Photoshop is a giant, it is one of the most used and most respected (or disrespected) 2d application for professionals.

Photoshop is not just a post work tool. It can, and is, used to produce highly creative original artwork. And yet it is tossed in with a sea of lesser applications and drowned.

Using Photoshop effectively requires skill, but the rate at which these images are buried in the 2d gallery does not allow time for proper attention and critiques. Photoshop needs a pure space where artists can share their work and skill with other artists without the hindrance of being perpetually associated with every other 2d application in existence. It needs a space where it can be represented fairly it does not get such respect in the 2d forum.

I see about, oh, 23 forums for 3d applications. How many forums do I see for 2d applications? 3. Or 3.5 if you want to include Z-Brush (and Z Brush is lucky if it gets so much as 1 message a month). And many of the 3d forums are virtually ignored.

You could argue, then, that all the 2d applications should be given their own respective galleries, especially the ever-popular Paint Shop Pro. Sounds fair. But obviously that is not feasible as there is an issue of space and supply on demand. There is a demand, and a need, for a Photoshop gallery.

This idea has been proposed in the past, and was ignored. Why? Obviously guidelines and rules for posting will need to be set. Perhaps this is considered too much hard work for Renderosity?

Photoshop stands out above the restor at least it could if we let it.

I would most definetly participate in a photoshop forum.

I was thinking this the other day. I am new here and noticed there is none. I think it would be a GREAT idea as my skills in 3D stuff are just developing. I would like to show some of my other work thats a little more advanced.

you have my support if we can also have a psp, gimp, flash and vector gallery.

hey, ficticious, I agree, I don't know how many they can afford to put in but the more the merrier, I work with flash and shockwave as well and would love to see stuff in flash.

Great idea Grim! You have my vote ;)

Not sure I see the point in have a gallery for just for Photoshop. :) Like fictic said if you do it for one, should you not do if for all of them? You could get crazy with it. I want one for Painter Classic and one for Illustrator only and how about one for blah, blah blah. Do you see the point? Another question would be how do you guarentee that it will remain a strictly PS gallery? I thought that was what the 2D gallery was for. Maybe a gallery for Traditional media and one for digital 2D? Not that I think its necessary either.

I'm confused as to why some people seem to be against it. If there was already a Photoshop gallery in existence, would you all rally to have it shut down? No

well I think photoshop is pretty mainstream, I know people even in graphics who don't know what painter is... I don't think you need to put up a gallery for every single software out there if you do for photoshop but I see the point, there are likely other people who want to see other galleries in here as well. It's just a matter of demand, if there is enough demand for this one maybe they will put one in, :o) if not, well that's the way the wheel turns, eh? All ya can do is try.

BTW forget what I said about 2d/3d forums in the head post-I was getting my wires crossed with forums instead of galleries. :)

i definetly think PS needs a gallery, but i do agree that it shouldn't neccesarily be singled out as the 2d graphics program. I do think this is the case, but to be fair, PSP has nearly as large a following as PS. Possibly there might be a need for a PS gallery and a PSP gallery? I think Painter might be a biggy too, tho. Having a Photoshop gallery is a neccesity. If Paint Shop Pro users feel the need for their own gallery, they'll say so, but right now, Photoshop users are saying so, and they shouldn't be ignored this time.

I second that. If PSP users - or Microsoft Paint (!) for that matter - want a gallery, let them put their case forward. PS gallery supporters are not going to do the work for them.

well we might, but over in their corner LOL!

In theory dividing the 2D gallery does sound like good idea, I agree with what you say about PS Grim but I'm not sure just how much difference a software specific gallery would make. You say "Using Photoshop effectively requires skill, but the rate at which these images are buried in the 2d gallery does not allow time for proper attention and critiques." I would imagine that a lot of the images in 2D are created in PS but without some criteria other than software for posting I think the images you hope to see will be buried almost as quickly as they are now. I think Scott's idea for an area in the PS backroom may be a better way to go for the attention & critiques those images deserve.

elusive.chaos

"You need chaos in your soul to give birth to a dancing star...." (Nietzsche)

They may be buried, but a lot slower. PS is still the minority versus all the other apps(i think). How about just setting the criteria to 100% PS, w/ minimal filters?

