One of the great disappointments I have when I buy a Poser product is that I can rarely get the product to immediately look like what was used to sell it. Here's what merchants can do to cut down on some of my letdown. - If the product is untextured, show an image without textures. Customers shouldn't have to spend another $20 to get what they bought to look like the ad. - Include the poses. Most merchants aren't selling pose sets and they're small, so why not let the customer have the pose used in the ad? - Include light and camera sets used in the ad. Poser's default light and camera settings are horrendous and any render used with them is going to be inferior to what was used in the ad. - Showcase some images with freebies and provide links. I understand that hairs cannot often be provided with a new character, but why not do a shot with some of the great free hair sets that are available? Hair is such an important part of how a character looks that it would be nice to be able to create the look being used to sell the character without having to spend more money. - Add a PZ3 or pose file for environmental scene sets or at least let the customer know that it comes unassembled. Otherwise, the customer is stuck putting a lot of time into getting the expansive image that sold the product. The sooner I can recreate the quality of the image that got me to buy a product, the happier I am. The harder it is to get there, the less satisfied I am. I've yet to get a close-up render of a texture to look as good as the ad. I'm not an expert in Poser, but it's hard to feel that I've gotten my money's worth when I cannot get something I bought to look like what I thought I was getting.

While I can understand your fustration here, it should also be pointed out that a merchant rarely uses only their own products to create the ad.. oft times, lights from a free set gained in the freestuff area are used, poses from another merchants pack that were bought are used and so forth. If we didnt make them, we cannot include them in our packs. However, this shouldnt preclude us from using them, either. We want to display our product in an honest yet attractive light and we shouldnt be limited in how we are to go about that. You may wish to consider, however, IM'ing the merchant you've bought the item from, and simly ask them what other products/freebies they used to make the ad, and I've little doubt that they would have no issue at all in sharing the informations to enable you to re-create the scene you're looking for. I hope this helped :) -stace-

Yeah but I agree with rreynolds. While the merchant may use 3rd party lights and poses I should be able to see what the orignal looks like out of the box. Heck, with good lights and extra props and poses you can make the crappiest thing look great. For example I could sell a Mason CUBE which would be just a cube made in Max. I could then place it in a scene, texture it with a real good 3rd party stone texture/bumpmap, put a vicky in a brass bikini sitting on it and use one of 3dworlds 3d domes for the back drop. BAM! It looks great, but its still just a cube. In fact, I've bought skin textures that I now later regret. They looked awesom in the preview but then required some really weird, unnatural light setting to make them work. Also I have so many clothes that I buy cause they look great only to find that they fall apart big time as soon as you bend Vickie over more than 20 degrees or raise her collar bone. I think showing the product raw in stock lights would be better for people to understand what they are buying. Plus, for clothes, showing the character in various poses to show what happens when arms are raised, legs bent etc. I wouldn't mandate it or anything but I think that's what wise customers should look for when buying products. I leaf through all 3 pics and if I don't see the back side of a product or the figure bent or posed differently than just a stock model pose then I'm very suspicious about buying the item. Also people need to be aware of poly counts and system resources. Some items have so many polygons that they cramp your system. Again read the read me and descriptions carefully.

'it should also be pointed out that a merchant rarely uses only their own products to create the ad' Well, I must be the exception to the rule. I use NOTHING but what comes with the product. And that includes the lighting. Having said that, a lot depends on what it is you're selling. If it's a skin texture or character, you may want to add appropriate things to the scene. But there's no excuse for using someone else's lighting AND NOT TELLING US. A lot of people aren't good with lights, so it's fine to use other lighting if you have to... just let me know you did it! I would add one more thing to rreynolds's list - Whatever you do to the image, STATE CLEARLY on the page what you've done!! If you use someone else's product, fine. Just tell us you did it. If the lighting's not yours, 'fess up before I buy the product. Add any damn thing you want to the scene, as long as it's plainly stated that it's not included in the product. mac

I tend to buy mainly products that have good feedback. Of course, it could just be that those are just the merchants that have a lot of friends. Maybe the new rating system will help in that regard. :-)

Okay, well.. getting yelled at, even in text was not why I bothered to answer this post. I'll have it noted that in my solo products with the exception of the poses used on the front cover ( Rhiannon character/texture pack) Everything in the ad IS in the pack. My statement was simply an answer to your question, I was not presenting myself to be a target for which you might vent your fustration on. Regards, -stace-

