And this brings me back to the postwork vs. pure poser debate. I am sorry, but 95% of the time when I see an image that says "Pure Poser, no postwork" I can see something in the image that SHOULD have been postworked--a broken joint, undramatic lighting, and so on. To me, most Poser and Bryce renders right out of the box lack warmth and depth.

I think it depends on how you handle them, Kieraw. The only post work I've done in the Backstage series was compositing the Poser render with the Bryce render, save for a couple of times when I blurred the background for distance. But aside from that, mine are fairly pure. It just comes down to what you're looking to accomplish: sometimes that broken joint can work for you, no?

Absolutely. But I think it's a very small percentage of people who can get away with zero postwork. Some people are masters of Poser and Bryce, no question, and can get their people out of the renderer without having them look plastic and their scenes perfectly lit. For me, I consider the postwork stage the actual art stage, where I use Photoshop and Painter to bring out the feel of the image I have in mind.

The Iron Chefs scare me.

I have to strongly disagree with VirtualSite. (but only as a friendly voice, not in arguement) Art like beauty is all in the eye of the beholder... so to you, the slap from column A may not be art, but to some one else, it may be. I'll pick on Ron Knights here (hi Ron) I'm watching his own talents slowly develop... he's done a lot of slapping from collumn A... but he considers his work art. Are you going to deny him that? Art is open to intreptation... therefore, it cannot be truly defined by any one set of criteria. If a man picks up a stone, and places it on top of another stone and declares it art, then it is art in his mind. It may not be in mine or yours, but it is Art. If an Elephant sprays paint on a canvas... is it art? People have paid a lot of money for it.. does that make it art? If a man paints a picture of a campbells soup can, and declares it art... Yes, Ansel Adams did a lot of work in the darkroom, most of which has yet to be duplicated the same way... I've seen his originals next to other repros. But that wasnt the sarcast point I'm trying to make. Art cannot be defined or denied. To do so is a mockery of all art in the first place. My own definition involves taking pride in what you do... if I compose a nice poem from words... is that art? If I write a song? If I can sing a song? If I can sing a song poorly? Doug

Ron/Doug, I think the biggest problem is that we can't distinguish between "art" and "craft". It's like we think "craft" is second-rate somehow, when compared to "art". And to that, I say balderdash. I'll take the work of a good craftsman over that of a pretenda-artist any day. I don't even consider my own work "art"; it's craft, and I'm very proud of that. Ron: If a man picks up a stone, and places it on top of another stone and declares it art, then it is art in his mind. It may not be in mine or yours, but it is Art. Is it? According to whom? Some one-size-fits-all definition of Art? Sorry, no. Unless that stack of two stones is saying something to the viewer, it's not Art -- it's an "artist" standing in a corner masturbating. Granted , sometimes we have to work a little to figure out the message, such as in the case of Warhol's work, but that reminds me of another long-standing discussion from my commercial art days, when the line became hopelessly blurred between "illustration" and "art". I know many illustrators who would kick you in the teeth if you declared them "artists" -- they illustrate, and to them that's a craft, not an art. It's only been in the last ten years that illustrators have decided that they can scratch out a few lines (and anyone who's seen the latest Communication Arts Illustration Annual can attest to that asessment) are suddenly "artists". Again, balderdash. They're illustrators -- and some of them not very good ones. But to return to the point, a lot of what we have here is craft, not "art" -- and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that label. It's not some poor second cousin. It is a proud statement all its own.

Just enjoy what you are doing. Don't worry about about Fine Art, Illustration, Craft, or who thinks what, definitions are transitory anyway. The line that defines What "art" is moves every generation, just check out the current ...isms. So Enjoy yourself, do your thing.

The business about "post work", the way I look at it, I would use whatever program(s) does the job best. If the limitations are some kind of requirement of a project/contest, that I understand,or if you want to handicap yourself by setting limitations, fine, but why get excited when someone else doesn't?

Virtual Site... are you saying that I'm not an artist but a craftsman? I proudly call myself and artist... I have no shame in that, I've painted, drawn, sketched, written, and composed in my life... heck I've even sung. art is up to each of us to define. What I consider art is obviously different then what you consider art... no harm, no foul... that's the magic of art. I see art everywhere... and after all... I don't see a "Craftsman" gallery here at Renderosity... but an "Art Gallery". Doug

are you saying that I'm not an artist but a craftsman? I dunno. Which are you? I've seen your work, and it's damn good, which I suspect you already know. Nevertheless, you say that art is up to each of us to define, and that's true. But we can't forget one essential: it's just as true for the viewer as it is for the soi-disant artist to make that definition. So, just as some people reserve the right to tell me that they've created "art", I maintain the right to tell them they're full of hooey. =) And as Rsity not having a "Craftsman gallery", can you imagine the uproar if we did? "I'm an artist, dammit!!!" LOL

looks like we agree in the outcome... it's all up to the individual and we'll leave it at that. (thanks by the way) Doug

Oh, MPP! We have missed you sooooo!!!!!

You got me there doc, I guess it's back to the coal mines for me.