We already have a Photoshop gallery.....its called th Poser Gallery.;)

Whats wrong with the Galleries as they are? I think you hit the nail on the head when you said PS is mainly a post tool and from what I see here thats how its used, there are very few pure PS images and the few there are fit very nicely into the 2D Gallery. Your wrong about your comment on Critic, in my experience you just dont get it in the Galleries. If you want critic then you should post links in the respective forums and there is a very good PS forum and ask for it there. As for images getting lost, having more Galleries is just going to scatter them more. I dont know about others but only having a couple of forums and galleries to keep up with is more than enough and to add even more would mean I would miss viewing even more images. I think the Galleries and forums are fine perhaps you need to change the way you use them. Try posting links asking for critic when you find an artist you like add a link to their gallery in your favourites. But please lets not water the art down even more. :0 )

Those who do not want to imitate anything, produce nothing. Salvador Dali

I agree that having a seperate gallery would only scatter the images, anyone interested in art over application would still have as many pages to go through. antevark minimal filters is a very subjective criteria & would be difficult to apply. To set up a workable set of criteria I think there needs to be a lot more definition of what is being requested here. My feeling is that ultimately the art work produced, the creativity & skill is of far more importance than the software used & I'm not clear what a PS gallery would achieve. (That doesn't mean I am totally against it, just that it needs a lot more clarification.) As mysnapz says if you are looking for more in depth feedback & critique posting a link in the forum is by far the best way to get it.

elusive.chaos

"You need chaos in your soul to give birth to a dancing star...." (Nietzsche)

"I think you hit the nail on the head when you said PS is mainly a post tool and from what I see here thats how its used, there are very few pure PS images and the few there are fit very nicely into the 2D Gallery." Actually mysnapz proves the point we are trying to make. Because Photoshop is getting buried in the 2d gallery, it isn't getting enough exposure. Nobody knows that Photoshop isn't primarily a postwork tool, and that many people use it to create artworks all by iself.

That's one reason I think we need more clarification here antevark. Is the request for a PS gallery showing all PS work, image editing, post work & graphic artworks or are you looking for a way to view graphic art on it's own If there is a PS gallery I think there will probably be quite a lot of image editing that currently gets posted in mixed media moving in there. I'm still unsure if this idea is to show that PS is the best software or an attempt to get more exposure for the more experienced PS artists. Just a PS gallery is still going to be a very mixed bag I guess.

elusive.chaos

"You need chaos in your soul to give birth to a dancing star...." (Nietzsche)

Mysnapz needs to put his glasses on and re-read the original post. I did not say that Photoshop was a post work tool. I said that it was NOT a post work tool.

Poser gallery=Photoshop gallery?.....I won't even bother with stupidity of that poster.

Bev - I think Retro's backroom gallery might be a good solution, too. That would also mean the PSP forum could have one as well, without adding to the ever growing list of galleries.

Careful, we don't wanna start a flame war.

OK, if you're violently opposed to having a Photoshop gallery, plz say why. Bevchiron: a PS gallery should be devoted to images where absolutly no 3d graphics program was used. This could include(in my opinion) images made entirely from scratch, photographs edited too drasticly to be put in the photographic gallery, or just people experimenting and practicing various elements of photoshop.

