operaguy, the test render did take a long time and I aborted halfway through since I was heading out for the day and wanted to get the main one started thinking it may be finished by the time I came back. Just would have been nice to be able to tell if it was still going- even a %complete value would have helped - its so hard to see whether a bar has moved along any. JR, I tried the Alt-Ctrl-Del as you suggested and the value for Poser is 50. Do you think its still going?

GhostOfMacbeth - just put your cursor inside the window, hold the left mouse button down and drag around to scroll around the picture. You can also display in a new window by clicking the icon that looks like a picture with an arrow coming out of it. Of course you can only do this when the render has finished which is my frustration above!

Qualien - Thanks for your post - it is far from being "long-winded" - a concise summary of the points raised by everyone I'd say. A great idea about nopostwork.com but I'm not sure I want to go to a completely new site. I like renderosity, I like the forums and the galleries and the freestuff that I can access from the same page of links. I just wish there was a way for postworked and non-postworked images to exist together and people could look at the types of images that interests them.
For me it is images that show off the artistry of the software developers who are pushing the boundaries of what software can do in modelling the real world, for others it is the look of the final image and for still others it is images with large boobs in them (postworked or not)!
If I have stepped on anyones toes during this thread due to misunderstanding then I apologize but I am really not trying to make out that one technique is superior to another - just different. And thank goodness there are differences or the gallery would just be full of boob images!
The ideal solution would be for artists to select what tools they used in prodcing their images when they upload and for a new search screen which will allow you to narrow the images down to the type of images that interest the individual. Putting no criteria into the search would display all the images as it is in the gallery now.
I was hoping that if enough people felt the same way then maybe Renderosity might consider it. However, I know this is unlikely to happen now since there seems to be so much opposition (albeit misplaced opposition by artists getting hot under the collar and assuming I was personally attacking their methods). Oh, well it was worth a try.
Thanks to everyone for participating...
Stealth

Carolly
It is evident that you HAVEN'T read the thread properly. I have stated above that I use postwork myself when the deficiencies of the packages (and there are many) don't allow me to produce the image I want. So, I'm not the 'Purist' you keep branding me as.
Believe it or not I LIKE looking at good Postworked images BUT I also appreciate the technical challenges in getting a package to render the image exactly the way I want it.
I know there are darn good artists out there but I am (personally) more interested in seeing how far a package can be pushed to produce the same image as an artist since thats the area that facinates me. I am sure there are others that share this facination too and all I want is a quick way of finding images that show what is possible using CGI on its own.
Think of the two requests as separate - I want to look at pretty images regardlesss of HOW they were produced AND I want to look at images that show me whats possible using pure scene construction and lighting using the package alone.
I can only assume that the reason you are getting so anal about this is that you are technically challenged as far as using the packages go and want to prove your worth as an artist. Well heres some news for you - I DON'T CARE how you produce your images if they are good (no matter how they are produced) then I'll appreciate them.
Personally (because thats where my interest lies) if you managed to produce a photo-realistic scene by pushing those packages to the limit then it inspires me to learn more about my package - thats all!

Oh just in case you still haven't got it, let me re-iterate. I DON'T CARE how you produce your images and if they are good I'll appreciate them and I don't want to see postworked images banished from the gallery!!!

Oh one last thing before I put this to bed -
Have I EVER said that using Postwork makes one less of an artist as you state in your post above? NO! So, I'd appreciate it very much if you would stop putting words in my mouth. READ THE POST AND STOP TWISTING WHAT I AM TRYING TO SAY!!!!

Message edited on: 04/01/2005 03:07

Carolly, if you haven't bothered to take the time to read what is being actually discussed in this thread then please don't post your opinions. I knew it would be only a matter of time (see my very first post) before someone started ranting and raving about "My art is My Business".
NO ONE IS DISPUTING THAT OK?????
In summary (just for you Carolly) I don't want to banish postwork, (I do it myself when the image calls for it). I just want an easy way of being able to distinguish between art that is postworked and art that isn't. IS that SO hard a concept to understand?
Sheesh!

Thats what I've been trying to say spedler - but you've articulated it far better.
At the end of the day, the primary point of Renderosity is to display digital artwork regardless of the appplication(s) used to produce it. But, if we could specify the tools that were used, those of us that were interested in looking at what could be done with the application alone could filter out images that were produced using only a specific application. Would need a better search tool though to be able to filter on various criteria.
Those who don't care how the image was produced can just look at the pictures from purely the artistic point of view.
What do you think Renderosity????

Message edited on: 03/31/2005 13:35

BTW Maxxxmodelz - some excellent images in your gallery? Were they postworked? ;-)

Thank you oilscum, FINALLY someone who understands!

Maxxmodelz - "Happens all the time in EVERY application. For instance, some newbies think that just because Alias/Wavefront's website says Maya was used in the making of LOTR, that they can get the software, learn it, and do what they saw there." - EXACTLY my point. You only have to go to Curious Labs Gallery and look at the mnumber of images in there that have been Postworked. If I was looking at Poser as a potential application for the first time and saw these images I would WRONGLY assume that it is capable of all the effects shown in the Gallery. Fact us most of us have got frustrated enough with Poser to know this isn't the case. This is in effect false product merchandising - something I'm sure no-one would be happy with if it were done in the Marketplace. All I'm saying is credit the art wth the tools that were used in the making of it - that way we can decide where our ooooohhhs and ahhhhhhs should be placed.

