Ooo! Ooo! Ooo! There's gonna be a Mimic 2!
Wee! Wee! Wee! Guess I'll get Vicky 3!!

You go DAZ!!!

Thanks Sharen. This is so very nice. You're a peach! May I ask...what programs you use to make you're models. If you wanna keep your trade secrets that's OK...I still love your work.

[just to let you all know. AOL or someone pulled the group ] Good job, folks!!!

Just do a Google search of those very words. They make great photoshop plugins.

Hey Charlie Tuna, that water looks great. I really like how you got the relfected colors rippling throughout the surface. It reminds me of an Impressionist pastel painting. Really nice! By the way are you any relation to Tina? She lives at the zoo here. She's billed as the only rock singing fish. LOL

[He used to say that drawing is a largely mechanical process--a matter of connecting the eye and the hand, no special "gift" required.]

This is quite true. Yet I would venture to say that there are still those who are gifted in the arts. One can, with practice become quite skilled at developing the eye-hand connection and draw very well. On the other hand I know there are those who did not have to spend the time required to reach such a level. They just could. Same can be said of music...like Mozart...as a child he could do things musically that defied explanation. Or take jazz keyboardist Sun Ra, who also as a child, could hear a complex song one time and then sit down and play it note for note at the piano. Some singers just have the pipes and some don't. To have been born with the physical mechanism to me is like having been given a gift.

[ My own experience as a writing teacher has shown me that "talent" is about 40% desire, 58% hard work, and maybe 2% some other, mysterious thing that makes some students "get it" faster than others. Knowing how to draw has about as much to do with making art as knowing how to change your oil does with building a car from scratch.]

If you're going to build a car you better know something about the purpose of the oil and how it is going to be implemented in the cars function and how you will incorporate it's maintainance in the car's design. I get you point, however. And, I agree with your 40%, 58%, 2% analogy on talent. But I would venture to say that some do not have that mysterious 2 % that makes the difference. Call it talent, a gift, or what you will, there is such a thing. If nurtured it can blossom to artistic beauty. Take Adriana Caselotti whose father was a vocal coach. Not everyone is gifted with the pipes to sing opera. You can train all you want but if you don't have the pipes...you don't have the pipes. If you do, with training, as Andriana obviously did have, by 18 years old your vocal mechanism may be molded to become the beautiful voice for Walt Disney's Snow White. Shame that Disney ruined her career for years by not allowing her to publicize that she was the voice behind Snow White.

Does this mean that there are only talented/gifted people who make art. Absolutely not. Talent means nothing if not nurtured. I'm sure there is someone who's probably making a living in Appalacia as a lumberjack who had talent that was never nurtured or realized. On a sour note...if these computers keep getting more and more sophisticated there will be no one developing their talent.

It's wonderful if one has that mysterious innate ability without having strived for it. But, there are those that may not have been as blessed who have made the difference with their 40% desire and 58% hard work. Unfortunately many who have not been so blessed hate or idolize those who are and are too lazy or ignorant to realize that they make equally magnificent contributions to the world if they would just put forth the effort and persevere. Some turn to the computer and let the computer do the work. Some turn to the computer and use it to do the work. There is a difference. Where you draw the line is just an opinion. And like noses...everybody's got one.

[hmm...after several years of art classes (as electives), I made several important discoveries..can't draw, can't paint, and don't work well withceramics..;) If a mechanic wants to go through life with only a hammer in his toolkit, then hopefully he'll only do nails..;) 3d progs are a godsend for me, since my motor skills aren't sufficient to reliably repeat a drawing..;) I think any artist is someone who makes art]

Hey Nu-be...you are indeed an artist. If Poser is your tool to express you artistic inclinations then go for it. I bet that the several years of art classes have helped you to appreciate that there have been some who just had that "gift" to draw and paint as have the "Masters." And for those of us who do not have the "gift" nothing takes the place of perseverence. I know a lady who never did any art her whole life, that is until she hit her 50's. She just thought she'd try and now she's in her 60's and has blue ribbons for her paintings. I'm sure that your years of classes show progress and were not in vain. It is however, a real gas to have these computer programs to go beyond our wildest dreams. It seems some have misinterpreted my point about traditional art. But I think you can agree that there is a whole lot more to what goes into a traditional masterpiece than what we can achieve with the computer.

