Oh I loved this thread. Deliciously old. And it does need some updating. Thatnks for reviving it. Wow.. six years.

lol. :)  And you thought "Gland" was superfluous. :)

lol.

I live in Saco, Maine, though after 4 fun years I am getting itchy for the big city again.  Let me know when you are passing through and it would be great to meet.

Maine police are the worst. Half the state revenue comes from tickets. I think they work on commission.

Hey BB,

In Poser6, it definitely seems that an image node, connected to a displacement value, but with no map loaded, is activating total surface displacement of that material.

I agree that your shader seems to have the ability to remain fairly unchanged regardless of light sets. I don't think this is necessarily bad. It allows consistency, but prevents proper response to lighting. I think this could lead to figures looking out of context.

I am curious how your shader is able to sustain itself fairly independently from lighting effects. I love the look of the shader. It does deviate from the texture map effect, but that can be altered.

I was thinking about this today. Perhaps set up a lab environment with metal, fabric, organic shaders, etc which could allow a range of shader responses to compare the light/skin effects to. Seeing how various lights play on these other materials, viewed next to the skin, might break the tether between skin shader and coordinating light set.

I dunno. Just some thought. On another note. I want to collaborate on hair shaders sometime. I know lots about hair and how it responds to light, but lack the node knowledge to execute the effect.

Playing around still. And exploring settings. I hate that some shaders combinations don't work under some light sets.

Here is another using another old light set I had.

Here are some Apollo renders in Poser 6, using my render settings. FIrst two are my lights. Last is your "Sunset" light set.

PS. In Poser6, How many buttons are suppose to load?

Off doing some renders now. I didn't include a face displacement map for Apollo, so the script swells the head via displacement. I had to manually reset those face materials. Be back with some renders.

Quote -
as one of the people at the forefront of poser rigging, surely youll admit that figure rigging in poser is getting a little out of hand, no? i mean figure creators are having to go to great lengths just to get something to pose naturally in poser - which is supposed to be a program first and foremost for figure posing and animation.

most poser 'technology' right now is actually nothing but text file hacks developed by individuals like yourself, nerd, drax, etc. this is all being taken for granted by the developers, and also by many beginner poser users who dont understand how much work is involved in poser content development. in the past half dozen poser versions why have no improvements been made to the heart of the program - posing figures? how much longer are people going to expect figure creators to take up the slack through countless hours of CR2 hacking?

as for those that are already working miracles within poser's limitations - think how much more they could do with more tools and options at their disposal.

I don't think hacks are needed for good figures. This was my point with Apollo. The problem is very few people know all the aspects of figure development. It is vastly time consuming and I agree people take it for granted.

As you know I have consulted with Daz, CL, and ef over the years. The community knows more about content production than the companies do. The companies are aware that their internal staff is less knowledgable about content creation than the community. The staffs at Daz, ef, Cl, etc are broken down to specialized jobs. The executives know little or nothing of the software they manage. They don't really use it, play with it, or create in it. They may be fans, but they aren't generally users like we are.

IMO they are all pretty much the same, justifying decisions internally and aren't generally fond of any external advice or input. Noone wants a "hobbyist' to come into their home telling them their furniture is outdated. Their priorities and perspectives are not the same as ours, for various reasons. It isn;t to say they don't want great software, but a boss can't see where change is needed if there decision making is dependent on advice from their staff, who may be looking to protect their jobs. Very few employess are going to admit they don't know what they are doing, or that their knowledge is limited.

Python was meant for users to add-on additional functionality to Poser. I think this didn't go over as well as hoped and is only catching on now. I think we can only hope that the executives, left over from CL, are eventually fired along with their support staff. In my opinion, a few remnants of CL are inhibiting growth. At least this was true, imo, in 2006.

That said, there is hope. The fact SM now owns Poser is a good thing. I think ef did a brilliant job making Poser stable but I do think they took it as far as they could of or would of. Our best hope remains in the community. It would be great if much of what we use was incorporated natively into Poser, but I don't think we should hold out breath. Nor should we have any expectations of salvation from D/S.

Cool. New Poser features to play with.

Regarding upgrading. I think the price is fair and exactly the upgrade price I expected. I only upgrade every two versions. Last version I bought was Poser6 so I am in on this one.

A new rigging system for poser.... hmm.

Most people, even Daz, barely can rig properly with spheres. The simple fact is noone really knows how to rig. Or refuses to really learn, tweak, and make the most of what is already in there. A more advanced system isn;t going to make figures better when people won't truly learn the existing system.
 
Another rigging option added beside the existing one would be a viable option. IMO.  Don't replace the existing system. Just add another one to choose from; like the simpe materials vs. shaders.

Off to read. ack. SO much for the weekend.

Quote - BB posted the following image:

Looks wonderful. No grey tones to the skin. Looks great. Glad you got it worked out. I think it makes a difference to have that blush tone to the shadows.

Looking forward to it. Is your project going to have teeth and gum materials too?

I took your image and made some post workk tweaks making the highlight slightly brighter. Perhaps a touch more luminous?  I didn't mean to make her skin that light, but it came out that way.

But see under the chin, inside the ear, and the armpit? Can some of the shadow be made to flush a blush tone a bit instead of a grey tone?

BB,

I think the highlight on the beach is finer due to oil, sweat and sunscreen. But even with the man's arm, the highlight is more scattered. I think it boils down to healthy glow versus shine.

My friend's face was illuminated by direct light parially diffused through tree branches.

I think the side by side pic you did looks wonderful. It seems right to me personally.

This is a friend of mine. The picture was taken with her facing a sunny window. Sliding glass doors, on the other side of the room, light her back.

She did moisturize prior to the shoot since we knew her back would be showing. Where her face is powdered, the surface area highlight there is really strong. Powdered skin, like other matte surfaces, absorbed more light.

Anyway, I hop that illustrates what I was trying to express.