Quote - Well, I object to the terms 'Kinky' and 'Fro', so please call it "Hair".

[joke]

I object to the term "hair."  Please reame it "filamentous keratin dermal exudation."

[/joke]

Quote - Good try Jim, but I don't think your quite there. 

Thank you.  In turn, I don't think I've got her quite perfect, either.  The differerence, however, is that I refuse to accept "it's impossible" for an answer.

Quote - I also think you are wrong...

Quite probably I am.  However, I'm not going to get into a long discussion on the Rendo forums, because I don't want people to say "oh, he's come back, he didn't mean it when he left."  Contact me on the DAZ forums.  Or on my own message board, at http://xaa.proboards44.com/index.cgi .  Or e-mail me, if you like - xaa@3lefties.com  I left because I disagreed with Rendo policies, and since those policies haven't changed, I haven't come back.

Quote - It is very hansome for you to give away your figure...

Two things:  First, it isn't my figure.  The Posette model is owned by E-Frontier.  All I did was re-rig and re-group it.  Yes, I know, it sounds like I'm nit-picking here, but I'm not.  I am greatly appreciative of EF for creating her in the first place, and would never even for an instant deny their ownership of the model.  As to why I continue to use her, well, from the neck down, she's built like my wife.  As far as I'm concerned, you can't get any better than that. ;-)

Second, there is no way in hell I am giving this thing away.  I've been considering offering it to EF as a possible sale item, but I would never give this away.  It took six months to get Posette to this point, giving away six months of work wouldn't be generous, it would be insane. =P

Quote - The problem with modding the Posette is once you recut her or even change the joint parameters she isn’t the Posette anymore- morphs don’t work, clothing doesn’t fit.

The clothing problem isn't much of a problem - most clothes work with her as well as they did the original posette (which is to say, not spectacularly well).  I'm currently building a new set of clothing for her that works better than the original Posette clothing did for the original Posette, but this will take time to complete.

Quote - I could build a "Super Posette" who could bend as good as V4...

Which is precisely what I have done. ;)

Quote - ...but what would be the advantage of that?

For me, it proves a point.  I'm an amateur, I do this as a hobby.  If I can do this, then the professionals should be able to do better.

Quote -  Some parts of the Posette have too-low of a poly count to properly take textures, for example.

I disagree - but see the attached image for more information.

Oh = and Spanki?  If you'd followed the web-link on the previous page, your question would have already been answered, there is an image there which shows how she's re-grouped.

Click image for larger version.  Image hosting courtesy of ImageShack.

I'd love to continue this discussion, but not on this board.  Anyone who would like to continue to chat with me, please use either the DAZ board, my own messageboard at http://xaa.proboards44.com/index.cgi , or contact me via e-mail at xaa@3lefties.com . I respect all of you who have posted here so far, but I find I can no longer support Renderosity in any way.  Thank you. =)

Quote - Jim Farris modded Posette until she could do those poses; unfortunately, the MODs had a disagreement with him about the wording on a thumbnail, so he's no longer here to tell us about it.
DPH

For you, David, I'll come back and post a reply. ;)

Unfortunately, I can't duplicate pose #1, simply because V4 in her default state is anatomically incorrect in the proportions of her arms and legs.  For those who have trouble believing this, just lower her arms to her sides and compare her to yourself - the length of her humerus, radius, ulna, tibia, fibula and femur are incorrect as compared to the rest of her body and as measured in head-lengths, and her armpit fold is too high (the pectoral muscle connects lower on the humerus in a real human).  Also, post #2 is physically impossible.  For those who don't believe me, try it - sit on your rump on the ground with your knee folded so that your ankle touches your hip.  That crackling, snapping sound is the ligaments in your knee and hip tearing.

My modded Posette was built with real human bends in mind.  In fact, to check her bending, I simply asked my wife to pose for me and took pictures, then fixed up Posette so she'd look the same.  As such, she can't get into some of the positions shown in the original image.

However, given those limitations, this is what my modded Posette looks like in poses that are roughly similar:

Click the image to view full size.  Image hosting courtesy of ImageShack.