Lets look at some numbers, shall we? In the last 15 days, there hav been: 3 posts in the Amorphium gallery, 2 posts in the World Builder gallery, 10 posts in the Imagine gallery, 2 posts in the xfrog gallery, and 7 posts in the Amapi gallery. There hav also been very few posts in Memorial gallery, but I think that that's a neccesary one. I figure that having a Photoshop gallery would cover some of the 2d gallery, and, possibly, to a lesser extent, the fractal gallery. The 2d gallery has had 783 posts in the last 15 days, while the fractal gallery has had over a thousand. If you're saying that we don't need a Photoshop gallery, what's the point of having any of the galleries listed above? Being more then fair, let's say that 100 people come to the PS gallery from the 2d gallery, and 20 come from the fractal. That's still 12 times more people then the Imagine gallery, and 60 times more then the worldbuilder gallery!

Photoshop needs a pure space where artists can share their work and skill with other artists without the hindrance of being perpetually associated with every other 2d application in existence. Yup yup I agree. The 2D gallery has such a wide range of images, from scans to misplaced uploads to mixed-up 3d-2d hybrids to freeware made art and I could go on and onits all just a big melting pot of stuff.

The thoughts behind this idea are more defined now, lots of good points everyone!

elusive.chaos

"You need chaos in your soul to give birth to a dancing star...." (Nietzsche)

I don't know...this thread gives me the impression that the people using Photoshop believe they are doing better and more creative or more unique work than people are doing who use Paint Shop Pro or other 2d software. It is absolutely possible to do graphics other than clipwork/photograph maniupulation and postwork with any of these 2d software programs. But it doesn't seem quite fair that Photoshop be given its own gallery and Paint Shop Pro (which is soon going to go to version 8 with some very impressive upgrades) gets dismissed as being somehow less just because it isn't as expensive. The fact is a mediocre artist will create medoicre art no matter how wonderful the software is, while someone of talent will be able to create even with inexpensive software. The whole business of separating galleries by software is a little silly to me since so many of the graphics really belong in mixed medium even though most of us don't post there. If you manipulate a photograph in Photoshop, isn't that mixed medium since it combines photography and Photoshop? I really think some of the underused galleries should be combined or eliminated. I don't really care if Photoshop has its own gallery or not because I'll never own Photoshop, but I guess if the demand seems to be there, that's what will happen. I don't think giving Photoshop an exclusive gallery will keep out the scans and the melting pot atmosphere...unless you have the mistaken impression that all people using it are "real" artists while people who are using anything else aren't.

I direct you to post #11, where I already addressed this.

So, I guess, I made a mistake by offering my opinion. So sorry.

shrugs I don't have Photoshop either, I'm just curious to see what kind of art is made using PS exclusively.

Hmmm- I don't know about this 'pure Photoshop space' idea. What do you mean by Photoshop images being buried in 2D ? Is that based on hit numbers ? I tend to assume that people look at images because the thumbnail grabs them in some way not because the artist used this or that software. I use Photoshop more than I use Painter or Poser ( oh no ! I said the P**** word- just lost at least 80 % of people who have read even this far ) . Though I usually post in That gallery and occaisonally mixed medium and infrequently some of the other galleries I actually consider Photoshop my Primary Software- it is for me the one software I would not / could not be without. It is the part of my images that I enjoy doing the most and what I spend most time on. I use the same combinations of software for images I actually get paid for as well as my 'recreational' images I post here at R'osity. But I don't actually see the point of a PS only gallery -how many people do actually PURELY use PS ? How rigourously enforced would the 'pure' aspect be? There is a whiff of elitism here to me , especially as from what I've read in the PS forum over time, the pure aspect is sure to be rigourously enforced by a dedicated few who are less than impressed by other software. I always look in the ALL gallery because personally I think focusing in on software more than the images produced is a rather blinkered approach. But then what do I know .... I use P**** so couldn't be considered an artist anyway !

" Try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations."
-Monty Python

"The 2D gallery has such a wide range of images, from scans to misplaced uploads to mixed-up 3d-2d hybrids to freeware made art and I could go on and onits all just a big melting pot of stuff." Don't be surprised if a good chunk of that melting pot is done with photoshop. Nothing will change. The people who really want the photoshop forum and point out that it needs to be separated from the 2D gallery are the people who use it for 2D purposes. this thread wasn't started with the 3d artist as an intended target.

