True about the prefab thingy, but when a they project that assumption onto the whole of Poser users, they are in err. This type of prejudice would be similar to real-world racial prejudices in which a man or woman from a certain group is automatically perceived to be a certain way based upon their race.

Attached Link: http://raph.com/3dartists/artgallery/6230.jpg

On the other hand Poser realism might be hard to get, but check this out in 3DS Max. This is even something difficult to achieve in Max. Is it real or Memorex?

QUOTE: "...you shouldnt be able to tell the tool in such a specific manner as you can with Poser - that takes the focus away on the art you're working so hard on producing." I can tell an oil painting from an acrylic painting. I can also quickly distinguish between chalk, charcoal, watercolors and many other mediums as well. I think what is being missed here and what is probably the core of this issue, is that anyone can put Vicki in scene and render off an image. It is true that I get sick of seeing all of the nude Vicki images that took little work to accomplish and seem to get more gallery views than someone who worked very hard at producing a carefully selected scene, camera angle, focal effect, lighting etc etc.. I think there is a disgruntled feeling, even for me, to see an image that took a few minutes to create being passed of as artistic. However, that has nothing to do with the tools, but mere laziness on the part of the producer of the image. In that respect, I don't think it has much to do with being new to the toolset either. My first rendering in Posering is the image that is posted. I knew nothing about how to set up good lighting, camera settings etc, but it took me hours upon hours to get the scene just right. I think I captured something in the image and that is what I wished to do. That was my expression. It's not great, but it wasn't a naked Vicki thrown into an empty background.

LOL sorry spinner, I deleted my prior post and reposted to elaborate more on what I'm trying to get across.

LOL, No Spinner...not at all. It was aimed at the issue that brought up this post about various artists and art groups which singly out other artist's works because of the tools they choose to work with. To me, this method of being exclusionary is biased and ludicrous. There are some artists whose work I dislike for my own tastes, but that doesn't mean that they suck as artists and doesn't mean that the tools they choose to work with suck. It could, however, mean that they are still learning and adapting to the toolset they are using. When one first picks up a paintbrush he isn't, suddenly, a Michelangelo even though the drive and talent may be there. It takes time to learn how to use that brush and the medium that is being applied. To further that, someone who is used to working with oils, may try out acrylics and not paint as well because the medium is quite different. He'll just need to take some time to get the feel for acrylics. I, myself, prefer acrylics over oils because they dry very quickly and the colors are more vibrant, however, I'm not going to criticise another artist for using watercolors, oils or even Crayola crayons for that matter. I, myself, can draw just about anything I can imagine, but can't do the same in Photoshop or PSP and I don't do the greatest renders in Poser. Is it the tools that are the problem? Is it the artist? Not at all. At the moment, however, I prefer to do creative 3D elements in Rhino, but if I took the time to study the lighting, camera angles etc ..I'm sure I could do some awesome things with Poser. It just doesn't interest me as much as modeling a 3D object. Furthermore, I was just stressing the point that art is an expression of oneself and not defined by things which many of us would consider aesthetically pleasing. I was not aiming anything I said at any individual but to the ideas that promote some unforgiving artistic prejudice that is so ridiculous that it is laughable. I think some artists allow their ego to get in the way and lose sight of what "art" actually is. Most of all, it isn't the toolset. Even in copyright law, it's not the ideas and format of artists which are copyrightable. It is the way that the artist expresses himself that is the copyrightable material. Now, sometimes, it is hard to discern between the expression of the artist and the other elements, but it is always the expression of the artist that makes it art. If I were to think something "crap", it's my own opinion and the art community shouldn't exclude an artist based on my opinion or even the opinion of others that think they are art critics. Artists themselves can be quite a biased bunch and I find that so unfortunate since as an artist my main purpose is to grow; not only in my art but in my life. Art is just an extension of myself.

Art is an expression of oneself. Plain and simple. Those who critique another artist's work and the tools he uses is merely egotistical. I have been an artist all of my life using such mediums as crayons (in kindergarten... heheh), pastels, charcoal, pen and ink, acrylics and more. I could do an awesome drawing in crayola crayons alone and of course someone would laugh because I used crayons. "Crayons are for sissies", they might blurt out. On the other hand, their own art probably sucks to hell and back, but they did it in oils and that makes it "real" art. I have graduated from those other mediums and now model in Rhino. I also use Poser and find it is a very intuitive program. I still have some flexibility in that I can rig my own figures with Pro Pack and can do many things more easily than I can with Max (which I also own). I am an impatient bastage when it comes to learning some of these proggies and I still haven't learned all the lighting tricks , etc to make great renders, but I'm working on it slowly. It is interesting that I would choose to model in Rhino over Max. My reason is that Max's interface is very convoluted. Rhino being strictly a modeling program is straightforward and I don't have to sift through hundreds of tools to find what I need. Rhino makes it easier for me to be creative whereas Max rely's on too much technical BS. Do I knock Max because I can't stand the interface? Nope. It's a great program, it's just not for me. Some artists just need to get a grip and shut their traps. No wonder there are so many "starving artists". They are the one's who think they are better than everyone else and therefore alienate themselves from the rest of society ;); or at least... the rest of us ;). I wonder if they are just starving for attention, in that case... they are getting what they wanted. ---Will

BTW,The hair on my "Storm" pic is Arizona hair by DarkWhisper.

Original face morphs created in Rhino 3D and morph injected over one of the channels in Victoria 1. Yep, that is Victoria 1. Basic Low/Med res texture map.

The reason I say it is useless to me is this: As a content creator, I would make very few, if any, sales for items which would require a separate program (plugin so to speak). To further hinder sales, is the fact of the proprietary file format. It may have it's uses for some folks and it's awesome that you find it useful, but I'm not willing to shell out $1000 for any proprietary software which has such limitations in the scope of profitability. As a 3D modeler, I may as well create my own figures. Much more profitability in that as time consuming as it may be. If I was an animator or illustrator and made my money from video production or magazine cover design etc etc, I might reconsider, but that's not what I do :)

There is still the fact, that even with FaceGen Customizer, you cannot redistribute your resulting mesh objects. A quote from the "Customizer" license: "3.6 CUSTOMER will not, and will not authorize any third party to; (a) rent, lease, sell, transfer or sublicense Statistical Data, or (b) electronically transfer Statistical Data to any third party, except as authorized under a separate agreement."

However, now I understand "why" they don't wish for distribution of the geometry.

I see. That would make it virtually useless to me then, anyhow.

Looks like we cross-posted ;)

To add to my satement above, I'm guessing that you cannot import Victoria or Mike and create morphs to their facial geometry using FACEGEN; correct?

Hmmm it appears that the models are FACEGEN created models. I do not see any import options for models created outside of FACEGEN, is this correct? I hate proprietary software.