These are maybe already in v5? [I only have v4] a) Easy way to import all the texture maps from Poser. b) Way to copy all the textures from a group to another group. c) Way to restart a Render to Disk if it crashes. d) Way to import a matrix for a whole collection of objects, (so I can do arithmetic to make beads along a strangely shaped string).

First, I guess we could get philosophical and ask if the original is really bad? It is an impression of a slice of life, like a "gesture drawing", and as the years go on may become more real than something perfectly posed. The expression on the little girl's face is precious, and she will remember Mommy, as you remember yours. OK, philosophy aside, and back to practice. I like Britt's twinkle on eye and lip. Other directions we could take it is reducing the saturation as with an old photo. Or using something like a drybrush effect to go the watercolor route. My guess is, that is not what you have in mind? The softness is not disturbing; it adds to the mood. I wouldn't do anything different with your daughter. The part I find most objectionable is the whisp of hair covering your right eye. [I really like, BTW, how both of your hair blends together in this picture.] Maybe we could burn in that portion of the face to hide it more in shadow. In real desparation, we could re-photograph you from same angle, lighting, and do a reasonably nice job of patching just the face together, (as long as you didn't mind some blurred artsey effects). This is likely more than anyone wanted to hear, but I can't attend the chat tomorrow night. Maybe as folks are throwing around ideas something will click. It is really very nice as it is!

Er... Right on both counts. Thank you Phantast. Do you find it best to drive the ambient color channel (the top one) from the Poser texture map, or use a constant color? Ambience value channel (middle) just use the slider?

Ohhh! Don't go! Maybe we could all chip in and buy one of those disposable cameras to tide you over. We'd miss your work.

It does look really good. I particularly like your snow. Now you can start playing with it. Best thing about Bryce is the Undo command! I'd follow the advice above and increase the resolution of the terrain (the Grid popup in terrain editor). This will help with the triangles near the mountain top. If you want the aircraft to be highly reflective, it always helps if there is something interesting to reflect. Maybe another aircraft, flock of birds, different sky. Now its just up to imagination. Could use a little atmosphere. Maybe some BIG elongated spheres around the base of the mountain with a cloud texture. Could make a spiky terrain (spikes in terrain editor), color it simple black or very dark green, and position it under the foreground slope with the spikes polking through. Looks like evergreen forest. Then maybe could raise some fog around the forest. You could make a night scene, with lighted windows in the aircraft. Or import a figure and have a gremlin walking on the wing. Important thing is to play a lot to learn how the tools work. Then when you know what you want something to look like, you will know the right tool to use. Most of all, have FUN!

There are several good tutorials here. I don't remember the links, but search around (or maybe someone else remembers). All the answers above about mesh glitches and patches are correct. I've found, (and maybe I'm just doing it wrong), that the textures, trans, and bump maps never come over right. In (Windows) you can select each body part separately by Ctrl/Clicking to list everything under the cursor. Then check what material is actually loaded for that part. Eyelashes are particularly tricky. [I could go into more detail if needed, but others understand this better than I.] For things with transparency, like hair, don't forget to check the "Blend Transparency" option in the material editor. Another thing is that bump maps in Bryce are similar to height maps, with value == bump height. In classic Poser, bump maps (.bum) are entirely different, and will give very dissapointing results in Bryce. Often both types map are hiding somewhere in the textures. Also, it seems best to set the bump channel to around 10%. Much more becomes really coarse. Again, I may be doing this wrong, or there may be a better way. It's a lot of effort, but the results can be worthwhile. You've asked in the right place. If you'd post a detail of the render you are having difficulties with, I'm sure we could pinpoint the problem better.

Welcome Mercy, I've just started here myself and don't know all the ins and outs of this place, but I find the best resource is the people here. When you see an image here and say to yourself, "Wish I could do something like that, how was it done?" Then bug the Forum with questions. When you experiment, and it doesn't quite turn out how you expected, post it in the Forum asking for suggestions. You don't need to follow all the suggestions, but it should be a lively exchange none the less.

Many folks have provided some very insightful answers to the poster's original questions. My assumption is that giddings came to this forum in an honest attempt to get a balanced perspective from folks who know the tool the best. ["I figured this was the place to get honest answers"] Is there anything else needed to round out the review? Could we help in any way with examples of what Bryce is best at? [Good place to start is the gallery.] Or show how our best practitioners organize their workflow? [The tutorials!] I'd also like to know, what was that first "simple landscape" that took so long to render? Was it appropriate for the Bryce tool? Could the experts here provide assistance on how to improve it or make the workflow better? Could the artistic concept of the scene be better handled, quicker, with another tool? This is a difficult question, as all our expertise is different on different tools. [I'd like to buy Maya someday, but I'm sure my first renders would be dissapointing, particularly after checking the bank balance.] The absolute best "feature" of Bryce is this Renderosity community. Until seeing the efforts being posted here, my renders were pretty pathetic. [Some may say they still are, but everything is relative. Actually I post mostly in Poser or Mixed Media.] I plan on using this Renderosity "feature" of Byrce for continuous improvement.

In order to make an omelet you have to break... No, different metaphore entirely. I still like your images. If the challenge sparks interest, it is serving a useful purpose.

More 2-cents: I at least started with Bryce back with version 1 on the Macintosh, and had a love/hate relationship with it ever since. I've needed to buy every edition of Susan Kitchens books in order to figure out the features, and I'm still not getting close. However it is the ONLY application I've been able to pick up where I can easily create a whole world. If I need to model complex objects, I suppose other applications are better, but I curse everytime I need to do something in TrueSpace (please, no flames). I import back into Bryce as soon as possible. The rendering engine takes a long time because it does a good job of it. I'd like to learn (from this forum) if there are now better alternatives, (maybe Vue or Terragen?). I'd drool for a chance to play with Maya or Lightwave, just to see if I've really been missing something. If this was my job I'd maybe have different views about "production tools." But my #1 reason for using Bryce is because it is FUN.

Now that you mention the faults... Don't EVER pass up an image like this because you forgot a tripod. Its beautiful! But you probably do want to go back some day with different equipment and explore. Maybe in the snow. Or rain. Or fog. It will never be the same. If you forget the tripod, find a tree. Or a big rock. If you think its a mistake, fine, learn from it. That's a nice thing about this forum; we can all learn. I'd sure be proud of both of these images. Your composition and sense of delicate light is excellent. Different photographers will interpret the scene in entirely different ways.