Why is there such debate over this. It's simple. Just separate the digital 2d from the traditional. That sounds like a simple yet effective solution. As a photoshop lover, I'd love to root for it, but have to admit it would be silly to have it's own gallery. Dragontales

There are a great deal of good points as well as some vailid points and a few missed points. But it all breaks down into "the percived USE of Photoshop within this community". Grim has pointed out the PS is NOT just a postwork tool for Poser and other 3D programs. The downside is "a majority of this site IS 3D based".

The galleries currently available were fine in the beginning, (see post#25) but we've grown to over 100,000 members, with many more Photoshop users that don't really do much (if any) 3D work. To lump everything NOT 3D into a 2D gallery (with "sub" offshoots like "mixed media") does not do justice to the caliber of artist and their work.

The point Grim is making is "If we can't have a Photoshop Gallery, then Why?" The only thing i can see as a valid argument is developing the criteria needed to post to the gallery. If we can't have one than can we know what needs to be done to change that?

I'm all for creating a "backroom" gallery (though it means a hecka' lot more work for me...) in the intrim, but there can be no denying, the program and it's users ARE a major force in the art community.

:)
retrocity

Plenty of my images are Photoshop only, and I tend to use 3D apps mostly to deform the pre-work that I've made in PS too. Having declared my loyalty, I have to say that I can't really see the point of a PS only gallery. So many people here use PSP and Painter that it would be patently unfair, and an arbitrary division. I would be in favour of splitting digital 3D and traditional materials, though - I think that's a good idea. Either that or a back room in the forum. Why not both?

sigh Post 11 again, plz.

Well, thanks for the patronising sigh antevark. Your post 11 doesn't express my opinion or answer my point. Keep the attitude to yourself. To make it clear: there chances of getting a Photoshop gallery seem low because there isn't a very strong case for one. There is no chance in hell of there being separate galleries for PS, PSP, Painter etc. Alternatives have been put forward and I'll discuss or support them regardless of you giving permission or sighing.

A little late, but... 2D is a tough one to sort through... You've got 2D and mixed medium galleries...and I imagine there is alot of bleedover, esp when folks don't always know where their stuff fits. Alot to think about, but I think in an ideal situation the Galleries should directly match the forums except where specials like the memorial, holiday etc galleries are concerned.

The gist of my post 11 is that I agree that a painter and PSP gallery's should considered, if they ask for them. There has not been a post concerning the the topic, which if u had searched for them, u would've seen. A Photoshop gallery, on the other hand hand has been asked for several times. As for an unfair division, how can u say what applications need a gallery and what don't? Wings3D, Anim8or, and quite a few others are used quite commonly. They don't hav a gallery, and I'm sure that the Worldbuilder people never asked for one. They hav one.

Just wondering, I don't have the kind of finances for Photoshop, but I do use Photoshop Elements a lot. Would that be welcome in the Photoshop gallery if one does turn up? So far I have only posted three images (in beginners gallery) but one of them is pure Photoshop Elements. I would like to see a Photoshop gallery, I think it could end up like some of the higher end 3d galleries. They are amazing and inspiring places to visit. Isn't this a good thing? Without these places, the Galleries can sometimes look like a vaguely erotic version of my sketch book. As a beginner, I'm very glad there is a place that I can post my work, but if Renderosity is meant to be for all kinds of artists, then surely it should make the professionals as welcome as the hobbyists? Surely, this would be a good thing for Renderosity and the artists who post here. Shanna :-)

Photoshop Elements is just as much Photoshop as an older version, in my books. Another idea occurred to me. When I'm wondering what new program I want to buy, I look in the galleries to see what the program can do. A Photoshop gallery would help someone decide whether to get PS or PSP, as the 2D gallery would mostly be filled by PSP users if PS got a gallery. It's also to Renderosities advantage to get a PS gallery, becuz it needs to be more 2D friendly. Being more 2D friendly would increase traffic to 'osity.