Well, it appears I need to correct myself.  It appears I was in error, and indeed, this decision was made by the entire moderator team here at Renderosity.  My apologies, Karen.

Regretfully, I cannot agree with this decision.  I am aware that disagreement means I put myself against the entire collection of moderators here, and the result of that seems painfully obvious - I wouldn't be able to blink without attracting sharp scrutiny.  I am aware that I do have the option of sending an e-mail to admin@renderosity.com to elevate the issue to the next level, however, this seems entirely pointless.  Upon reflection, this issue seems more to be a conflict between what I consider as "artistic expression" in a humorous thumbnail conflicting with what the moderators see as appropriate content.  As this is a consensus decision, it does not seem one that would be open to discussion in the first place.

So, no hard feelings, as they say. =)  It's been suggested many times that those who are unhappy with the way things work can move on to another site, or just set up their own site.  This is an entirely reasonable suggestion, in my opinion - and, I think I'll do just that. =)

I thank all of you deeply and sincerely for your kind comments to my gallery and my freestuff during the time I have been here at Renderosity, and I wish you and everyone here at Renderosity the best.  =)

Quote - Has anyone ever won an argument with site administration? :-)

To my knowledge, no.

I'm trying to decide what to do, now.  Either I obey and submit a replacement thumbnail to Karen, or I don't, and the image is never seen.  

Either way, as the joke was a pun that both pokes at the puritanital and the purient, this action basically makes the joke no longer funny, so it doesn't matter.  And either way, Renderosity ends up looking ridiculous.  So, neither result is terribly inviting.

Quote - Hi Jim, please read your site mail. Your image has not been deleted.

As stated, we are not allowing thumbs of this nature.

Hi, Karen, please read your site mail.  The image has been effectively deleted, because it no longer appears in my gallery.  And it will not appear again until I submit a replacement thumbnail to you personally, which means that despite repeated claims that these decisions are made by consensus of the moderators, this is a decision made entirely by one moderator - you.  The thumbnail is not a "censor" thumbnail, because there is nothing to censor - please review the image.  As stated, you are censoring a joke.  And in the process, you are making the entire Renderosity administration look extremely ridiculous, to me.

Quote - Jim you didn't get a site mail? I will send again, but basically we aren't allowing thumbnails which are effectively "censor" thumbs. Not very professional looking... which is one of the reasons for this change.

Karen, it is not a "censor" thumbnail because there is NOTHING TO CENSOR.  It is a JOKE.  Look at the picture. 

I'm sorry, but if you're the one who blocked this image, I'm afraid I am VERY disappointed in you.  And Renderosity as a whole.  

**One requirement for deleting an image should at least be to LOOK at it.
**
And no, I haven't gotten a site-mail about it. 

For those who are wondering what all the fuss is about, incidentally, the image shows a topless woman in jeans holding up two pictures, one over each breast.  The pictures are of two tits - small birds of the Paridae family, also known as chickadees.  There is a word-baloon by the woman's head where she says "Some of you people should be ASHAMED of yourselves", and the text on the image reads as follows:

"The tit, also called chickadee or titmouse, is a bird of the family Paridae.  Tits are are a large family of small passerine birds which occur in the northern hemisphere and Africa.  The name 'titmouse' derives from the 14th century, composed of the Old English name for the bird, mase (Proto-Germanic *maison) and tit, denoting something small.  In America, these birds are called "chickadees", an onomatopoeic name derived from their distinctive "chick-a-dee-dee-dee" alarm call.  The name 'tits', common to most of the remainder of the English speaking world, is simply a shortened version of 'titmouse', and simply means 'small'."

The thumbnail is complely true in everything it says.  It's a picture of a naked pair of tits.  The two tits shown in the image are not wearing clothing (as is normal for birds), hence, they are naked.  The woman is topless, there is nudity in the image, but it conforms to the TOS as it is tasteful nudity - the nipples are covered by the pictures she is holding up.  The image is a joke - a pun on the name of the bird.

Soooooo...

Someone had to have blocked the picture without even looking at it, just based on the thumbnail.

