photograph, but I hope some might look and think 'someone or a place like that could exist'.   Mind you with most my characters at a relative 5' 1" with a thin but athletic body no one is going to think statuesque, but then that is not my aim.  There are plenty of renders out there to meet that need.

Exactly. I didn't start using Poser thinking I could create photorealistic images. Yes, I'd like to see how close I could come to doing it, but that's more of a challege than a goal. I originally wanted to use Poser to tell a story. I've done that once and started a second one. I got sidetracked though because of learning how to use the software to create more content.

I like the fact that there are so many legacy figures in Poser. They help me populate out the 3d world that my characters live in, and that't's not a world full of supermodels and hunks, but real people... and supermodels and hunks.

I think you've both got the wrong end of the stick.

I'm not knocking CG and I'm not knocking Poser; I like CG and I like Poser and I'll never stop playing around with this stuff.  The point I was making is from an artistic point of view.  Why would I be better off paying out a constant stream of cash for various software packages that fail me every time I do it?

Why would I choose that route to produce "art" if I could do the same with just pencil and paper and have a real physical piece of art to show for it?

My art doesn't have purpose because I don't have any art.  The reason I don't have any art is because CG attracted me away from real media a long time ago.  One thing I do know is that if CG didn't exist, I would still be drawing and I'd be a heck of a lot better now than I was then.

It's just as easy to visit YouTube and learn how to draw anatomy as it is to visit YouTube and learn how to sculpt it in ZBrush.  It's just as easy to cheat by tracing an outline as it is to load-up a figure and trace over that.  It's cheaper to use real media than to keep up with software.  It's better to have a physical piece of art (no matter how bad) after you've put your heart into producing it.

It's better to be in total control of what you're creating.

Nothing but your own skill will ever come between you and a piece of paper.  In the world or real physical art, software, bugs, crashes, and incompatibility simply don't exist.  The image I posted was to demonstrate that you don't need sculpting, painting, dynamics, or even a computer or camera to produce a photo.

I was not suggesting that you shouldn't use those things.

My point was that all you need is a pencil, paper, eraser and practice.  CG doesn't get you out of the talent requirement, it merely changes how it's done.  CG will always have reliability issues, but real media never will.  That "photo" was created without any computer at all, nevermind the rest of the 3D tech that would be required to produce something as convincing as that.

Anyway, this has gone way off-topic again (my fault), sorry about that.

It takes exceptional talent and years of training to create a truly photorealistic artwork in traditional media.

With CGI and the right tools, it only takes a few minutes. and no artistic talent at all.

Of course you can't use a low-end hobbyist tool like Poser as a benchmark for what CGI is currently capeable of.

As for tangible artwork:

You can easily create limited edition 2D or 3D prints of your work if you need something your customers can hang on a wall or put on a shelf.

http://ir-ltd.net/

http://www.twinkind.com/en/landing