Everybody scroll up to post # 36 by retrocity (he's the mod for the PS Forum) if you haven't already; it sums everything up very neatly.

We can really say no more on this subject without being tediously repetitive. I only hope those who feel that PS is nothing but a glorified air brusher do some research: I believe you will be very surprised to see what is possible without the aid of a 3d engine.

This thread has been up for a few days now, and yet no sign of constructive input from admin. Sad to say, but it looks like a much wanted and needed addition to the site is set to be ignored.

PS: Retro, I'd be more than willing to help you if get bogged down with the backroom gallery, should it eventuate.

Silence doesn't mean that the thread hasn't been read and isn't under consideration. It's remotely possible the administration of this site has more than one thing on their list to take care of and may very well be discussing the matter, just not on a public forum. Just ask the animation folk how long it took for a solution for their gallery...they were much more deserving of a gallery (in my opinion and I don't do animation) and the solution was not terribly satisfactory and it took some time but it did happen. The administrators may be trying to decide if they can give you want you want and still be fair to the other 2D program users. Don't choke on the word "fair"....I'm thinking they may be trying, and Photoshop isn't the center of the universe to anyone except those who use it (and we all don't). As for being tediously repeititve, isn't that the nature of forums as everyone wants to be able to have their piece? I hope that the other 2d software programs aren't ignored under the mistaken impression only Photoshop users create art or are worthy of special treatment. I know that's tediously reptitive but votes on the other side tend to get buried in these arguments. Don't bother referencing me to note #11 or #36 or sighing at me. I'm not an idiot despite all the rumors to the contrary.

:-) @ dialyn. I have a feeling on how this one will go, based on a few indicators around the site (take note, antevark, on searching technique): Galleries and forums need moderators. When you ask for a new gallery or forum, you're asking for a devoted chunk of someone's time for as long as the gallery exists; it's more than just the time taken to set it up. This site is short-staffed.

• If you click on the 'Instant Messaging' link in the top bar, the IM page has a 'Who's currently logged in?' link. It shows you the admins and mods currenly online. Over the last few months, that list of mods has been noticeably shorter than it used to be.
• Check the other forums too - you'll see that lots of mods are doubling up (and more) on their duties.
• Check the galleries of the mods - you'll see that some of them are modding forums for apps that they don't use.

All of those points demonstrate that the site is short-staffed: a small number of people running a very big site. That's indicator number 1. Indicator number 2: the work list is already pretty full. A search through this forum, looking at all types of requests, shows that popular ideas are greeted (sooner or later) with Tutone saying "I'll add that to the work list." Tutone is (I think) the main coding chap for the site (correct me if I'm wrong Tommy). A quick browse through this forum tells you he has a task list as long as his arm. Priorities will out. So, we're looking at scarce resources and a lot of work waiting. Indicator number 3: the marketplace. Resources will always be prioritised for the market because it generates the dosh. Anything else obviously comes lower down the list. Indicator number 4: we've already all agreed that a PS gallery will create a precedent for other 2D apps to demand galleries. Creating a PS gallery means committing the time and energy of a whole bunch of mods to a whole bunch of new galleries. The PTB won't be keen to do that; they haven't got that time and energy spare. Splitting the 2D and traditional media would only create one more gallery... Indicator number 5: Retrocity already volunteered to host a backroom gallery in the forum. That allows the PTB to test the water and divert the current demand. It makes clear sense to go with that option. The broader picture (to my eyes, anyway) says 'No Photoshop Gallery' for the time being. Creating a huge interest in a backroom gallery, though, would make a good case for a gallery in the future and ensure that it would start out with high participation rates. Granted, it takes longer to build a success than to wave a magic wand, but it's more satisfying when it works out. Peace :-) cam

Very good. I will refer all future posters to message #46. :)

I like the idea of a PS gallery...I'm in!