Addendum.. Koz's free hair prop was also used and it IS stated that its not included in the pack. Okay.. now Im done. goes back to work -stace-

Stacey, Did you mean me? I really hope not. I wasn't answering your post specifically. Just a general comment on the original post. My caps were meant for emphasis, not as yells. Maybe I should have used these for emphasis. If I offended you, I sincerely apologise. I wasn't yelling at you and I certainly didn't aim my comments at you. mac

Mac- I did in fact think you were replying to me, yes.. Though I admit to being glad to be wrong. One of the primary faults of communication via text is one is unable to guage reaction based on tone of voice. My sincere aplologies for snapping in return. No harm, no foul. :) -stace-

Hey, no apologies necessary, stacey. Text is a very ambiguous medium and one of my faults is typing out replies in a hurry. I should slow down a bit. LOL. mac

I hope no one takes this the wrong way. I do agree that it's a good idea to list what's used in product renders. I myself have been dissapointed with a product that featured something (in every add no less) that did not come with the product. The merchant couldn't even see fit to either change his adds or provide me the texture he was, in effect, advertising. (it was his own)
That said, (and again don't take this the wrong way) this type of complaint, to me, just feeds the frenzy that poser is "easy". That one can click a few buttons and obtain the controversial "is it art" renders.

Purchases should only enhance the learning process. Not do it all for you. I relyed on schlabber for poses in the beginning but not so much anymore. I hate the lighting in poser but haven't had to use one of RDNA's free lights in a while.
Same with cameras.
Sometimes you need to accomplish something quickly, I understand deadlines, but if you drop an IM to the merchant they should be able to direct you to any item they may not have listed.

So should we all. :) I've also been contemplating this for some time, from a merchant standpoint. I remember the delight of old Poser freebies where you'd download "Xena" or something, load the file, click the pz3, and she'd pop right into the window looking exactly like the preview shot...hair, clothes, lights, pose, and everything. I find this oddly atractive as a merchant, but the practicalities are another matter. Just one for-instance; with all the trouble lately over textures, making a full character texture is about the last thing I want to get into now. We are far from the innocent days of P3, with the free-wheeling trade of hair and character textures, and the far, far, smaller files. Hair and skin to modern standards is a big job. Not something lightly included in a clothing package! That said, I try to list every major item used in a product render....and when possible, use free products (at least, those that are licensed for commercial renders).

In some places models are shown untextured in at least one render. In modelling discussion boards they even post wireframes. I've wondered about doing this with clothing meshes. Oh, yeah...and the "one click" packages were to me fun but short-lived; having the fully-posed, lit, camera-framed-character made it really hard for me to get excited about setting up my own pose and lights. I'm not voting here....but my deeper agreement is with Kendra.

I can see what Kendra is getting at here. And I cant understand why you would want "recreate" the image anyway. That's not very original. It's no big deal. Everyone creates art differently. Its hard to make a perfect copy. All art would look the same if that werent the case. But I have also been let down by some products. I usually look at the ones with flashy renders as what is possible with a little work.

Kendra, I absolutely agree with you. Poser packages have become so bland in some ways. Mainly because a lot of users demand ready-to-go MATs. Poses, etc, etc. I read a thread recently where someone was complaining because he had to tweak the poses in a package he'd bought to get them the way he wanted them. Which, to me, seems a bit over the top. But.... having said that, I still maintain that if merchants are showing something they're not supplying, they should say so. There's no shame in using other products or lights. Just tell me about it, is all. Whether you'd want to recreate the original image or not is beside the point. The point is that showing stuff that isn't included is misleading, and in any other medium, would come under false advertising. Third point. I firmly believe that most intelligent poser users do NOT want the same renders as everyone else. They want to personalise their images wherever possible. (I may be mistaken here, but I'm an optimist). This involves learning how to use the program. So, every product I put out now has a large help file (The last one was 33 pages. The new one is 23 pages). It's not because the products are that complicated, but I include a lot of other related information that I think people will find useful. Yes, I provide MATs and SETs to texture and configure things. But I also have a short tute on how to modify these files or make your own. So, to sum up, I agree with the original post, but I'm also with kendra. Poser is becoming too easy and automatic. But the best way round that, IMO, is to educate the user as much as possible. (without being patronising or getting into 'back-to-school' stuff). I try to point out all the possibilities that my products have for individual configuration, show people how to do it, then let them decide what they want to do. There's always the easy option of clicking a MAT file. mac

