Quote - Some head morphs are actually combinations of several different morphs.

For example "eye-depth" will reshape the head mesh around the eyes but also automatically move the eyeballs along the z-axis.

If you combine that morph with others into a new morph, the auto-link to the eyeball movement gets lost.

Solution: Move and/or scale the eyeballs manually until they match the new headshape again, or create a new auto-link using the dependency editor.

I think this is it ... I never thought about this. Thank you very much. I will try it out.

Oh and as I experimented further on my problem ... once you export an .obj out of Poser and tick on "As Morph target" in the dialog box, Poser exports the .obj without any morphs applied, is it true? I always thought the option "As Morph target" only gets rid of any poses applied to the figure, but it seems, it exports without any morphs as well.

Yes, I totally forgot about that ... I went back to replicate my problem and here it is I've figured out why the head seems to "move around" in the air error. This happens when the pose is not zeroed while the head is being exported. That error I have corrected (thanks to vilters anyway!). The error I can't get rid of now is what you see in the image. On the right hand side, this is my custom morph turned on and some Morph++ dials turned on. Everything looks OK. I exported the head exactly the way it is on this picture. On the left hand side, you see the error. How I got this: I loaded a "clean" M4 into the scene with NO morph dials turned on. Exported the head from the right hand side as an .obj. I didn't touch it in Blender, and went to Head->Load Morph target and turned on the morph target (and no other dial). The eyes "poke through". I want the left hand side look like the right hand side. I think it's no Blender problem because in the steps between right and left, I did not open up Blender at all.

@JoePublic and Zev0: thank you very much! They look very good! And now that I see your work, it comes to my mind maybe one of the reasons why my arms-crossed M4 always looks to horrible might be I'm doing something wrong with the arms, so it could be my own stupidity rather than the shortcomings of the figure itself. I'll have to look at it again. But your versions both look excellent. The slow-thing: I don't have bought any clothes for M4 and don't plan on using anything for the upcoming figure, whatever I might be buying, so this is not really an issue for me, though total 60 min for conforming an entire clothing set is ... slow, yeah slow :(

Quote - Actually, if you look in the Renderosity free stuff, there are a number of face morphs for Tyler.  The Fabiana and basicwiz ones do show some real promise using dial spins only.  Here's a link to the freebies, searching on Tyler:

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/freestuff/search.php?section_id=-1&query=Tyler

I just didn't use any of them because, once again, felt you were asking about Tyler and it would be inappropriate to use morphs to answer the basic question.

Thank you for the link, those look really fantastic. The face room would be nice option to consider, however, I never got any fine results using the face room. It's not a fault of how the Face Room works or anything but I just don't know how to do it correctly. My attempts with the Morph Brush have been painful too ... despite some minor tweaks I have not been able to achieve anything useful till now. But at least, with the Morph Brush I could imagine to come back to it again and figure out what I'm doing wrong. While with the Face Room I've given up hope. It's good to see DAZ are improving the DSON importer since I'm still slightly leaning towards M5 if I switch to a next generation figure because I really love to use my M4 textures I bought or created so far. My texture abilities are fairly ... limited to non-existent and although I spent hours creating them this is something (unlike postwork) that I really didn't enjoy. So I'd really prefer to keep them somehow (be it that I only need little changes to adjust them instead of creating them completely anew). Though the speed problem do scare me off a bit. I plan on upgrading my hardware next, but if it's still comparably slow on a i7 machine with 16 GB I seem lost on this one ... however if they continue to improve the importer, I could wait patiently if there's still hope this could be fixed (said after waiting patiently for 4 hours of rendering. Sigh. But still my old hardware). If it wouldn't bother someone too much, can someone post a render with M5 in a pose with arms crossed in front of the chest? Cause this is one thing that annoys me much with M4 - I simply can't get this look good, whatever I do and whatever I try. Maybe the Smoothing Morphs linked earlier in this thread fix that, I haven't tried on them yet.

I appreciate those non-postworked renders here ... and I'd like to thank everyone for very good info. I've been thinking about getting Poser 9, wouldn't there be the M5/Genesis issue. The body shape/customization issue Male_M3dia mentioned for instance is something I didn't know before and never researched about. The M4 morph options so far have been sufficient to me, but surely, that would be a big advantage for M5 ... and the fact I could use my old M4 textures. However, after reading through some DSON issues, I'm not sure if I want to join the fun :( Tyler looks very interesting, I love the renders I've seen of him (and also that one Glitterati3D posted here), however if it's difficult to morph the head shape without ZBrush so he looks distinctively less Tyler it would restrict my opportunities extremely, since I don't own ZBrush and in near future don't plan investing in it. The smoothing system looks interesting too ... I'll certainly have a look at it.

Thank you so much. I'll try it.

What a pity that I don't have someone around with an Art Marker. It's just more satisfactory having tried such a product before buying it.

When you save something in jpg-format, after you've hit "save" in the saving dialogue, Photoshop will open a new dialogue asking you for the quality.

Here you can choose one level, 12 being the largest. As your thumbnail doesn't need to be saved in the best quality, you could simply chose a range from 1-4. This will reduce the file size, allowing to post thumbs at 200 x 200.

It's clear that it'll always depend on resolution ... I mean you don't need larger smudge brush on a picture with small resolution. I once tried out 2500x3000 somehow and to work accurate with this resolution I'll need a brush up to 150 diameter, but this goes with a speed that is not acceptable any more. It's no earthquake to work with smaller resolutions, in no way, but it'll make things much prettier to be able to create high resolution images as resolution is vital to the quality of printing. I'm actually taking part in a competition where the image should be printed out in A1-A0-size and actually, that goes not so well with 2000x2500 pixels!

As RAM is not cheap in our good old Europe, I'd like to ask how efficient it could be to use e.g. 2 Gb in my computer. Is it just an increase up to ... e.g. 100 px diameter, or even more? Because I have to finance it on my own and money is just what everyone of us needed:)

Display with a reaction time up to 15 milliseconds needs so many seconds to show the effects of smudge? When in 3D-Games it even reacts to High Dynamic Rendering or Pixel Shaders? Hard to believe. I think it's still Hardware-bound, but actually, I don't know to what extent.

No Finger Painting and no Darken mode ... mode was normal

Oh thanks ... this might help, really:)