I have to agree, this is a riot

Though I have kudos for the amount of work involved in this image (just finally saw it, been offline for a while doing a lot of stuff), I can't exactly jump on the bandwagon of "the best CGI I've ever seen.".     Granted I cant "DO" better, but i have seen better.  

Again, great work, but some things on looking at it throw it off, and actually scream "not photograph" right off the bat.  These might be technical overlooked errors.  The chair in particular, i noticed right away.  the bottom is fine, very 3d, but teh back in which her hands rest on seems part of the wall and very flat.  Like that hand was "pasted" on a flat 2d image. I'm sure its not, just looks that way.

I have to agree, the head and body don't seem to match, as if two different images are there, and the CGI'ness really shows up past the waistline down.  The panty part doesnt seem as photo quality as the top of the outfit as well.

Again, maybe the voice of dissent in the crowd, and its sure better than any CGI I could do, but even on first quick glance it neither seemed a straight photo, nor straight CGI to my eyes.

I dont know, the white on blue, especially the lighter blue "ever other "post is more difficult

LOL agreed!

Quote - Well, the problem I have with Poser is it's not really good at the one thing it exists to do. 

Well, going way back, poser was an artist tool to have a model in leiu of live bodies.  Still works for that lol.

I use poser in much the same way, as a reference or sketch artist to begin an image.   It would depend on the type of clothing you are looking for for reference.  Some sources I use:

For medieval renaissance clothing, look up renaissance faires, and check their vendors, they usually have tons of pictures of their apparel, usually modeled.   Outlet and costume stores are also great references for these as well as looking up on the web sites for renaissance films such as "elizabeth" "shakespear in love" and so on so fourth.

For modern apparel, you can check out fashion sites for runway, or, online catalogs like J.C. Penny, Macy's, Lord & Taylor, and the like.

LOL yes lets save the sermons.   Sadly, good or bad, in an art forum we all tend to get lumped in together.   The fact is, its renderosity's site........ if we dont like it well, thats our problem.   Sort of like no smoking in restaurants, just because I dont like it doesnt mean they are going to let me light up.

I've seen your image, PerfectN, and i see nothing wrong with the image itself, and yes, its not quite nudity for nudity sake, thank goodness.   I can see how cropping that might take away from the zeal of the ambiance of the image as a whole.........   However, instead of the overdone headshot, how about focusing on a dolphin instead?  With a nudity tag we can surely get the idea there's a nude person in there........

That is, unless there's a nudity clause here now on fish, and animals too lol.

If its any consolation, those who know and respect your work, don't need a thumbnail at all to tell them the calibre of what lays underneath.

And...... thats a good point to everyone.  For those with a fan base at all, who have been here a while, are part of the critique group or are favorited at all, those who've seen your work really don't ever NEED a thumbnal to want to go look at your new stuff.

I agree, its harder for new users and unknowns...... but i'd hope those people don't immediately go gunning for porn shots anyway to have to worry about TOS.

PerfectN: Forgot to add.   This is not meant as an insult in any way, and I do feel for your predicament.   However, considering the TOS regularions, and you have argued them before, I have to ask, seriously, how did you manage to not meet the regulations?     The TOS from my recollection states that covering up the nudity on a thumb is not allowed.

I've seen that happen to a few artists now, and I am left pondering if it didnt work the first time, why would it work a second?  (not saying you personally did this twice).   If I recall as well, from other arguments back and fourth with mods, it was stated somewhere there was no "grandfather clause" and all gallery images (even past ones), needed modified thumbs.

Again, I am sorry for your predicament.

To be honest, if anything renderosity does thwarts or keeps anyone from making another gratuitous nude daz figure shot (dialed up boobs, unrealistically long tallywhacker), Hey, I'm all for it.

Poser is frowned upon for lots of reasons, this being one of them.  This is a 3d art site, I never saw any advertisement of it as porn, soft porn, or cheap thrills.   After a while, an observer becomes TIRED, yes dead TIRED, of "bodacious brunette #17".    Basically, you've seen one, you've seen them all.  I'm well aware what private human anatomy looks like on both sides of the coin, so do most people, we don't need physiologically impossible references to jog our memories.

Its amazing, but did you notice the gratuitous nudes, or nudes without purpose are generally overstuffed in the POSER catagory?    Its a pretty rare day I see vue, maya or the 2d art galleries filled with nudes.  Why would that be?  Oh wait...... Poser figures come nude, outfits cost money, and with a relative knowledge of the program you can make a resonable facsimilie of a nude female and render it with a plain background and no other trappings in what...... less than an hour?

Lets face it folks, Poser is the primary tool for the "I failed art class, but want to make my own RPG avatar of Lolita the nude overbulbous breasted swordslinging warrior!".  If you don't believe me, take a look around at other art sites, do a search for the medium of poser.  We're not alone.  Check out the overinflated Furrette renders with mammaries so large she could feed an entire nation of pack cubs.    Vickie, and even heaven forbid Mike, with such anatomical impossibilities jammed in your face, its no wonder people hear the word "poser" and go UGH!.

Sadly, people who make real art with poser, even new users trying their best to learn all get lumped into the "poser's for pervs" catagory.

Art, in and of itself, is meant to be viewed.  There's been arguments about this, "I'm making it for myself!"..... if that is so, why post it where other's see it?   That is a whole other argument best saved for another day.  So ....... when making, or posting an image, one has to ask oneself...... "Is my creation something I foist on viewers, or is it something I want them to enjoy?".  The "rights" of artists, well.......   I suppose it all depends on the purpose of your work.   Is it to throw a point at someone, or are you creating something you want others to enjoy?

If your answer is that you made it because YOU like it, well thats perfectly fine, but your moral standing, your vision, and your creation just might not sit right with everone and might meet restrictions.   Thats not so difficult to understand.