By the logic expressed here, all the 3d galleries should be taken down immediately and 1 gallery put in its place. This would be known as the 3d Gallery - a horrible chaotic place where all 3d artists post their work together.

I find the "unfair" cry for other 2d apps irrelevant. All 2d apps already feel inferior by being lumped together. A PS gallery is one step toward individual recognition. If PSP or another larger player in 2d wants their own gallery, let them put their proposal forward.

I dont see that an ever-growing list of galleries should be a problem (except of course, the moderator shortage). If you want to see PS images you go the PS gallery, you want to see Poser you go to the Poser gallery. Choice is not a terrible thing.

I think this moderator crisis is news to a lot - if not most - of us. I don't know of the means by which this site obtains its moderators, but if admin put out a "mods needed" call I'm sure they would get a decent response. I suppose the problem would be weeding out the good from the bad.

We are working on the gallerys now and should have some new toys soon. Search by genres will be one of the things added.

You can't call it work if you love it... Zen Tambour

 

nice, thx

By the logic expressed here, all the 3d galleries should be taken down immediately and 1 gallery put in its place. It doesn't seem logical to remove a system that's already working and replace it with one that wouldn't. Perhaps the term you were searching for is reductio ad absurdum. moderator crisis Your phrase, not mine.

he was giving u a different viewpoint. If u r happy w/ just a 2d galery, would u be happy w/ just a 3d gallery?

exactly antevark. It doesn't seem logical to remove a system that's already working And it doesn't seem logical to keep one that isn't.

Which system isn't working? In your words, Grim, "I think this is news to a lot - if not most - of us." And why are you spending so much energy arguing with me when you should be out campaigning for a new PS gallery?

Cambert, when Gim sed "I think this is news to a lot - if not most - of us, " he was talking about the mod crisis. DO NOT TRY TO TWIST OUR WORDS. And we are arguing for a new PS gallery, u just seem to be the only person who violently opposed for some reason, now. Don't brush the argument aside. First you completly misunderstand the qustion, then u change the subject. Answer us why ur so opposed to this, and answer our arguments with a counter-argument, NOT a change of subject.

Excuse the misspellings I'm just very angry right now.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?ForumID=12357&Form.ShowMessage=1120701&Reply=1122776#89

Remo posted what seems like a sensible suggestion for everyone (not just the Photoshop users but for other software users who also don't have galleries of their own). Probably wouldn't satisfy everyone, but there is some common sense in the idea that makes it worth at least thinking about. Or not. Up to you.

Wow, thanks dialyn. I read through the entire thread and was surprised to see my name refered to. I'm glad you like the idea. Think about it people. Why have a gallery devoted to the tools you use? Sould it not be your work and your talent that is showcased in the gallery? Only while working within Poser, Bryce and other 3D apps do you have a 3D environment. When all is said and done and rendered, the end result is a 2D bitmapped image. Thus, my reasoning for one all inclusive gallery. I use Poser, Bryce AND Photoshop. Mostly together but sometimes seperately. They are a means to an end. The end result is what I want people to see. Just my opinion, Peace

Antevark, I'm going to post this in parts because it's pretty long.

I understood that Grim was referring to the 'mod crisis'. As I pointed out, that was his phrase. I don't believe there is a mod crisis, just that the site is short-staffed. The melodrama wasn't mine. I wasn't twisting his words, just quoting them in the context of a question of my own - which has yet to be answered. The simple fact is that I don't get which system Grim thinks isn't working. When
he answers that, I'll be able to address his point.