I see that you are a Strata 3D buff. I give a thumbs up to your being a digital sculptor. I enjoyed your renditions of the Mellotron and the Hammond. I had a Hammond M-100 when I was a teen. I played that sucker to death. I can still play a mean "Clarinet Polka" : ) I missed that ol organ...that is until I found out that the computer...yes...the computer gave me my ol Hammond back. There's a company called Native Instruments that makes a software version of the Hammond that you can even move the drawbars just like the real thing. And talk about the real thing...it sounds just like "the real thing." They even produce a software version of the Mellotron. The sound is identical to the real thing. Just plug in your MIDI keyboard and go. Uncanny!!!

My my my...so many opinions! While I stand by by opinion that Poser art does not rise to the level of traditional art...I do enjoy the program and all that everyone does with it. For whoever asked to see something I've done here is a little something called "Patty

I also work with Cinema 4D and Bryce. I'm a Motown fanatic and have had the fortune of doing some things related to the Motown artist like the Former Ladies of the Supremes. Here they are followed by the Bryce image I made for their Sept. Newsletter

Here is one I did for their June issue done with Cinema 3D

Like everyone else who uses the computer to do their thing I enjoy myself. But I would hardly say they rise to the level of a DaVinci or Michaelangelo. Cheers!

[My post is directly in reference to the inflamatory comments made by petereed...I admit of course, that the fact that I have created models, textures, poses, etc... poser content if you will, puts me in the category of what you call true Poser artists. But before I did that, I was a simple Poser user.]

Hi Drax...seems that while you were typing your message I was working on mine. But, don't get your shorts all tied up in a knot. Anyhoo...I do regard your making of models and textures more akin to being an artistic endeavor. It certainly requires more than just moving the stuff around. If you can say that your poses create a design within the composition or are made with some aestethic reasoning other than just...say...raising an arm with a spear because the figure is about to spear a tiger...I'd say you are being artistic about posing. Having an eye for design and composition is acquired and developed. Just moving a poser arm or leg is not the same. But hey, these are just my humble thoughts on the matter. You don't have to agree.

[Everyone seems to be missing a major point in this endless debate. Why is it that whenever digital art is mentioned, people automatically compare it to traditional painting, sketches, photography, or whatever? If you produce digital art YOU ARE NOT IN COMPETITION WITH OTHER MEDIA!]

I think the debate began by just that...Blackhearted's opening statement laments Poser creations as not being accepted on the same level as traditional art forms...he stated...

[all of a sudden all of these 'great artists' who work in traditional mediums are having some of their limelight stolen by people who work in 3D, and mainly poser. they think all poser art is somehow 'easier' and requires much less talent than 'real' artwork]

My point is most of the imagery in a Poser creation is not the result of the work of the creator. The computer does the majority of the work. Do you know how long it takes some artists to learn how to portray a fold in cloth, it's texture, or create the look of different metals, or clouds. In Poser the computer does it all for you. You just move stuff around. If you really believe that it takes equal talent to pull a figure into the Poser window than it does to actually draw one that looks half as good...I got some swamp land in Jersey I'm trying to sell.

What makes ART what it is has to do with the what the artist had to aspire to in order to create it. The years and years of perfecting one's talent to create a Michaelangelo or DaVinci work of art can be clearly seen in the work of ART. One views it and knows the work didn't happen overnight. Every detail was the result of effort above and beyond the ordinary human experience. That's what makes the work of art inspirational. In all it's greatness it says that a human being can through long, intense effort rise up to produce with their own hands a sight as magnificent as what we are given by our Creator who gives us the breathtaking sunsets or a lovely flower. It also implies that if one human can we all can and therein lies the seed of inspiration. We aspire to do the same.

When the computer does the majority of the work it's not the same.I am more impressed with the program and programmers of the software that it does what it does than the one who used it to produce something. In fact, I'd be more impressed to see someone draw the folds of one sleeve of a bent arm than to look at the result of moving a poser arm and the computer putting the folds where they belong and be properly lit and textured.

[Bottom line, with simply posing and lighting other people's stuff, it's still very much possible to create art; artistically speaking, what is the difference between a manwho renders Vicki with DAZ clothes, adjusting her pose and the lighting, and a man who photographs a model in his studio?]

Photographers who approach the medium as an art study art in an attempt to capture the elements that have come to make up great works of art. The lighting in a DaVinci painting or any great painting not only portrays the mood, but creates designs that control how the eye enters, scans and exits a piture. It also creates a design in itself. Those photographers whose works are regarded as being artistic...you can believe...have studied traditional works of art and have tried to capture the aesthetic nuances that are found in such works. Just having a model pose and adjusting a light ain't gonna kick it. The photographer is lighting to capture designs and elements inherent in good composition, again which can only be done if one studies what has been regarded as artistically good design and composition. He also doesn't buy someone's preset computerized lighting schemes to light his subject and then claim credit for the result.