As for the bikini not being acceptable, we are not talking rocket science here.   It is a false representation of the actual image.  In effect, false advertising.   Even though it says nudity because it is flagged, well, I'm seeing a bikini or bra on...... perhaps the nudity is that there is some areola coldness?  I don't really know until I open it.

Though showing no nudity at all could also be construed as false advertising, when cropped the viewer knows there are hidden parts of the image not seen and at least can take a guess.

This could be hashed out nine ways to sunday.  There will always be those that oppose it, find something wrong with it, and those who could care less, or outright accept it.  Personally, I find there are better things to think about then wether or not renderosity accepts nude thumbnails.....

ZIppy:  Yes thats correct, and you can also install to the download folder, which shows up in your library on 6 (if you want to keep things you d/l seperate from the original p6 content).

I'm not even going to bother with the Kevlar, to me, I've stated such in previous posts on this thread.  I have some great opinions on this subject, and I do, sadly find myself with the degenerate tired eye roll at "consorship!!" and people jumping on soap boxes.

As for great images not being viewed because of a cropped thumb?  WRONG........ sorry to dissapoint you.  I've done that experiment.  My complete black square, yup, thats it a black square, thumbnail got more views than any other picture i have.   So all the complaints about cropped no nudity thumbs somehow curtailing the ability of images is totally dead to me.

Now, I understand there's some mild nudity, which it seems rediculous its cut off from thumbnail view.  However, if it stops the big ol crotch shots, horking huge nipples in my face, and big ol man stuff hanging out dangling all over......... I'm good.  Believe me, thumbnails like those?  To me that says "Come see the quick poser porn!!!".  I have NEVER once been enticed to view any of those images with thunbnails that focus on genetalia, or breasts.......... because its telling me what the artists main interest and focus is.

I like nudes, really i do, but i no longer comment, or even truly keep open any picture that has nudity for the sake of nudity.   Pin ups, poser sceenes with "jane" just nude someplace with no real feeling behind it.  

Its gotten to a point (and people, i'm a pervert so this is sad), that I see that breast popping out of a shirt, or a nude vicky on a park bench and all I can think is "WHY is this figure naked?  There's no purpose to it", and its closed and forgotten instantly.

Now now i'm not saying no one has a right to make nudes.  I dont see anything offensive about the aforementioned image.   The problem is, the rules are made to stop the oncoming wave of trite, ill thought out smut images that flood the whole gallery.  I am SO sick of that floodgate...... and I agree with the remanufactured peddled out imagery that gets this onslaught of re-used formulae with the ooos and ahhhs.

Now, recently I put up an image for a music room of a guitar that was sharp and clean and nearly got completely ignored, evey by the critique group i'm in, except a small handfull.

I put up aphrodite with a bare breast?  Different story.

I'm seriously considering finding other forums and communities for art.  I could care less about the thumbnail policy, I think there are larger things going on here that are bigger problems.  I've been here for years now, and have things with extreme high ratings....... yet not once never made AOM, got any of my images on the newsletter, nothing.   Granted its possible I suck, but I'm doubting it considering I make a living at this.

I still have him in my mail, havent had a chance to load him yet as for the next few weeks I'm cramming for a venue i'm working.   However, once thats done, he (and v4.1 woo!) when accomplished will get my, as usual, bonafied attentions!

Masterpieces await!

agreed!

From my personal artistic perspective, the image looks good, however there is a lot of "dead space" in the image.  What the intention is of that dead space, seems to hold no meaning.  The image would look better cropped, than to have an expanse of black to one side, the other or both.

This holds true in photography as well as painting, or any art form.  I was taught by art teachers long ago, if there is area in an image that holds no visual purpose, its better to crop it out, it detracts, rather than adds, to your focal point.

You rarely see portrait photographers (wether from school, professional boudior, wedding photographers or magazine photographers) adding in "blank space".  If the picture IS a portrait, the "offset pose" thing people get on about doesnt work.  A portrait is just that, focused on a figure, directly.  Though you can have different angles and move the figure slightly to one side or the other...... waaaaaaay offset, at least to me, serves no purpose except to take up space.

To my own eyes, the figure and pose look great.  The only thing i would do, to make it more natural, is to have her lips parted slightly to relax the face a bit.

Capturing a lense flare that isn't put in after with photoshop is a photography phenome thats awesome to see, its part of how the camera works, and is captured....... but I wont debate on that point.

PJZ99 Ha haha!  Yes I've seen some "attempts" at postworking and retouching and alterations so bad........ i just sit there in awe like.... no offense but we've all thought it....."someone really thought this was a good effect?"

I've seen good renders, renders that, seriously left me dumbfounded as to why it was created in the first place....... again, eyes going to the laws of nature and physics half the time....

Henceforth, I throw my own final thoughts on this matter.  Yes I love postwork.  I adore it, though some go mentally insane (and innane!) with it, on the whole, its a gift to me...... a sheer treasure I relish.  Why?  I'm glad you asked!

After "trying out the latest daz item" at about the fifty trillionth time,  I dont care how good the image is....... I've seen it.  Would you watch a rerun of the jeffersons as many times as you see the same figures?  Probably not.  Those that "Postwork" it or paint their own hair, yay!!!!  My eyes TINGLE at the new sensation that greets them! LOL.

So for reitteration....... Koz Hair, the MFD in all its disguises, eyes with no depth and blank stares..... you get the idea.   If people can render those out great, wonderful and i've seen good stuff, but trouble is, after seeing it rendered out BEAUTIFULLY oh.......... how many times? It gets old fast.

Since no one can afford the amount of money it would cost to have oodles of stuff in their folders to have new eyecandy in EVERY picture they post....... i say yay for postwork.