To me, this simply brings the whole issue of the new thumbnail TOS to a head.  My image was blocked without even being looked at, simply based on the thumbnail, which is totally compliant with the new TOS.  But, because nobody actually bothered to LOOK at the image before they blocked it, they never saw that it was a joke - it's a pun.

My apologies to any moderators who are reading this and disagree, but I am afraid that the real problem here at Renderosity is that the administration has grown ridiculously puritanical.

Come on, now - we're talking about a picture of two little birds.  Someone needs to get a life.

Quote - This image is currently under review and cannot be viewed except by moderators and coordinators. :-))

Yep, and my guess is there it will stay.  It's too controversial for Renderosity.  Naked tits, and all that.  Just too much.

Well, I did it.  I know I shouldn't have, but I did it.  ;-)

Click the thumb, above, to visit my gallery and see the image.

Quote - Jim, I know it's hard to get constructive crit. One way is to make sure you state that in the image notes. Yes, you can select "Critical and non-critical comments preferred" but some people are still reluctant to critique unless you specifically ask.

Well, I suppose that's true.  I often find I don't have anything to say, myself, when I look at an image.  I just popped over to look at a Poser render which was based on a work by Botticelli, and I'm looking at the morph work and I'm thinking...  "Okay, yes, the figure looks realistic, yes...  But it's realistically ugly."  But, all the other comments were "WOW, SHE'S TEH HOTZORZ!!!!!1!!!!11!!!!elventy-one!!!!", so I didn't say anything.  LOL!

Quote - By the way - I'm in the UK so probably my bosses are a bit more forgiving than your wife's. Being in trouble for looking at legs sounds a bit harsh!

Yep.  But, that's the way life is in the Bible Belt™.  ;-)

Actually, come to think of it, you probably are right.  

Nevermind my previous comments, then.  Expect lots more thumbnails of pretty feet. ;-)

Quote - JF- very few hits?  very few comments? 181 views on an image with a  thumbnail of a foot is very few?

Compared to this, yes:

Over 50,000 hits for a picture of a cow's udders. ;-)

Quote - 115 in one day? 13 people adding you as a favorite artist, and 32 adding your images as favorites?   wow, you have pretty high expectations, imho. 

No, I just hold myself to a high standard. After all, I HAVE to do better than a picture of a cow's udders. ;-)

Quote -  i think you're doing pretty well, considering the size of the community and how many are vying for attention.

You may be right. =)

Quote - I don't see the new thumbnail policy as bad as some people say.

My problem with the policy is that it unrealistically divides the world into "nude" and "not nude."  A better solution would have been to create a new filter, "revealing clothing."  A thong is not nude, but you don't go to church wearing one.

Quote - What is important for you, the entire pic or a way to get hits for your ego?

To me, what I'm seeking is comments that allow me to understand how I might improve what I am doing either for overall artistic merit or emotional impact.

Quote -  If you want hits, use easier tricks: TITLE: 'HEY, MEGABOOBS HERE' or 'HUNDRED OF BUTTS!!'

I've been tempted to post a picture titled "TITS!" with an appropriate thumbnail.  Just to see what would happen. ;-)

Quote - Regardless, both images are fine according to our guidelines.

I know. =)

Quote -  I don't know where you live or work...

I live right in the heart of Democrat-country - New Mexico, USA. ;)

As far as where I work, I work for myself and work at home, so that's not a problem.  My wife, however, doesn't have this luxury - she has a computer at work, and there are males who have access to the same computer, and being male, they browse websites which have pictures of women.  And yes, pictures of women's legs or women in bikinis have gotten people fired, there.

Quote - I would like to ask you why you would want ratings/hits/comments from people who are, basically, only interested in viewing nudes?

I don't.  Hence, My gallery has lots of thumbnails of women's feet. =P

Quote - I'm all for recognition and popularity but "OMG SHE'S HOTTT" isn't it.

LOL!

Well, it's been my experience that no matter what I post, I can expect very few hits, very few comments, very few useful observations.  Most of the replies I get really are comments like "OMG SHE'S HOTTT."  I don't know how to attract more salient opinions, but I'm not about to post a thumbnail of a pair of tits to try to get it.