Do we have a link yet?

Have there been entries?

I hesitate to take the plunge, but here goes.

People have genitals - is there really a difference between portraying some and not others? I have been surprised at the lack of realism in figures on which artists have obviously expended a lot of time and energy creating realistic skin, eyes, lips, nipples, etc., so why not include the full monty? 

As for the reactions, I am old enough to have lived through the sixties and the sexual liberalisation permitted by such things as the pill. Have these changes really harmed us, or simply freed us? Perhaps it is both and neither. For much of my life homosexuality was an illegal act (although paradoxically lesbianism was not). Do most of us really want to turn back the clock? I doubt it. In those states where such attitudes are espoused many of the people live in fear and shame and I frankly doubt if the rest are very happy or relaxed. 

Please don't misinterpret my views. I am not espousing or promoting particular orientations, but trying to get us all to accept that without the bits over which some people are getting hot under the collar, in the real world we would not exist. So for the sake of accuracy, why not have them in the 3D world? If they are offensive to some of us then artists can cover them up with clothing, although I don't understand why people should be offended by normal, natural, ubiquitous anatomy.

And not to put too fine a point on it, how come images of zombies with blood-covered faces and bodies (often eating violently-killed people), or shooters with weapons firing, or poses of corpses, etc. are more acceptable than images of what at least approximately half the population actually lives with?

Oh dear! Just when I thought I was beginning to understand something, along come uber environments, occlusions and global illuminations - which I assume to be different from Blackpool Illuminations.

I haven't a clue what most of this means......

Darkelegance says the point lights don't seem to do much, and I would have agreed - at one time. Now they are amongst my favourite tools. They feature in my image Carleena and Harry avoiding the Beast (https://market.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=2608381). I think I used Iray in DS 4.8 but possibly not, in which case it will have been 3Delight. Iray is temperamental on my computer but fantastic when I get it to work. The torches and Harry are all lit with point lights, using variations of colour, intensity and scale. 

If you use Iray, you can expect long times for renders. 3Delight is pretty quick I find.

You might like either to mask the cloak or describe it as a ninja cloak, since ninjas allegedly can hide in full view.

I quite like the idea of a cloak of dissembling, too, for which I hereby claim the original idea!.....

But others can use it.

Serif is very good, and in my view does some things better than Photoshop (although I only have PS11 as my highest). I have gone off PS because of the new licence system they have adopted, which is a shame because there are some very good features. I prefer to buy a program with no strings attached, but even if you do not wish to use the monthly payment scheme the only alternative seems to be an annual licence. Given that many of the functions never need to be used, it is unnecessarily draconian.

I have been trying to introduce new figures in the Namib (byHameleon, on Renderosity) scene. If they for whatever reason do not locate themselves in the window/camera view I have currently set, it frequently happens that I am presented with an outer-space view of the scene, Is there a simple, quick, way to zoom to the figure other than using the mouse wheel, which tales ages, please?

I haven't found any such addons. I just looked for wet bodies in renderosity and nothing comes up.

Should I hunt elsewhere? I use DS 4.7.

 I think, - only think - that I may have found how to do it. Follow the procedure previously mentioned by Retrocity for creating droplets (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVfQ_P5avgc) And then create a pattern from the droplets. Use this pattern to create a new brush/brushes as in the (readable) link at http://graphicssoft.about.com/od/pselements/ss/custombrush.htm I had a goo with it and generated something that sort of works, so a bit more effort may do it.

 Thanks.

I haven't a clue.

I am disappointed by the way that Adobe is going with PS. If anyone knows of a different program that acts in the same way I shall be interested. I also use Serif PhotoPlus which does some things better. I often do some work in one and the rest in the other. Nice to find a way to use abr brushes though. I have had no success installing abrviewer, which is what most people seem to recommend.

 Thanks for this Retrocity (I wonder if the name rhymes with metro city or atrocity?). I had found that video, and it is extremely clear - pity about the voice - but it is also a very slow and laborious technique, doing single droplets. I am trying to give characters in showers and pools the look of water over them, and so the individual droplet is simply not viable. There are ideas for creating brushes to do it in Photoshop, but I can't emulate them in PSE. I can't truly justify buying PS either.