I've downloaded a ton of Poser stuff over the years and I'm very forgiving about anything I get for free. After all, I didn't pay for it. I'm a little pickier when I pay for an item. I'll sometimes buy something on sale before I need it. I quickly load the file, do a quick render and file that away for when I might decide to use the item again. More often than not, the results of that initial render pale in comparison to what the sale ads displayed. That's when the disappointment sets in. It might be months before I get around to using the product in an original drawing. I won't be using the exact same lights, poses, and camera angles when I start to really use the product, but it would be nice, when I do the test render, to be able to see that the product truly can look as good as what was used in the ads. Maybe with a lot of tweaking of lights and camera angles and settings, I can get something close to what I thought I bought. Depending on how large the chasm is between what I can get right "out of the box" versus what was advertised, there's a good chance I won't order from a particular merchant again. The quicker I can do a render that matches the renders of what I was sold, the more likely I'll buy from the seller again. The reason people use a program like Poser is to get nice renders with "minimal" effort. It turns out that doing an original Poser drawing is no simple one click task. Whatever gets a person closer to a better drawing is a good thing. I'm attacking anybody specific. It's an important consideration to keep in mind when selling products. Every merchant gets all kinds of buyers, from seasoned Poser vets to first time purchasers. A Poser vet understands the limitations of what they're buying to some extent, but a new buyer may be sorely upset when the product they get doesn't match what they think they're getting. I still remember how frustrated I was when I made one of my first Poser purchases, Victoria 2. The ads had these gorgeous realistic looking women. The model opens up and there's this awful mannequin figure with massive brown eyebrows and thick umber lips, made all the more terrible looking by the default Poser fish-eye face camera focal length. I pick on Vickie because it's an otherwise great product and is a good example of the difference between what was advertised and what the buyer got. None of the faces used in the ad could be readily achieved by a first time buyer (or frankly even by many seasoned users). I didn't buy another Poser model for years because it was a while till I got some decent free textures and morphs that made me appreciate Vickie and got me into using Poser more. It's easy for experienced Poser users to forget what a long learning curve is involved to really using the product productively. Providing a better set of lights and cameras to a newbie can only improve how that person uses Poser and feeds a desire to have more content.

Gee, I never expect my renderings to look like the ad for a product. I never even try to recreate an ad because that image was done for a totally diffent purpose than my image. Why on earth would I want to be a copyist? And if I did choose to be a copyist, my target would be a master such as Rembrandt or Lee or Mucha (or any of the other artists I admire) rather than a merchant selling hair or skin. Perhaps you'll next insist that one of the 3 images be set in Poser's default scene with 3 lights and a fish-eye lens... that way you'll be able to simply click and "make art" that matches a pro? Carolly the Bemused

At issue is the versatility of the product and whether it looks good under all conditions or under just a very narrow set of conditions set for the ad copy. Why not get an image that show how the product looks under the default Poser conditions? That's everybody's first experience to a new Poser product. To be quite honest, if every Poser artist were looking for complete unique wholly owned creations, they wouldn't be buying characters, textures, and objects created by others. Buying these creations is a shortcut to creating one's own meshes or characters or textures. Any additional shortcuts that allow a customer to recreate the look of the copy that sold them these characters, meshes, or textures, of the product they bought is going to increase customer satisfaction.

While I have some sympathy with rreynolds, personally I wouldn't ever use someone else's lighting, and seldom someone else's pose without modification. If I wanted the pic in the ad, I'd right-click and copy it. It would be nice if merchants were required to demonstrate how badly a clothing item conforms when the figure bends 20 degrees - but it's not going to happen, is it?

You dont get the same results because the images are not rendered in Poser, or use a heavy amount of postwork - if a merchant is honest he/she will tell you that.

Mungo, >> You dont get the same results because the images are not rendered in Poser, or use a heavy amount of postwork - if a merchant is honest he/she will tell you that. Aside from compositing, titling, adding some framing or possibly painting hair (on a non-hair product), postwork is generally 'not allowed' in the marketplace ads. There are some exceptions (it's ok to postwork joints on a character if your product is not the character, for example...) but I think you'll find that 90%+ follow this rule. I'm a merchant and can honestly tell you that my promo pics adhere to this guideline. Mac, I agree... I've always tried to include extra details, suggestions and tips in the readme files of my products. I also go a step further and try to explain any usage issues you may run into, along with suggested work-arounds. rreynolds, I think the biggest issue related to your subject here may be lighting. I know that I'm always frustrated when I create promo pics because we're not allowed to do any postwork on them and it's difficult to find a decent light setup that shows the product well in a straight render. Just for the record, I do usually include the light sets used in my promo renders in my character packages (as well as the poses used, etc), but haven't been including them in my clothing/props packages. Do people want light and cameras and such included in clothing packs?