Oh and BTW, I don't get pissed-off when postworkers shun pre-fabbed images. Its a completely different set of skills. One requires 2d skills and the other 3d skills and like I said before - the artist can use whatever medium he/she wants to make the image. Please remember the original post - I'm not looking to ban postwork I just want them distinguished from non-postworked images. THATS ALL I'M ASKING FOR! Anyone else agree with that LAST statement????

Message edited on: 03/31/2005 09:22

No Maxx my definition of heavily postworked is not "murkey at best" - if you have to add stuff to a SCENE that wasn't there in the original then its postworked. Let me give you an (extreme) example of why I don't like postworked images in galleries that are categorised by applications. I render a couple of images in Poser. Composite them together and tag on some realistic shadows (rendered separately) using the technique you mention above. Composite it on a Terragen produced background (complete with your nice 'postworked' shadows) and post it in the Poser Gallery. Someone comes along that doesn't have Poser and says, "Gee, Poser can do all that - must get me that application!" Or you post it in the Terragen Gallery and someone says "Gee, Terragen can have realistic people in front of natural looking backgrounds? Wow, must get me that application." See what I mean? Also, WHY would anyone want to post in a gallery that is exclusively for non-postworked images and then 'cheat' by doing a bit of postwork on it. That person would have nothing to gain - since everyone is using the same package. We push the applications to its limits and then ask the manufacturers to add the stuff into it that can only be solved at present by postwork. That way the next version becomes even more powerful and needs less Postwork. Why do we bother asking CL and the like for additional features like IBL, Radiosity etc, accurately modelled hair etc. if we are not interested in the package doing this. Surely the goal of a 3D package is to produce a realistic image out-of-the-box that properly casts shadows, folds cloth in the right places and makes hair look natural. If we are going to paint these on, then 3D packages and Poser in particular has matured as far as it needs to. Ok enough ranting from me, you have the floor...

maxxmodelz, this would fail the 1st test, since you are compositing the image outside Poser (I haven't played with Poser 6 enough to understand the effect you are talking about but from your post I assume that this combination is done postwork?) Like most things you can get a general idea of the things a person is trying to convey in a thread or you can nit-pick every typed word and formulate an argument based on that. I do hope people here are more interested in the former. Here is the general idea again for people who missed it. Love art for arts sake no matter how its produced BUT why bother categorising it under the package that you used to produce it if you are going to heavily postwork it anyway. Call it just digital art! Alternatively have the ability in the gallery to state which packages were used. That way, if only say Poser6 is listed then people will know its a straight render if its Poser6 and Photoshop then people will know its postworked.

Been playing with this for the past hour and no major problems at the minute. I have come across the dreaded 'not enough memory' issues when rendering though - but I'll accept that CL are trying to fix this at the minute. Not impressed with Jessi at all, don't think there will be many photorealistic renders done with her... As for the book, it says its available now at $25 at the Curious Labs Site? Must go have a look.

I knew it wouldn't take long before someone COMPLETELY mis-interpreted the thread!!!!
Hauksdottir, please read the bit in BOLD in my original post. I KNOW it doesn't matter what technique anyone uses to produce their art - I just want to also have the option of seeing images done using the 3D Package alone (AS AN OPTION!!!!)
Adding a sig is not the type of postwork I'm talking about. Anyone with half a brain will be able to discern that an image with a sig obviously hasn't been completely done using the package - and frankly that won't be of concern. People put sigs on the image for copyright and personalisation, ITS NOT PART OF THE SCENE (usually).
I included exposure since we are just talking about increasing or decreasing lighting information that is already there in the scene rather than actually changing or adding anything.

Aeneas, I see where you are coming from but I think if you can hit the 'Render' button on your package and take the final output then that would be your criteria. So Even if you use Poser to Pose and texture your model, import it into Vue and hit the Vue Render button then it would be considered a 'Vue' No-Postworked image. I think things start to get fuzzy when you start using Alpha planes etc (although this would fail the re-size test since scaling the alpha plane bitmap would start to show pixelation) . So heres a set of possible criteria for a 'pure' digital non-postworked image. 1. No interaction with the image should be necessary after the 'Render' button is hit (except to add a signature and possibly fix the exposure of the image) 2. You can reproduce the image at any size required (obviously limited by the maximimum size the package allows you to render at) without loss of information 3. You can look at the scene from another angle without having to do any 2d postwork and still retain all the information in the original image. 4. The 3D package that should be associated with the image should be the last one used (ignoring packages used to add final signatures or exposure control)

I HOPE so caulbox - I live in Northern Ireland. Heck maybe I could jump in the car at the weekend, drive down to the warehouse and physically ask them for my copy! Now where's that road-atlas...

There is actually a Transfer of Ownership form that you can fill in on Curious Labs site and you can then legally give the copy away to someone or sell it. You can only use the serial number once to upgrade hence if you have already used your copy to upgrade then the person you give it to cannot upgrade to a future version

Message edited on: 03/23/2005 17:34