My post #52 was intended to answer that question, but if you want it spelled out, no I wouldn't be happier with just one 3D gallery. Nor is there any logical equivalence between the number of 3D and 2D galleries.
The simple truth is that this is primarily a 3D site; like it or lump it, that's what it is. It's absurd to suggest that there's any equivalence between the many thousands of 3D images posted and the (comparative) trickle of 2D. The galleries, the forums, the history and the culture of the place are geared toward 3D. That's what it grew out of (the dreaded Poser, which still reigns supreme) and what it remains.
There's more to it, though, than just the history of the site. There's the issue of the prevailing approach. Although R'osity is notionally an art site, I'd argue that most of the time it isn't - it's a software site. Leaving aside the Poser soft porn (another discussion entirely), most of the people who are pushing the limits of the software seem to be doing that for technical reasons, not artistic ones. A case in point: look at the Bryce forum and the fake HDRI work. A number of people are making images that you would swear were photographs. It's genuinely remarkable work. What they're exploring, though, is the technology, not (by and large) artistic expression, at least in the way I would understand it. Look at the Art Theory Forum, created for people to discuss technicalities of composition, the stuff of how art works. That rarely happens, it's mostly about 'the definition of art'. The 2D gallery is where I go to see the highest concentration of artistic talent; where the images originate from ideas, not software specifications. For the record, I'll say that Grim is part of that artistic talent. Against that background, I think you have a good point, but you're making it on the wrong site. There are other sites that are about digital art in general; this one is really about 3D apps in particular.

I will also say that I am not "violently opposed" to a Photoshop gallery. I just don't see the need and I think you're going the wrong way about getting one - I'll come back to that in a moment. If anyone is taking any stance "violently", I'd point out that I'm the one writing long explanations of what I think. You're the one getting so angry that you can barely type. Let's keep the temperature down and see if we can actually achieve something, even if we can't end up agreeing with each other. In the interest of reasoned debate, I'll summarise the arguments I've already made, and add to them. I don't think you've made a strong enough case for a PS gallery because:

• Grim's initial post in this thread refers to other 2D apps as "lesser" and calls them a "hindrance". When you're asking for a favour, it's best to be polite. Maybe the people you're asking this favour of might actually like and use those other 2D apps? If so, you've already shot yourselves in the foot. Also, Grim's post refers repeatedly to forums not galleries, which confuses the issue.
• Many of the members here don't seem to use 2D apps anyway. They just post straight 3D renders. Most of the others use it for post-work on 3D renders - just smoothing out the algorithms. Few of us use it as a primary creative tool, so the constituency for the gallery would be very small. That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a gallery, but it does mean that the pressure to create one won't ever be very strong.
• Following on from the point above, few people have joined this thread and asked for the gallery. Certainly not enough to be considered the equivalent of a parade with banners.
• You and Grim seem to think that other 2D apps asking for their own galleries is part of the solution; I think it's part of the problem. The PTB don't have the resources for a number of new galleries, so they're unlikely to agree to a precedent that might lead to that situation. Even if you're only asking for one gallery, the people who make the decision need to take a longer-term view. Re-read posts 4 and 5 in this thread.
• There are other options available to the PTB which don't involve that kind of precedent, e.g. splitting off digital 2D and traditional materials. And yet, there's no big pressure for them to go even that far.
• One of the mods has already volunteered to add to his own workload by creating a backroom gallery. To institute a full gallery would also involve work by coders, who have long task-lists, and other mods. If I were the PTB, I know which I'd go with.
• A backroom gallery would measure the amount of interest in a PS gallery.

If you can convince me that none of these are problems, you'll have my full support.

Finally, to return to the issue of how to go about getting a PS gallery. You said that you are arguing for a gallery - that wasn't my point. What I said was that you should be campaigning for one, and that's different. Campaigns involve strategy. Can I suggest a few tactics?