The reason people use a program like Poser is to get nice renders with "minimal" effort. It turns out that doing an original Poser drawing is no simple one click task. Whatever gets a person closer to a better drawing is a good thing. you cannot "draw" with poser. and, now that so many seem to be using it for nice renders with "minimal" effort, the program itself is losing what little respectability it did have.

I did not say that rendering in poser is easier than in other applications - rendering in poser is quite difficult and it takes a long time to accomplish something useful. People do not see this or make the time investment and "sometimes" apply a high amount of postwork to hide their mistakes. This is exactly the reason why Poser has no reputation in the 3dcg community. Look at the TOC of the Poser gallery: (cite)"This gallery is primarily for images rendered within Poser itself. Images of Poser figures rendered in other applications are still welcome, but what's the challenge in that? See how well you can do using it's basic rendering tools!" Then have a look at the posted pictures - more than half of them do not belong into this gallery - they belong into "mixed medium" - the emphasis is on "rendering tools" not on Photoshop tools. Mungo

"Why can't I quickly recreate the images I bought products from?" For the same reason your pancakes Dont look like the ones pictured on the Box. there was a time in america when advertisers used a "play dough" like substance in ice cream ads because it looked better and didnt melt under the studio lights. they also used plastic turkeys and Foam Rubber pancakes in print ads. the U.S. Government rightfully passed the "truth in advertising act" that advertisers MUST display an actual sample of the product being sold. yet the pictures on product packaging still look perfect. Why?? because the perfectly golden brown turkey pictured in the ads has been tinted with wood stain but the turkey is real and in compliance with Law. advertisers will go to great lengths to display their products in the BEST possible light and why sould they do otherwise.

There is a pretty strong rule about no postwork in the marketplace advertising. Very little of the ads you see in the marketplace are unobtainable but it does require an understanding of the program and a desire to learn more of it.
I simply disagree that a merchant should be required to 'make it easy'. But if you think about it, the characters you can buy here do make it easier. If you own V3 you can likely achieve the same type of character on your own. Mat's now don't require you to manually apply the textures. There are tons of light sets available, many free. Same with poses. Anyone new to posing can download just about any pose from Schlabbers sets. All free. If anything, poser is getting too easy. :)

Hmm.... I think rreynolds made a mistake mentioning recreating the promo render. I can see what he means, but everyone seems to be getting hung up on the fact that they personally, would not want to recreate a promo render. Recreating the render isn't the point. What we're talking about here is using other products, poses or lights to make your own product look better and sell more. And I repeat, I see no problem in doing that if it says so on the render (heavy emphasis there). Let's face it, no one is going to sell a vicki texture using a bald vicki on the promo. They're going to use hair on her. OK. Fine. Just tell me the hair's not included. You used someone else's lights/clothes/props? Cool! Who made them? Where can I get them? Are they free? If not, (and assuming I want them) how much more am I going to have to spend to get them? Obviously, no one's going to put all that info on a promo pic, but it can easily be added to the readme. 'This picture was created using...... available at.......' would be nice to see in a readme. And on the promo pic? How about 'This image contains items not included with the product' mac

"Recreating the render isn't the point." Right. It's a matter of dependencies. Under what conditions does a product look good? If a texture looks best under a particular light set, not including that light set is going to leave a customer unsatisfied with the texture under other lighting conditions. Character morphs are often sold with a single hair used in the promos, rather than multiple hairs demonstrating the character's versatility. If the character doesn't look as good under other hairs that a customer has, disappointment is going to set in. Not every Poser user knows that the default face camera focal length is bad--a 6 Kb addition to the product with a 160mm focal length will both educate the customer and help ensure that the customer can optimally view the character just bought. Beyond that, anything else that enhances the package being sold is a bonus, such as poses, MAT files, etc. It is important to let the customer know what they're not getting with a package as well as what they are getting. In the end, customers are going to vote with their wallets. The products that don't satisfy customers aren't going to result in repeat business for the merchants that sell them.