Poser creations can be very beautiful and creative but as for the initial point made that started this thread...it's a far cry from being on the same level as traditional art. I know when looking at a Poser image that the computer did most of the work and I'm not as impressed as seeing what a human can do with his own hands especially when it's magnificent because it says "This is the human potential you can aspire to also, if you so chose" And I am greatly inspired!!!

Poser is an electronic Barbie graphical cut and patse program that allows those who have little to no talent or if they do have talent have not honed it to do what those who have talent and have worked hard to develop it can do. The computer has been programmed to do the things that heretofore required much time and effort like draw an anatomically accurate figure. This electronic age has enabled those who are artistically talented to program their skill and knowledge into a computer algorithm that allows a no-brainer push of a button to produce what could not otherwise be produced by someone with no talent. MIDI produces no music. It's just a digital recording device that records the strokes of the musician on a keyboard or guitar. Once recorded you can play it back. Still, it takes a talented musician to record the digital information. Poser is sorta like that. If I were to use Poser to put figures into a scene to make up "The Last Supper" would DaVinci call that ART? Or, if there were a computer program that allowed me to talk into a mic and the computer would turn it into a musical phrase that came out sounding like Pavarati, would he call that art? I don't think so. It's kind of insulting to EXPECT those who have been gifted with real talent and who have put forth the effort to perfect it to ACCEPT as a work of art something that the computer has actually done. It's kinda like making a Xerox of a work of fine art and saying it's art. If I cut up several works of art and paste different pieces to create a new scence and Xeroxed it is that truly art that I have created. I don't think so. Poser is sorta like that. On the other hand, there is a lot of artistic talent in the Poser community and it is readily seen in those who create textures, designs, props, or do post work in programs that allow you to electronically paint on the images. To me these are the Poser artists. Those who take their creations and pose them are just Xeroxing their imaginative little hearts out. Is the end result art. Ask DaVinci. I think if he had access to Poser he would have used it and gone beyond just copy and pasting other's creativity. It's a tool. If you use it in a way that draws on real talent then I think the end result crosses over into the realm of art. I think that goes beyond just posing and lighting a figure that one could not create with their own hands in the first place. OK...enough rambling...bring on the tomatoes. : )

My heart goes out to any whose works are being stolen. I don't know all the ins and outs of this kind of stuff but the following may be helpful...
http://www.vortex-webdesign.com/help/copy.htm
http://www.vortex-webdesign.com/help/hidesource.htm

It's unfortunate that some graphic and 3D software creators put the MAC versions on the back burner. The assumption is that there are more PCs out there so there's more money to be made by putting out the PC version first. However, I wonder just how many PC owners are buying graphic and 3d software. The majority of the PCs I would think are used in the business world for spreadsheet, Word type stuff. The MAC community has always had a reputation for its stability and performance in the graphic world. So again I wonder, when you look at the number of PC vs MAC graphic app consumers, is the gap in numbers as great. I don't know if I'm making myself clear. So, I'll try to clarify by this example...(the numbers are just to make a point) if there are 1,000, 000 PC owners and 25,000 MAC owners...but only 20,000 PC owners are buying graphic and 3D software while 15,000 MAC owners are doing the same, the gap in numbers is not so great. Does anyone know any actual specs here?

The face looks nice. It opened up in quicktime for me. It has the speaker icon indicating that there is sound. But, I heard nothing as it played. One question about the first quarter of the clip...as her mouth opens to expose the teeth...as the mouth closes the teeth at the corners of the mouth jut out too far. Is this something that is easy to tweak so that the teeth don't do this? In all it looks very good.

Both platforms have their pro and cons. True there are more Windows computers sold but what are they used for? My job has all Windows computers and no one there even knows what to do with them except get on the internet or create a Word doc. A large no. of Windows computers are used in everyday businesses for Word or spreadsheets and business stuff. I'd venture to say a very large percent are not used for 3D work of any kind. A large number of the 2.6 Macs are in graphic production or audio production houses. Everything I read about MAC in that regard is that they are used because of their stability. Sure Macites would like a faster computer and that's down the pike a bit. But I don't think the graphic and audio production houses are too unhappy with their MACS. As someone else stated they are tools. Use what you got or be like the folks on my job who don't even know what Explorer is or how to find it. They would be no more competent on a MAC. MAC lovers are MAC lovers for a reason. Unless you use one you'll never know why.