• Identify the people in the 2D gallery who use PS as a primary creative tool. IM them, making your case for a gallery clearly and ask for their support. Be polite; don't demand. Don't be rude about other apps. If they decline, say 'thanks for your time' and leave it at that. Keep a list of who you've contacted so that you don't accidentally do it twice.
• Identify forums where people use PS for post-work. IM the moderators of the forums and ask if they would mind you posting a request for support. If they say, no, it's off-topic, thank them and leave it at that.
• IM the moderator of the Virtual Tavern and do the same.
• Post a request for support in the OT forum. Everything's off-topic there - that's the point of the place. And it gets read by more people than this forum.
• Accept Retrocity's kind offer of a backroom gallery. Offer to help.
• Post another request to this forum (or to 'Forum News & Team Contact'). Ask for an undertaking that, if the backroom gallery is a success, the PTB promise that it will be promoted to a top-level gallery. Be clear about the purpose of the gallery - is it a critique gallery? a 'finished work' gallery? Propose some guidelines saying what you think constitutes a 'Photoshop' image. Be clear and realistic about the time-frame you think you'll need to demonstrate success.

If you can prove the demand for the gallery, you'll probably get one. But you will need to prove it because the gallery has been requested and denied before. If you get it, I'll happily come here and declare that you were right and I was wrong. In the meantime, I hope you'll take this post how it's intended - constructive if not necessarily supportive. Peace :-) cam

I think a gentle approach always works best. I didn't like the implication that only Photoshop users can create art and so only users of Photoshop deserve a category of their own. It's not true. It's not fair. It's not the way to get support. I know it made some people angry that a Hobbyist category was developed. I like to point out that people have, for a long time, asked for something for those of us who are not beginners and yet don't consider ourselves artists. We didn't always refer to it as "hobbyist" but it was out there as an idea, but as a request and not a demand. I was as surprised as anyone when it appeared. It is not Poser only. It does, I hope, hold a promise of acceptance for those of us who are not professional artists and yet have moved beyond the basics of whatever software we use. If Poser dominates the category, it is probably because so many people use Poser here to begin with, not because the category itself excludes anyone. Inclusiveness here is important. Most of us use more than one software. It's a fact of life. Some of us place less importance on software pride than being able to create something without being chastised for not using the "right" software. Making fun of Poser is not the way to get what you want. Making fun of Paint Shop Pro is not the way to get what you want. Being respectful of the rights of others is very important. I have said, over and over again, that it is possible to make art with 2D software, and I have a great respect for the people who do. I just think that software doesn't have to be Photoshop. I also think the 3D artists would be lost without the contributions of those who work in 2D...the textures, the postwork, the backgrounds....there is a lot that is done in 2d before and after a 3D graphic is created. And, as remo pointed out, most of 3D graphcis end up being 2D at the end of the game anyway. I think we are in the middle of an evolution. I don't disagree with everything that was said. I think I would have been more supportive if it hadn't been implied that I was somehow a second class citizen for using Poser and Paint Shop Pro. You may not like what I do with the software I have...that's fine...but don't imply that I don't have a right to post just because I don't use the same software you do. I wouldn't have made that accusation of you. We don't have to agree about the important or unimportance of software exclusivity. I think there are ways to get additional attention for the 2D artists....positive ways, ways that show off what Photoshop can do, what Paint Shop Pro can do, etc. without denigrating anyone else. I honestly hope those solutions are explored.

cambert, I agree with a lot of what you just said with the exception of one point: "The simple truth is that this is primarily a 3D site" NOT True. It's true that this site STARTED OUT as a 3D art site. I believe it was the Poser Forum before it was Renderosity. But this site grew and the charter has changed. If you don't agree, just scroll to the top of the page. There it reads "Online Graphic Artist's Community". That description pretty much says it all. There is no distinction made between 3D/2D. This site is open to ALL artists. Darn! I just spent another 2 cents worth. I can't seem to hold on to my money these days. :o) Peace

I agree, remo. 3D, 2D, photography, animation - it's all potentially art. It makes a difference if you think about it that way. :)